Newsroom

Read:
Amicus Brief in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder

Learn More:
Election Administration | Other Election Issues

---

More by Brenda Wright

The Census and the Cell Block

American Prospect Online | March 30, 2010

The Anatole France First Amendment of Citizens United?

ACSblog | January 21, 2010

Examining High Court's Consideration of Campaign Finance Regulation

Ideas | Action Blog | September 9, 2009

---

America Votes!
A Guide to Modern Election Law and Voting Rights

June 22, 2009

Demos Statement on Supreme Court Voting Rights Act Decision

"Leaves in place the critical protections of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act"

Washington, DC--The Supreme Court today released its opinion in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, bypassing the opportunity to decide the constitutionality of Congress' renewal of the preclearance provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and instead holding, in an 8-1 decision, that the local utility district that brought the constitutional challenge could seek exemption from Section 5's requirements through the Act's "bailout" provision. In response to the ruling, Brenda Wright, Director of the Democracy Program at Demos, made the following statement:

"Today's decision leaves in place the critical protections of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act without resolving the plaintiff's constitutional challenge to Section 5. We are extremely encouraged that widespread predictions of the Act's demise did not come to pass, and that Section 5's provisions remain intact.

"The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has rightly been called the most important civil rights legislation ever enacted by Congress. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires certain jurisdictions with the most entrenched history of racial discrimination in voting to seek ‘pre-clearance' from the U.S. Department of Justice or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia before making changes in their voting procedures, has been central to the progress this nation has made since 1965 toward overcoming barriers to registration, voting and equal representation. Time and again, the protections of Section 5 have prevented backsliding by covered jurisdictions, blocking both blatant and subtle efforts to disfranchise protected racial and ethnic minorities or to dilute their voting strength.

"The extensive record before Congress when it renewed the provisions of Section 5 provided compelling support for Congress' conclusion that Section 5 remains a necessary tool for protecting against discrimination in the voting process. Courts reviewing that record in future cases should readily conclude, as did the lower court in the case decided today, that Section 5 reflects a constitutional means to ensure that our nation does not turn back the clock on the hard-won advances we have made in securing the voting rights of all Americans."

Today's Supreme Court decision is available here.

###