Question

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. 2612 (2013), cited changes in our society as a basis for effectively invalidating key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Many people believe decisions made and actions taken in light of Shelby County v. Holder had a significant impact on the 2016 election.

1. Was the decision consistent with the intent of the Act and current societal realities? AND

2. Do you think the same reasoning employed by the Shelby court would justify changes to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

To guide your conceptualization, consider two opposing arguments: (1) the mere fact that the nation elected an African-American president reflects a society that is no longer prone to racism and prejudice; (2) the fact that the nation elected a white president who frequently used racially inflammatory language as part of his campaign reflects a society that is more prone to racism and prejudice than ever.  

Answer 1

The Voting Rights Act was introduced to give effect to the fact that no person is excluded from voting simply due to race. The most important section of Voting rights Act is section 4. This section talks about coverage formula which would be used to identify states for preclearance of any change to the electoral laws. These states are the ones which had lot of racial discrimination history. Section 5 of Voting Rights Act then specifies these identified states to get a pre clearance from Congress prior to any change in the electoral laws.

In Shelby County v Holder case, the court states that this kind of extreme discrimination does not exist today. Hence the states should have full control over their elections and not Congress. The data based on which the coverage formula was decided is outdated. Hence the ball is back in the court of Congress which can come up with new coverage formula for preclearance. But this has not yet been done by congress. Hence the pre clearance is still constitutional but the coverage formula is not.

1) The decision was only partly consistent with the intent of the Act or with current societal needs. The court was correct when it mentioned that the data based on which the coverage formula was built was outdated. It required to be updated. At the same time, it also mentioned that the Act and the pre clearance was required to suppress discrimination but the extreme kind does not exist today. The court admitted that discrimination is still prevalent but to tackle this issue, the coverage formula is inadequate. Hence the court was consistent with the fact that the law was not as per current realities. But on the other hand Court did not look into the fact that the real intent of Voting Rights Act was to stop discrimination. If the protection under section 4 is removed, the states with discriminating history would revert back to their old laws which would suppress minorities and their voting rights.

This decision was used extensively by states to change their voting laws and bring regulations to suppress voting rights of minorities based on race. The decision came in 2013 and hence the next presidential elections were highly campaigned to bring back the privilege of the majority. High use of racially inflammatory language was used in election campaign which clearly shows that the removal of protection under section 4 was absurd.

2) Title VII of Civil Rights Act prohibit employers from discriminating employees based on their race, sex, origin or religion. The simple reasoning used by the court to nullify the coverage formula is the fact that it is based on outdated data. It never mentioned that there is zero discrimination nor did it nullify the pre clearance. The same logic cannot be used to amend title VII because there is no pre clearance formula for employers to avoid discrimination. It is a blanket protection and affirms to the court decision that discrimination exists. The Court clearly states that discrimination exists but the basis on which formula was determined need to be updated to be in consistent with the current reality. Going by the same logic, Court would agree that discrimination exists in corporates as well and hence as per the current realities, employers should not discriminate based in race or other such factors.