A recent New York Times article argues that the efforts to expand access to the vote contained in the Voting Rights Act - which was passed 50 years ago Thursday - are being undermined by a variety of measures passed by the states, as well as Supreme Court cases like Shelby v Holder/
A response by the Brookings Institution is not so sure.
- Click here for the article in the NYT.
A response by the Brookings Institution is not so sure.
- Click here for the article in the NYT.
All of these seemingly sudden changes were a result of a little-known part of the American civil rights story. It involves a largely Republican countermovement of ideologues and partisan operatives who, from the moment the Voting Rights Act became law, methodically set out to undercut or dismantle its most important requirements. The story of that decades-long battle over the iconic law’s tenets and effects has rarely been told, but in July many of its veteran warriors met in a North Carolina courthouse to argue the legality of a new state voting law that the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University Law School has called one of the “most restrictive since the Jim Crow era.” The decision, which is expected later this year, could determine whether the civil rights movement’s signature achievement is still justified 50 years after its signing, or if the movement itself is finished.
- Click here for the article by the Brookings Institution.
Last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine cover story, “A Dream Undone,” chronicles the history of recent successful efforts to undermine the Voting Rights Act. The passage of state measures which effectively restrict voting for some groups comes as the nation’s racial minority populations—blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and others—are showing increasing electoral clout.
Yet, restrictive voting provisions such as stringent Voter ID laws and limits to early voting and voting hours in heavily minority communities will not adversely impact voting in the way the provisions’ authors intend. As I state in my book, “ ... over the long haul, the effects of such attempts to suppress voters will pale in comparison to the larger demographic sweep of diversity that will shape the nation’s civic decision-making.”
Simply put, the sheer force of our diverse demographic change (racial minorities account for 95 percent of our growth), will render such measures meaningless. However, in the near term—meaning the next couple presidential election cycles—voting restrictions that disproportionately impact minorities could be costly just as they are beginning to find their voice in the political arena.
