Black Leader criticizes Voting Rights Act Supreme Court Compromise

WASHINGTON – A failure by the U.S. Supreme Court to act decisively to fix an inherent problem within the Voting Rights Act is drawing the condemnation of the chairman of the Project 21 black leadership network.

“As with affirmative action, the Court recognizes the unconstitutionality at issue but refuses to go the distance to make things right,” said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. “The only certainty of this ruling is that the problem will continue to fester. The question to be pondered now is how many aggrieved voting districts will knuckle under to overbearing and unnecessary federal standards because the justices chose to kick the can down the road rather than actually do something about the problem.”

In its ruling in the case of Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, all of the justices agreed that the “preclearance” provisions of Section 5 the Voting Rights Act – which still requires nine states and many other counties and localities to clear all electoral changes with the U.S. Department of Justice – are outdated. The decision sends the case back to the district court with the instructions that representatives of this particular voting district can apply to seek relief.

“It’s deeply disappointing that the Court chose to avoid its responsibility and rule Section 5 unconstitutional,” added Project 21’s Massie. “By allowing potential relief on a case-by-case basis, the Court is denying equal justice to all. The only reason is likely a lack of intestinal fortitude in dealing with the predicted outcry of the professional racemongers – who already cajoled Congress into renewing the Act without due diligence three years ago. So much for checks and balances.”

Project 21 participated in the case by joining an amici curiae brief on the case with the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Center for Equal Opportunity. The brief sought to overturn Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, pointing out that the conditions existing at the time the Act was written no longer exist and thus render the regional preclearance regulation of Section 5 obsolete. A copy of the brief can be obtained at

Related Articles

Back to top button