Congress put the VRA in place during the height of the Civil Rights struggle to end practices in several states aimed at keeping racial minorities from voting. The act has been exceptionally effective in ending those discriminatory practices. It has also been criticized for its misuse, with the Justice Department having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in court sanctions for abusing the process.
The law had required Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, as well as a number of counties and municipalities in other states, including three boroughs in New York City, to submit their voting rules to federal oversight.
The formula for which parts of the nation were covered by the VRA preclearance requirement was set with the passage of the bill in 1965 and was initially set to expire after five years, but the act has been reauthorized several times. Coverage turned on whether a jurisdiction had a voting test in the 1960s and had low voter registration or turnout among minorities at that time.
The coverage formula was last updated in 1975. Congress most recently reauthorized the whole bill in 2006 for 25 years, by large majorities -- 390 to 33 in the House and unanimous in the Senate. President George W. Bush signed the reauthorized bill into law.
The Supreme Court reviewed the law after officials in Shelby County, Alabama, challenged it, seeking a permanent injunction against its enforcement. The court did not strike down the whole law, but ruled that the section dealing with which states and jurisdictions were covered was unconstitutional because it is based on data that is nearly 40 years old (dating from the 1975 update).
"Our country has changed," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions." Critics of the VRA said that the preclearance requirement is a mark of shame for the affected jurisdictions and is no longer justified because it is based on seriously outdated data. The court's majority has now agreed with them.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the dissenters, argued that it should be up to Congress, using "appropriate legislation," to decide when the coverage formula should be changed. She noted that in 2006, "[w]ith overwhelming support in both Houses, Congress concluded that, for two prime reasons, [the preclearance provision in the VRA] should continue in force, unabated. First, continuance would facilitate completion of the impressive gains thus far made; and second, continuance would guard against backsliding. Those assessments were well within Congress' province to make and should elicit this Court's unstinting approbation."
Ginsburg also pointed to the acknowledgment in the majority opinion that discrimination still exists. She then said, "But the Court today terminates the remedy that proved to be best suited to block that discrimination. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has worked to combat voting discrimination where other remedies had been tried and failed."
Many critics of the high court's action also fear that the removal of the "teeth" of the VRA will result in new discriminatory practices in voting.
This decision retains anti-discrimination in voting rights (U.S. Constitution, Article 15), retains equal protection under the law (U.S. Constitution, Article 14) and retains the requirement that all states have a republican form of government (U.S. Constitution, Article 4, "Guarantee Clause").
Although the court's ruling leaves room for Congress to enact oversight requirements based on contemporary data, most observers say that the highly partisan nature of the current Congress makes it unlikely that any new agreement will be reached. More on this story can be found at these links:
"Outrageous" or Overdue?: Court Strikes Down Part of Historic Voting Rights Law. CNN
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act. New York Times
Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, et al. (The actual ruling)
The Big Questions
1. How ought Christians to view the laws of the society in which they live? Does our faith give us less reason or even more reason to abide by society's laws? Why or why not?
2. Under what circumstances should the wrongdoing of a previous generation set restrictions upon the current generations?
3. How do we determine when a rule or law is no longer needed?
4. If as Christians we are guided by the Holy Spirit, do we still need biblical laws? Why or why not?
5. Is there a sense in which the VRA was holding people accountable for the wrongdoing of their predecessors? Do you have confidence that things have changed sufficiently that the VRA, as it stood, is no longer needed? Why or why not? Do you have confidence that the law, as it stood, was not being used to in a racially discriminatory fashion? Without laws to prevent discrimination, is it likely people will refrain from racist actions based on their attitudes?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Jeremiah 31:29-30
In those days they shall no longer say:
"The parents have eaten sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge."
But all shall die for their own sins; the teeth of everyone who eats sour grapes shall be set on edge. (For context, read 31:27-30.)
These verses quote a proverb, apparently well known in Jeremiah's day, that the sour grapes eaten by parents set their children's teeth on edge. It was a way of saying that children paid for the sins of their parents. While in this life we know that to sometimes be the case, this passage envisions a day when that proverb will no longer apply, when people will be held accountable only for their own sins.
Questions: Where today are people held accountable for the wrongdoings of their predecessors? Is there a time limit or moral limit to legal restrictions based on previous acts of discrimination and violence? Is it your experience that faith brings about change in Christian attitudes and behavior? Do some mask racism in Christian language?
Discuss the concept of "collective guilt," where people categorized in a certain way as members of a group are said to bear the guilt of other people who can also be categorized as members of that group.
Jeremiah 31:33
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (For context, read 31:31-34.)
In the midst of a gloomy time for the people of Israel, when they were suffering the consequences of their failure to live up to God's covenant with them, the prophet Jeremiah tells of a new covenant God would eventually make with them, one where people keep laws not written on stone or paper, but written "on their hearts."
Questions: To what degree do you feel you live under that new covenant? How do you know the content of the law written on your heart? What prompts you to live by it? How do you keep selfishness and the human tendency to sin from overriding the law written on your heart? What is the relationship, if any, between that law and the laws of the land in which you live?
1 Corinthians 11:6
For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. (For context, read 11:4-15.)
In Corinth, and in many portions of the Roman world, a woman whose head was not covered was signifying her availability as a prostitute. Paul seems concerned that though he has been telling people they are free in Christ, they ought still to observe some social customs and laws to prevent offense.
Questions: How does Paul's concern relate to the necessity for laws to prevent societies and parties from acting in a racist fashion to prevent Hispanics, blacks, seniors and the poor from voting? Is this an example of a law that we no longer consider to be relevant? Why or why not? How do we decide which laws are timeless and which are for only a certain time?
Galatians 3:23-26
Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. (For context, read 3:19-29.)
This is the apostle Paul's explanation of how Christians are related to the Law of Moses. He doesn't view the law as unnecessary, but as a "disciplinarian until Christ came." That is, until Christ brought righteousness in a form we could internalize and live by, the outward law established the boundaries of righteous living.
Questions: Following Paul's line of thought here, for Christians, faith in Christ has superseded the law. But is that always the case? What about young or immature Christians? What about human tendency to do wrong (see Romans 7:14-25)? When has knowing God's law kept you from wrongdoing? Does this passage speak to matters of secular law too, or only the Mosaic Law?
1 Timothy 1:9
... the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient ... (For context, read 1:3-11.)
Again, Paul was talking about the Law of Moses here, but his comment applies just as well to laws in general. Most laws were not written for innocent people; they were written for "the lawless and disobedient." Nonetheless, the innocent are required to live by those laws as well.
Questions: Which secular laws do you chafe under? Why? Which biblical laws do you chafe under? Why? Which church laws, written or unwritten, do you chafe under? Why? What should be the Christian's position regarding such laws?
For Further Discussion
1. Jeremiah 17:9 says, "The heart is devious above all else; it is perverse -- who can understand it?" Jeremiah uses "heart" metaphorically to mean our spiritual, emotional, moral and intellectual core, but he says that that core of our being is "devious" and "perverse." "Perverse," according to the dictionary, means "directed away from what is right or good" and "obstinately persisting in an error or fault; wrongly self-willed or stubborn." The prophet is telling us that at root, we have a tendency to turn away from what is right or good, sometimes even to take a path that we know for certain leads to trouble. What steps should we take to safeguard against perversity in high places and positions of power? What steps should we take to safeguard against it in our own lives?
2. Compare and contrast these two statements:
From Chief Justice John Roberts: "Our country has changed. While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions."
From Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "[The preclearance provision of the VRA] should continue in force, unabated. First, continuance would facilitate completion of the impressive gains thus far made; and second, continuance would guard against backsliding."
3. Compare and contrast these two statements, from two members of the TWW team:
"We should not forget that the heart of the Civil Rights movement was the Christian commitment of the leaders to equality, including political equality. This was both a civil and a faith movement. People paid with their blood. As a person of color, I am very disturbed by the Supreme Court ruling because my experience on the ground is that there is a good deal of racism that white privilege is sometimes blinded to. ... [This] Supreme Court ruling will allow the institution of rules that deliberately either eliminate or frighten seniors, Hispanics, blacks, the poor and others from voting."
"Many laws that are sold as opposed to racial discrimination, such as affirmative action and, arguably, some sections of the VRA, may also be used as tools to promote or institutionalize racial discrimination. In addition, the constant focus on race, instead of individuals, is itself both a manifestation of and encouragement of racism. When institutionalized, it is the opposite of treating people as equals."
Responding to the News
This is a time for Christians to be politically aware of what changes take place in the voting rules within the jurisdictions where we live. If it appears that such changes are intended to disenfranchise some -- by keeping them from voting or by encouraging fraudulent voting -- it will be important for us to speak up and do what we can to ensure that the right to vote is maintained for all.
Closing Prayer
O God, thank you for the institutions of our government that allow for review of the laws of our land. We pray that with this new ruling, the progress toward fairness and voting rights for all that was made under the VRA will not be lost. In fact, enable the ending of this law to result in greater efforts to ensure that no one is shut out of or neutralized in the voting process. In Jesus' name. Amen.
© [2013] The Wired
Word www.thewiredword.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment