Breaking News: Supreme Court invalidates much of the Voting Rights Act | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

    The United States Supreme Court today (6-25-13) ruled much of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 unconstitutional. The 6-3 decision came in the case of Shelby County, Alabama vs. Eric Holder, the U. S. Attorney General. Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan dissented to Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion.

    The part of the VRA that the court upheld was Section 2. This provision makes it illegal engage in any standard, practice or procedure that discriminates against a voter(s) based on race or color. That section applies nationwide. But the significant aspect of Section 2 is that the plaintiff must prove the discrimination.

    The Court threw out Sections 4 and 5. Section 4 is the part of the law that designated certain "jurisdictions" that are covered by Section 5. To be included a jurisdiction must have previously used tests, such as a literacy test, and/or that had proportionately fewer minorities registered to vote that would have likely been true had there been no sanctioned discrimination or suppression of minority voting. Once covered a jurisdiction, under Section 5, could not change any electoral procedure without getting "pre-clearance" from the U. S. Attorney general. Over the years standards were developed to determine what kind of changes could or could not be made. The general standard was that if a change reduced minorities' ability to elect candidates of their choice then the practice in question was not per-cleared. Particular attention was given to statistical analysis that showed a disparate impact on minority voters as opposed to majority voters. Over the years the presumptive standard because "if the effect was to reduce minority voting strength then it was presumed that this was the result of invidious illegal intent.

    But the Court found in Shelby that "times have changed" and the standard used to determine "coverage" under Section 5 was no longer justified under existing conditions. Justice Roberts indicated that it was not up to Congress to determine whether specific jurisdiction now would have to meet different standards than those not required to do so based on current conditions indicative of invidious discrimination. Thus, a major impact of Tuesday's decision will be to shift the ball back to Congress' court to determine whether extraordinary requirements will be placed on certain jurisdictions.

    The impact of the decision on Beaufort County, and indeed on most of Eastern North Carolina is expected to be very significant. There are those who are already reading the decision to say that Section 5, or any other exceptional set of standards will not be justified under the current voting patterns in Eastern North Carolina and much of North Carolina. That is so simply because since 1965 there have been a number of minorities elected to positions at all levels.
United States Supreme Court in March, 2013: Above.     photo by Stan Deatherage
    The method of electing county commissioners in Beaufort County is the direct result of Voting Rights Act. Prior to the VRA no black had been elected to the county commissioner under an at-large electoral system. A group of black plaintiff sued and ultimately the plaintiff and the county entered into a consent agreement to use the "limited voting" method whereby each voter gets one vote regardless of the number of seats to be filled with the highest vote recipients being declared elected.

    An alternative electoral method that received "pre-clearance" in Beaufort County was the single member district used for electing the school board. Those district were gerrymandered so as to create three of nine district that were "minority-majority" districts. Presumably the school board districts will also be significantly impacted by Tuesday's decision because the next time districts are re-drawn the "anti-retrogression" standard (i.e., less than three minority districts) will be invalid.

    There is currently a study committee looking at changing the county commission system. Tuesday's decision presumably gives the county much more leeway to fashion an alternative plan because pre-clearance will not be required.

    However, since the current system is the result of a court order, any change in the current system will have to be approved by a Federal District Court judge unless he dismisses the old case. That is entirely possible, but not yet determined.

    Complicating the Beaufort situation is the fact that Congress could follow the Shelby decision with a new and revised Voting Rights Act that could prescribe the standards any new system must meet. That is not likely to happen within the next year. Furthermore, any change in the Beaufort County commission system would have to be approved by the state's Legislature and that it not likely to be considered before the 2015 legislative session.

    Thus, it is very likely the method of electing county commissioners in Beaufort County will be an issue in the 2015 elections.

    What does seem certain is that it is a whole new political ballgame at this point. Pre-clearance under Section 5 means that the county will have much more leeway in deciding what method it will use than would have been true if the U. S. Attorney General had veto power over it.

    You can read Tuesday's Supreme Court decision by click here.