As the Supreme Court prepares to hear a case this month challenging the constitutionality of a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, opponents of the law question whether it’s fair, necessary or relevant. “A lot has changed since the 1960s,” they argue. “Haven’t we overcome?”
The truth is, not enough has changed (and no, we have not). Known as Section 5, the provision requires all or parts of 16 states with a history of discriminatory voting practices to get federal clearance before making any changes in voting procedures. Our strongest tool for warding off voter suppression, Section 5, puts the burden of proof on state and local governments with long histories of suppressing minority votes to show their new voting proposals do not have a discriminatory impact. This was passed in order to stop an endless cycle in which the federal government would strike down unjust voting practices, only to have states subsequently enact new, slightly different problematic voting laws. The precautions of Section 5 effectively block discrimination from occurring.
While it’s true that we no longer live in the era of marchers attacked with billy clubs on Bloody Sunday, or the assassination of Mississippi voting rights activist Medgar Evers, the more subtle practices that triggered the passage of Section 5—the smaller tweaks that make voting harder—have not changed. In fact, during the last election cycle we saw them happen en masse.
Eleven states passed restrictive photo ID laws, which changed the type of identification required for voting, allowing citizens to cast a ballot only if they presented limited forms of state-issued photo ID. Five enacted legislation that reduced early voting periods, serving only to make it less convenient and more time-consuming to vote. These policies were designed to make it harder to vote—particularly for African-American and Latino citizens. Luckily, Section 5 was on hand to beat back several of these efforts.