|Traffic | Weather | Your account||Movies | Restaurants | Today's events|
Voting Rights Act, at 40, faces reauthorization amid topsy-turvy politics
Newhouse News Service
WASHINGTON — Forty years ago today, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law.
Today, Southern politics have been transformed in two fundamental ways: Blacks exercise power and hold office in great numbers; and Republicans, with almost no black support, are the dominant party.
The two are not unrelated. Republican gains came partly through creation of black districts, which improved GOP prospects in surrounding districts "bleached" of blacks, who reliably vote Democratic.
The act's key provisions expire in 2007. And with Congress facing a vote on reauthorization, the topsy-turvy politics of voting rights are coming to a head.
In 2003, in Georgia v. Ashcroft, the Supreme Court ruled — over the objections of the Bush Justice Department — that the state's Democrat-controlled Legislature did not violate the VRA in drawing up a redistricting plan that spread black voters out a bit.
The court's conservatives said black political interests were better served with more Democratic districts, even if this risked electing fewer blacks. In the past, the federal government had used the VRA to reject any plan that reduced the concentration of blacks in districts where they were the majority.
Writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor remarked that she was particularly moved by Rep. John Lewis' testimony in favor of the redistricting plan. Lewis, a Democrat and hero of the bloody battle for voting rights in Selma, Ala., was elected to Congress from a black district in Atlanta in 1986.
Now the nation's civil-rights leadership — as represented by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and others — wants to limit the impact of Georgia v. Ashcroft. They argue that the premium should be placed on whether minority voters can elect candidates of their race, not merely candidates of their party.
This requires the Democrats, the civil-rights movement's staunchest allies, to spurn a beneficial court decision.
Section 5 of the VRA requires places with a history of discrimination — all of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas; parts of Virginia and North Carolina; and all or part of a few other states — to get federal approval before altering voting practices or procedures, redistricting included.
His logic is that the court provided local officials with leeway that a less-enlightened jurisdiction might misuse.
Meanwhile, Republicans face their own predicament.
Resist the reauthorization, or merely a stronger Section 5, and they risk inflaming minority voters — all to gut a law that has proved useful in running up GOP majorities in the South. Go along, and they betray segments of their white base who bristle that, after four decades and a world of change, Section 5 still singles out the South for special scrutiny.
U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., pointed out that Georgia's attorney general, labor commissioner and three of its state Supreme Court justices, including the chief justice — all of whom are elected — are black. Two of its four black members of Congress — Sanford Bishop and David Scott — are from majority white districts.
"We are supposed to be one nation, and if we are going to have [Section 5], it ought to apply to all 50 states," Westmoreland said.
But Debo Adegbile, associate director of litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said making Section 5 national — or permanent, as some Republicans suggest — would be an unconstitutional overreach, setting it up for fatal challenge before the Supreme Court.
Many in the civil-rights community think white Democrats blithely blame minority districts for their own failures.
But Edward Blum, a fellow with the Washington-based Center for Equal Opportunity, and a longtime crusader against race-conscious public policy, said Democrats and their allies fool themselves if they underestimate how much racial districting has cost them, and what a blunder it would be for them to override Georgia v. Ashcroft.
"They would truly be digging their own grave for control of legislative bodies really for the next generation," Blum said. "It is highly unlikely Democrats would be able to regain control of the U.S. House or any of the legislative bodies in any of the covered Deep South."
No group has more at stake than black members of Congress. All of them are Democrats. Many have considerable seniority and would wield great power if the Democrats regained control of the House.
"Section 5 ought to be allowed to gracefully expire in 2007," said Vanderbilt University political scientist Carol Swain, whose book "Black Faces, Black Interests" was cited in Georgia v. Ashcroft as evidence that simply electing more minority representatives may not maximize the influence of minority voters.
But, Swain said, "Apparently black members of Congress have grown comfortable with being in the minority. Otherwise, why would they endorse a strategy that works against the long-term interests of their party?"
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company