Reaction of Senator Patrick Leahy
(D-Vt.),
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
To The Supreme Court’s Decision On Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act
June 22, 2009
I am relieved that today the Supreme Court did not
overturn the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. Doing so
would have been pure and simple judicial activism. A nearly
unanimous Supreme Court wisely did not take such a drastic step.
However I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court
that Congress’ reauthorization of Section 5 poses serious constitutional
concerns. There is no more explicit constitutional grant of power
to the Congress than in the second section of the 15th
Amendment to protect the right to vote.
I attended the Court’s oral argument in this case in
April and was disappointed to hear Justice Scalia mock the fact that
this historic legislation was passed unanimously by the Senate. We
did so after building and considering a record in numerous hearings, and
considering and rejecting a series of amendments that might have led to
more serious constitutional concerns, or allowed backsliding from the
progress we have made. Still, the Supreme Court has shown insufficient
deference to the authority and consideration of Congress. This
legislation was passed by both the Senate and House overwhelmingly, and
was signed into law by President Bush, who also supported its
constitutionality. Even though the Supreme Court today
expressly set aside the question of the constitutionality of Section 5,
the Chief Justice’s opinion nevertheless sets forth his view that
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has achieved its purpose and should
now be relegated only to history. In fact, the democratic branches
of government responsible for making such determinations received
extensive evidence of continuing discrimination in covered
jurisdictions. This evidence of continuing discrimination was made
part of the express findings included in and underlying the legislation
passed overwhelming by Congress and signed by former President Bush.
In contrast to the tremendous resistance and bitter
politics that met the initial enactment of the Voting Rights Act, three
years ago, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and the House of
Representatives came together to reauthorize key expiring provisions of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in light of contemporaneous concerns and
to prevent backsliding in our efforts to preserve the rights of all
Americans to have equal access to the democratic process. The bailout
mechanism contained in the law does provide a way for historically
covered jurisdictions to obtain relief, as the Supreme Court recognizes.
The Court’s limited ruling allows the protective work
of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to continue. That, at least,
is a result that we should all welcome.
# # # # #
