By The Editors

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by seven other Justices, the Court declared that “the historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable.” It also stated that Section 5 of the law-the provision under specific challenge-was critically important in preventing and addressing voting discrimination faced by citizens in jurisdictions across the country.

NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorneys, led by Debo P. Adegbile, Director of Litigation, at left, and John Payton, President and Director-Counsel, at right, descend the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court following their arguments in the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder case in April. Photo credit: Nina Perales

Section 5 requires some entire states and some jurisdictions within other states which have a history of discrimination in voting to obtain permission-or “pre-clearance”-from the Department of Justice or special federal courts before changing voting procedures.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) was one of the organizations contributing a friend-of-the-court brief in the highly-charged case. Debo P. Adegbile, the Director of Litigation, argued the case before the Court in April, along with the federal government’s Deputy Solicitor General, Neal Katyal.

John Payton, President and Director-Counsel of LDF, said in a statement after the ruling, “The entire thrust of LDF’s argument was that Section 5 remains critical to our democracy, and however grudgingly, the Court acknowledges that in its opinion today.”

Payton characterized the ruling as “unusually harmonious,” saying it “upholds the constitutionality of an essential core protection of our democracy.  … Section 5 has long been symbolic of the nation’s long and unsteady march toward greater political equality. Without its protection, our nation would face the grave risk of significant backsliding and retrenchment in the fragile gains that have been made.”

“The utility district brought this case to tear out the heart of the Voting Rights Act,” said Adegbile. “Today, it failed. The Voting Rights Act remains one of Congress’s greatest legacies.”

The Court’s ruling expanded the number of jurisdictions that can seek to “bailout” or exempt themselves from pre-clearance.  However, no Section 5-covered jurisdiction can do so without proving it’s had a clean bill of health for a ten-year period.

The bailout provision has proven workable and achievable for those jurisdictions that have sought it, LDF attorneys said. They added, however, that it remains to be seen how the Court’s interpretation of the bailout provision will impact enforcement of Section 5.  If, for any reason, today’s ruling renders Section 5 unworkable in the future, Congress could always amend the statute.