Attorney General Eric Holder spoke at the National Urban League Annual Conference in Philadelphia on Thursday. The full text of his remarks is here.
AG Holder discussed the recent Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder, concerning the Voting Rights Act of 1965, calling it “deeply disappointing” and “flawed”. He said:
As these and many other cases demonstrate; as too many voters have seen firsthand; and as every member of the Supreme Court acknowledged in the Shelby decision – in the words of the Chief Justice: “voting discrimination still exists: no one doubts that.” Although mandated by the Constitution, voting rights are not always guaranteed – in practice – without robust enforcement. That’s why, despite the Court’s decision, I believe we must regard this setback not as a defeat, but as an historic opportunity: for Congress to restore, and even to strengthen, modern voting protections.
The Attorney General then announced plans to ask a federal court in Texas to subject the state to a preclearance regime under the remaining Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act. AG Holder has pledged to “ use every tool at our disposal to stand against discrimination wherever it is found”, promising this first action to protect voting rights post-Shelby County will not be DOJ’s last.
Prior to the Shelby County decision, the Voting Rights Act required jurisdictions with a history of racial-motivated voter suppression were required to “pre-clear” new voting laws with the DOJ. Criteria describing which jurisdictions fell under the pre-clearance requirement were contained in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. The formulas of Section 4 were declared unconstitutional in the Shelby County decision. Amy Howe, of SCOTUSBlog explains that “. . . although the preclearance requirement survives, none of those jurisdictions [which have been subject to pre-clearance under the VRA] have to comply with it unless and until Congress can enact a new formula to determine whom it covers – a prospect that, given the current state of gridlock in Congress, might not happen for a while or even forever.”
Lyle Denniston, of SCOTUSBlog, reacted to the announcement here. Guest bloggers at ElectionLawBlog discuss the hurdles the DOJ faces in Section 3 litigation, while Rick Hansen, administrator of ElectionLawBlog, writes about why the DOJ’s announcement is a big deal.