60 years ago John F. Kennedy was assassinated. He did not live to see Congress pass legislation to end racial segregation between blacks and whites in the United States. Kennedy had worked toward this goal during his brief presidency.
One of these laws is the so-called Voting Rights Act, which came into effect almost two years after Kennedy’s death on November 22, 1963. This was intended to ensure that it would no longer be possible to suppress certain groups of voters in the future. – as many states had done before, black voters had done so. They sometimes used explicitly racist laws to deprive the black population of the right to vote, which had been guaranteed for men since 1870 and for women since 1920 by corresponding constitutional amendments.
“It should be possible for American citizens of every color to register to vote in elections without interference or fear of reprisal,” Kennedy said in his famous June 1963 radio address announcing civil rights reforms who would fall under his successor. then became law. He himself, who had initially held back on the subject for fear of risking votes in the Southern states, became the first president to call this a “moral crisis” of institutionalized racism. How would he respond if he could see how electoral equality—that major achievement of the civil rights movement—is under threat in the United States today?
The basis for lawsuits
On Monday, a federal court in St. Louis, Missouri, issued a ruling that could undermine the Voting Rights Act. It concerns paragraph two of the law, one of its most important elements. It states that no state may design its election laws in a manner that limits or even denies the right to vote of U.S. citizens based on skin color or ethnicity. This was exactly what had been the case for decades until the civil rights movement won the reforms of the 1960s. This paragraph prohibits not only practices that are deliberately aimed at racial discrimination, but also practices that demonstrably lead to a racially discriminatory outcome, even if this was not the intention.
The Voting Rights Act therefore provides the basis for legal action against various forms of discrimination in the field of voting rights. This is usually done by those affected or by the aid organizations that represent them. And more than ever. The Brennan Center for Justice counted at least 96 lawsuits in 26 different states and the District of Columbia in 2020, more than ever before in a single year.
In such cases, the question is whether the student card is sufficient proof of identity at the polling station. Or that people who cannot write themselves can get help filling out their ballot paper. The classic case of conflict is so-called gerrymandering. Constituencies are tailor-made to favor one party. This often hits the black population particularly hard, who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. So that’s what paragraph two is getting at as the heart of the Voting Rights Act.
In Alabama, for example, the Republicans in power there ordered that a large portion of the state’s black population—nearly a third of the total population—be placed in a single voting district. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the US. He finally decided: the constituency map was discriminatory. Alabama had to create a second electoral district with a majority of black voters.
Activist Evan Milligan has filed a lawsuit in this case. If the judges in St. Louis have their way, this will no longer be possible in the future: “After reviewing the text, history and structure of the Voting Rights Act, the court concluded that private parties cannot rely on paragraph two. ‘, says the statement of reasons for the judgment. “This authority rests solely with the Attorney General of the United States.” Over the past forty years, the judges write, article two of the Voting Rights Act has been successfully challenged 182 times. But only fifteen of those lawsuits came from the government.
What then is the use of this case law? Give the Justice Department a chance to win more cases? Hardly likely.
Always under fire
The Voting Rights Act has been attacked by the right; it has been undermined and evaporated as long as it exists. A key part of the law requires states with a history of racial discrimination against voters to seek approval from the federal government before changing their election laws in any way. The Supreme Court declared this arrangement null and void in 2013. As a result, more than twenty states have passed more restrictive voting laws. This has likely contributed to an increase in the number of corresponding complaints from citizens and activists, reaching a temporary peak in 2020. Paragraph two is all the more important: it guarantees women voters who have been discriminated against the opportunity to claim their right to access free elections in court, in accordance with the fundamental idea of the Voting Rights Act.
Those for whom democracy and the rule of law already pose an obstacle feel threatened by this. The fact that the judiciary rules in their favor is mainly due to one thing: Donald Trump.
The court’s ruling in St. Louis is just the latest of many examples of the impact that four years of Trump have had on jurisprudence in the US. This judgment was the result of an appeal. It confirmed an earlier ruling with the same statement: It is not women who can sue for racial discrimination against women voters, only the government. Both cases were led by judges appointed by Trump when he was president.
The Supreme Court also owes its composition of predominantly conservative to right-wing judges to Trump. The fact that the Supreme Court decided in the Alabama case in the interests of the voters was rather an exception and happened with a narrow majority of five to four votes. Judge Clarence Thomas, who is considered particularly right-wing in his views and recently attracted attention due to a bribery scandal, had already indicated at the time that he too was of the opinion that paragraph two of the Voting Rights Act did not apply to private individuals or organizations, such as his colleague Neil Gorsuch, a Trump candidate, was.
What if Trump is re-elected?
The St. Louis decision will now likely go to the Supreme Court as the next higher authority. If he agrees, millions of Americans affected by restrictions on their voting rights would not only be denied the opportunity to exercise that right for themselves. It could also mean that voting rights are no longer a matter for the courts at all.
That would be the case if Trump were elected for a second term in 2024 – which there is a lot to be said for at this point. He will probably appoint a Minister of Justice who will deal with many matters, but certainly not with the legal battle against discrimination against black female voters. And the question is whether this would lead to widespread public outrage, given that for much of society, the right to vote is a self-evident privilege that he doesn’t think much about: 2020’s voter turnout – the highest in a presidential elections since 1900 – was 66.8 percent.
This article first appeared on Zeit Online. Watson may have changed the headings and subheadings. Here is the original.
Soource :Watson
I am Amelia James, a passionate journalist with a deep-rooted interest in current affairs. I have more than five years of experience in the media industry, working both as an author and editor for 24 Instant News. My main focus lies in international news, particularly regional conflicts and political issues around the world.
