EJS and Other Organizations File Amicus Brief Supporting Application of Voting Rights Act and Protection of Minority Voting Rights
The Equal Justice Society (EJS), the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and American Parole and Probation Association submitted an Amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit case Farrakhan v. Gregoire, which will determine whether Washington State’s felon disenfranchisement law violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA). (Download a PDF of the brief here.)
Earlier this year, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held that Washington State’s law denying the vote to people with felony convictions is racially discriminatory and violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The case is now scheduled for rehearing en banc by an eleven-judge panel in September.
EJS agrees with the three-judge panel’s conclusion that Washington’s law is racially discriminatory and violates the VRA by disproportionately disenfranchising both individuals and communities of color. As a result of Washington’s law, 24 percent of Black men and 15 percent of Washington’s Black population have lost their voting rights because of felony convictions.
Our brief, in particular, focuses on the importance of voting rights to successful reintegration and rehabilitation for formerly incarcerated persons. Not only do felon disenfranchisement policies impede political participation and successful re-entry of formerly incarcerated individuals, they also impact entire communities by diluting their collective voting strength.
Section 2 of the VRA was enacted to protect against racial discrimination in voting, and prohibits states from using any voter qualification system that results in a denial of the right to vote on account of race or color. EJS encourages the en banc panel to uphold the panel’s decision and strike down Washington’s racially discriminatory law.
The law firm Cooley LLP provided assistance on the brief.
LDF: Supreme Court Ruling Leaves in Place Core Provision of the Voting Rights Act
Today, the Supreme Court in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5, the core provision of the Voting Rights Act, said the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (http://www.naacpldf.org) in a press release.
In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court recognized that “[t]he historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable.”
Today’s ruling, which was joined by seven other Justices, recognizes Section 5′s critical importance in addressing voting discrimination faced by citizens throughout our country.
“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. In an unusually harmonious opinion, today’s decision upholds the constitutionality of an essential core protection in our democracy,” said John Payton, LDF Director-Counsel.
Payton observed that “Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act protects and shields the rights of minority voters from discrimination. Section 5 has long been symbolic of our nation’s long and unsteady march toward greater political equality. Without its protections, our nation would unnecessarily face the grave risk of significant backsliding and retrenchment in the fragile gains that have been made.”
The Court’s ruling today ensures that minority voters will continue to have the safeguards provided by the Section 5 preclearance process.
The Court expanded the number of places that can seek to “bailout” or exempt themselves from preclearance. However, no Section 5-covered jurisdiction can do so without demonstrating 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. 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.
“The utility district brought this case to tear out the heart of the Voting Rights Act. Today, it failed. The Voting Rights Act remains one of Congress’s greatest legacies,” said Debo P. Adegbile, LDF Director of Litigation, who argued the case on behalf of Appellee-Intervenors.
New Study Debunks Myths about African American Voting on Prop. 8
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute yesterday released the results of a study debunking the myth that African Americans overwhelmingly and disproportionately supported Proposition 8.
The study, commissioned by the Evelyn & Walter Haas, Jr. Fund in San Francisco, found that the level of support for Prop. 8 among African Americans was “nowhere near” the National Election Pool (NEP) figures indicating that 70 percent of California’s African Americans supported the proposition.