On Tuesday, the Supreme Court overturned a part of the Voting Rights Act. The part the high court voided was where certain states, which had a history of past discrimination, must submit changes to the U.S. Justice Department to receive preclearance. There were nine states on that list.
In writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts said there no longer exists a basis for singling some states out for special treatment.
Nevertheless, Roberts was very careful to note that other parts of the Act stay as they are, and that the court’s decision was not a license for any state to enact new laws that were discriminatory.
Roberts pointed out that the U.S. Constitution states federal laws are supreme and cannot by undermined by state laws.
However, he said the federal government has no right to review and veto enactments made by states prior to them going into effect. In fact, that authority was considered by the Constitutional Convention by rejected, instead saying the state laws should be able to take effect, but subject later to challenge.
Roberts also wrote that states are not only sovereignty, but equal to one another constitutionally.
The problem wrote Roberts is the provision in question in the Voting Rights Act only applies to certain states and that creates inequity.
For certain states, changes in laws regarding voting go into effect at once. If a challenge is made upon one, the party contesting the law must make the case and then prove it is discriminatory.
That, wrote Roberts, is turned on its head by the Voting Rights Act, forcing states to first prove changes are not discriminatory.