President Obama earlier Thursday at a press conference in Senegal, answering a question about what legislative remedies he supports in the wake of the Supreme Court decision striking down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (full transcript below the fold):
I think that the Supreme Court made a mistake in its ruling, but that decision is now here.
The president recognized that Section 2 remains in force, but explained why losing Section 4 is such a big deal:
Even though law suits can still be filed now if there's discrimination, if you don't have the structure of Section 4 and Section 5 in place ahead of time, the election may be over by the time law suits are filed or a court rules. And oftentimes, it may be too late.
But even though The Supreme Court explicitly did not strike down strike down the concept of preclearance, just the formula used for deciding what areas should be subject to preclearance, the president suggested that the Voting Rights Act was unfixable:
Having said that, the Supreme Court has ruled and Congress can't overturn this particular aspect of their ruling.
But, he said, Congress could do other things:
The good news is that there are other potential remedies, and the most important one is to simply make sure that everybody around the country can vote and that everywhere around the country we're not seeing seven-hour lines -- we're not seeing mechanisms put in place to make it harder for people to vote, but rather we should have mechanisms that make it easier to vote
Basically, President Obama said that Section 4—and the Section 5 protections that applied to the areas identified in Section 4—is gone, so we should focus instead on a new Voting Rights Act that applies to everyone in the country. The problem here is that we should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
A new Voting Rights Act is a great idea—it would have been a great idea even in the absence of Tuesday's ruling. In fact, President Obama supported one even before the court announced its decision. But even with a new Voting Rights Act, we still need to at least try to fix the old one. There's no reason not to go for both. The worst thing that could happen is we'll end up right back where we started, which is where things stand today. With nothing to lose, there's no reason negotiate against ourselves before the process even begins.
It’s a little known fact that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote for everyone, but we are fighting to change this. Please sign the petition to join Daily Kos, Color of Change, and a growing movement to pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing and protecting the freedom to vote for all.
Here's the president's full answer:
Well, let me take the issue of voting rights first. The Voting Rights Act, Sections 2, 4, 5 were the cornerstones of providing political power to African Americans that then led to a whole range of other steps to make America more just and more equal. It was the cornerstone and the culmination of years of struggle -- blood, sweat, tears -- in some cases, deaths.
I might not be here as President had it not been for those who courageously helped to pass the Voting Rights Act. I think that the Supreme Court made a mistake in its ruling, but that decision is now here. I think the Supreme Court didn't recognize the degree to which voter suppression is still a problem around the country, and that it makes sense for us to put in place mechanisms to check practices and procedures that may make it harder for people to vote in those areas where there's been a history in the past of discrimination.
And part of the reason, Major, is because even though law suits can still be filed now if there's discrimination, if you don't have the structure of Section 4 and Section 5 in place ahead of time, the election may be over by the time law suits are filed or a court rules. And oftentimes, it may be too late.
Having said that, the Supreme Court has ruled and Congress can't overturn this particular aspect of their ruling. The good news is that there are other potential remedies, and the most important one is to simply make sure that everybody around the country can vote and that everywhere around the country we're not seeing seven-hour lines -- we're not seeing mechanisms put in place to make it harder for people to vote, but rather we should have mechanisms that make it easier to vote. And that is within Congress's power. Congress doesn't have to target or identify a particular jurisdiction. What it can do now is to say, regardless of where you are -- regardless of where you live -- there are going to be certain rules that apply to elections.
And as you know, right after the election when we had already seen some of these problems, I assigned a close advisor of mine, Bob Bauer, to work with a close advisor of Mitt Romney's. They're going to be issuing a report in terms of how we can start making it easier for folks to vote. I recognize that whenever you get into voting rights issues, inevitably some partisan thoughts cross people's minds about who is it going to advantage or disadvantage.
But in the wake of this Supreme Court ruling, surely we can all agree that people should be able to vote. They shouldn't be restricted from voting or have to jump through a whole bunch of hoops in order to vote, and that there should be some uniformity in terms of how that right is upheld. It's the cornerstone of our democracy. It's what makes our democracy work. And I'm looking forward to working with both Democrats and Republicans in a non-partisan basis to make sure that if you're a citizen of the United States of America, you can vote without a whole bunch of barriers, regardless of your race or your political leaning. So that's on the voting rights issue.
With respect to Mr. Snowden, we have issued through our Justice Department very clear requests to both initially Hong Kong and then Russia that we seek the extradition of Mr. Snowden. And we are going through the regular legal channels that are involved when we try to extradite somebody. I have not called President Xi personally or President Putin personally. And the reason is because, number one, I shouldn't have to. This is something that routinely is dealt with between law enforcement officials in various countries. And this is not exceptional from a legal perspective.