Seemingly within minutes of the Supreme Court's announcement of its ruling yanking the teeth of the Voting Rights Act Tuesday, officials in several states
were saying they
would move ahead with new election laws that no longer must be pre-cleared by federal authorities because of the court's 5-4 decision.
In Shelby County, Alabama, which in 2010 filed the suits to invalidate Sections 4 and 5 of the VRA, county attorney Frank “Butch” Ellis told the Associated Press that the ruling will save money because local governments won't be required to pay lawyers to prove to the federal government that every newly proposed election law won't discriminate. Alabama was being, he claimed, unfairly punished for sins that it has long since given up.
The state attorney general's office has not yet sought pre-clearance for a restrictive voter I.D. law passed by the legislature. Gov. Nathan Bentley said his legal advisers were looking into the matter, but "I'm not sure we'll have to do preclearance on anything from now on."
Elsewhere, officials made clear where they're headed:
• Texas. Attorney General Greg Abbott announced Tuesday that Texas will now implement its law requiring photo ID before voting. “With today’s decision, the State’s voter ID law will take effect immediately,” Abbott said in a statement to the Dallas Morning News. “Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government”:
Starting Thursday, Texas driver license offices will begin issuing photo IDs to anyone who don’t already have one. Under the 2011 state law creating one of the state’s most strict voter ID laws, the certificates are free and valid for six years. To qualify, an applicant must show U.S. citizenship and Texas residency. The required documents are listed here to verify U.S. citizenship and identity.
•
North Carolina. State Sen. Tom Apodaca, a Republican, said a voter ID measure will move forward now. It has passed the state assembly but was held up in the Senate waiting for the Supreme Court's ruling. Apodaca said the delay was imposed because senators didn’t want to have to go through pre-clearance if they didn't have to. ”So now we can go with the full bill,” he said.
• Mississippi. Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann told WLBT television that the state will now implement a voter-passed constitutional amendment that requires voter ID. “Mississippi citizens have earned the right to determine our voting processes,” said Hosemann. “Our relationships and trust in each other have matured. This chapter is closed.”
• Florida. Five Florida counties were affected by the court's ruling. These five came under pre-clearance scrutiny after amendments were passed to the Voting Rights Act in 1975. The five were then required to provide bilingual voting materials in any county where there was a first-language minority of at least 5 percent. But pre-clearance requirements were imposed over the whole range of election law. During the 2012 election, Gov. Rick Scott together with the Republican-dominated legislature tried to suppress the vote of minorities by making new-voter registration more difficult and by cutting the number of early-voting days. That didn't fly with Feds in those five counties. But Scott and the legislature are now free to do what they wish in this regard.
• South Carolina. The state's voter identification law was implemented only because officials retreated from their original proposal during negotiations between Gov. Nikki Haley and other Republicans with Justice Department. Under the Tuesday's ruling, no negotiations would’ve been necessary:
Laughlin McDonald, who heads the American Civil Liberties Union’s voting rights office, said he agrees that pending submissions to the Justice Department are now moot. It’s less clear what happens to scores of laws that the feds have already denied since the 2006 reauthorization. McDonald said he believes a state or other covered jurisdiction would have a strong case to argue that it could implement any affected law it has passed since the reauthorization.
Forward into the past thanks to five justices who think the past should not determine present policy except when they do think so.
