Stacked Supreme Court rulings are an assault on democracy

In the hallowed chambers of the Supreme Court, the very essence of American democracy is under siege as rulings over recent years have systematically dismantled the vital protections enshrined in the Voting Rights Act.

Once hailed as the crowning achievement of the Civil Rights movement, decisions undermining the landmark federal law enacted in 1965 to remove race-based restrictions on voting have plunged the nation into an abyss of disenfranchisement and inequality, corroding the very foundation upon which our democratic ideals stand.

The nefarious unraveling of the Voting Rights Act began with the notorious Shelby County v. Holder ruling in 2013, where the court effectively neutered the heart of the legislation – Section 5.

Section 5 had been the guardian at the gates, requiring states with a history of discriminatory voting practices to obtain federal approval before changing election laws. In one fell swoop, the court, with a majority that seemed oblivious to the enduring echoes of historical injustices, declared protection against unbridled racial discrimination in voting outdated and irrelevant.

The fallout was swift and devastating. Freed from the shackles of federal oversight, numerous states embarked on a brazen campaign to curtail voting rights, unleashing a torrent of discriminatory laws and policies that disproportionately targeted minority communities. Voter ID laws, gerrymandering, and purges of voter rolls became the weapons of choice, wielded by those seeking to disenfranchise marginalized voices.

In 2019, the Supreme Court further undermined the Voting Rights Act with its ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause, a decision that allowed partisan cheating when it comes to drawing district boundaries from which members of Congress are elected.

In essence, the court gave its blessing to the grotesque practice of politicians cherry-picking their voters, entrenching a system where the powerful choose their constituents rather than the other way around. The impact on minority communities was particularly severe, as gerrymandering was weaponized to dilute their political influence and perpetuate an unjust status quo.

The recent Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee decision in 2021 marked another disheartening chapter in the court’s assault on the Voting Rights Act.

In a baffling interpretation, the court upheld two restrictive voting laws in Arizona, effectively greenlighting measures that disproportionately affected minority voters. The ruling laid bare the court’s detachment from the harsh reality faced by marginalized communities and its unwillingness to acknowledge the deeply rooted systemic barriers that persist.

The assault is likely to continue at the Supreme Court because a panel of federal judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held in a 2-1 ruling that private plaintiffs can no longer bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

“This ruling is also a stark departure from six decades of decisions in hundreds of Section 2 cases. Before this ruling, dozens of courts had universally permitted aggrieved individuals to sue under Section 2,” said Janai Nelson, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

“In fact, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Allen v. Milligan reaffirmed the vital significance of Section 2 and granted private individuals relief under its provisions,” said Nelson. “Likewise, in striking down the animating provisions of Section 5 of the VRA, its most transformative provision, one decade ago, Chief Justice Roberts authored a majority opinion that cited the importance of Section 2 as a viable enforcement mechanism to combat voting discrimination.”

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed the right of individuals to sue under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in another case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, Legal Defense Fund, and others challenging a racially discriminatory congressional map.

Allowing only the government to sue the government would unjust, but a disturbing tapestry of judicial indifference raises doubts about whether the Supreme Court will preserve a six-decade precedent that allows private citizens and organizations to sue the government under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act for such violations

The Supreme Court rulings collectively form a disturbing tapestry of judicial indifference, where the highest court in the land has become an accomplice in the erosion of the very principles it is duty-bound to protect.

The Voting Rights Act outlawed the discriminatory election practices adopted in many southern states after the Civil War, including literacy tests as a prerequisite to voting. This “act to enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution” was signed into law 95 years after that amendment was ratified.

The Voting Rights Act is now a tattered relic of a bygone era, its once-formidable arsenal of protections rendered impotent by the very institution meant to safeguard them.

As we witness the erosion of the Voting Rights Act through a series of misguided and callous decisions, we must confront the uncomfortable truth that the guardians of justice have become architects of inequality. The Supreme Court’s rulings have not merely chipped away at the Voting Rights Act; they have swung a wrecking ball at the core of American democracy, leaving a chasm of disenfranchisement in their wake.

The question that looms ominously before us is whether we, as a nation, will stand idly by as the pillars of our democracy crumble, or whether we will rise with a collective voice demanding justice, equality, and the restoration of the Voting Rights Act to its former glory.