

Video would shed light on U.S. Supreme Court

1:10 AM, Mar. 15, 2013  |  Comments
  • Filed Under

One of the good things about the New Jersey Supreme Court is it webcasts its hearings, something that never drew much of my personal attention until recent oral arguments on the 1965 Voting Rights Act at the Supreme Court in Washington, where one of the justices came off sounding like a right-wing radio nut.

At issue in Washington was Shelby County, Alabama's challenge of the law, specifically Section 5, which allows the federal government to negate new local and state voting rules if they would lead to discrimination against minority voters. It applies to nine of the 50 states - Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Alaska and Arizona.

Shelby County contends the law is no longer needed.

Some history: The Voting Rights Act came about largely because people marching from Selma, Ala., to Montgomery, the state capital, on March 7, 1965, were attacked by state and local police as the group crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma. Some, like John Lewis, who went on to Congress, were beaten badly. It was widely reported, but the TV coverage of the brutality under color of law especially brought cruelty into living rooms across the nation, making it very personal and close up. It will forever be known as "Bloody Sunday."

They marched because of impediments to minorities' voting, things that today seem like comedy sitcom fiction. When minorities went to register, they could be required to take literacy tests or pay a poll tax. Or say how many bubbles in a bar of soap or how many jelly beans in a jar. It was a shameful time for a country that holds itself up to the world as an example of rights and liberty.

The act was renewed for 25 years in 2006 with overwhelming support from Congress and President George W. Bush, who called it a victory for American democracy.

But when the Shelby County case got to the Supreme Court recently, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said the unanimous passage in the Senate was an indication no serious consideration was given, that no one wanted to vote against an act with a wonderful name. "Even the name is wonderful - the Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?" Then he said reauthorization was "a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement."

Racial entitlement? The right for a qualified citizen to vote is a racial entitlement?

Last year during the campaign season I talked to people at random in South Carolina, a conservative, Republican state, about what concerned them. Certainly not a scientific survey, two issues emerged. They had problems with what they saw as an Obama administration interference with labor issues at the newly built Boeing airplane plant where they produce the 787 Dreamliner, a major new jobs source, and the Voting Rights Act.

They said they objected not so much to the 1965 law applying to the Palmetto State, but that it applied only to nine states and not the whole country. They felt there were being singled out because of where they lived, especially since there have been what was seen as recent attempts to discourage certain segments of the population from voting.

At the time, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida were talking about the need for "voter ID" laws. The need, the states argued, was to curtail voter fraud. When the New York Times looked at five years of voter fraud cases it found only 120 nationally, resulting in 86 convictions, hardly an epidemic. Some speculate it was to discourage certain groups that tend to vote Democratic. Most voter fraud has nothing to do with impersonation.

Scalia seemed to be saying once a "racial entitlement" is put in place, it is hard for elected officials to get rid of it so it's up to the courts. The emphasis should be on whether people qualified to vote under the 15th Amendment to the Constitution are being denied that right in these nine states - or any of the states.

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked the Shelby County lawyer, "Do you think that racial discrimination in voting has ended, that there is none anywhere?" Those in the courtroom said she looked at Scalia, not the lawyer, when she said it. Their observation is all we have.

That's what started me thinking about how our state's highest court does business. It's hard to judge what really happened - the tone, the body language, the facial expressions of these unelected jurists who have tremendous effect on our lives - when all you have is audio and printed stories.

Supreme Court proceedings should be televised as they are in New Jersey. Seeing them gives us a better idea of what is going on in our name. Like those brutal scenes from Selma. Maybe that's what the people in Washington are afraid of.

Real Deals



User Photos More Photos | Submit



Sign up for home delivery today

Facebook Activity

Most Commented