Washington, DC -- The National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW) today welcomed the Supreme Court's decision that preserved the heart of the Voting Rights Act in a case involving a Texas water district. NCJW President Nancy Ratzan released the following statement:

"Today’s decision by the Supreme Court leaves the heart of the Voting Rights Act intact. NCJW joined with those who filed an amicus brief in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder urging the court to uphold a key provision of the act that requires jurisdictions with a record of past discrimination to submit changes in voting rights procedures to the Justice Department for review prior to their implementation.

"We are gratified that the Court chose to rule narrowly that, under the Voting Rights Act, the water district was eligible to apply for an exemption from federal review without overturning the main provisions of the act itself.

"Just last month, the Department of Justice refused to approve a voter registration procedure proposed by the state of Georgia on the grounds that it would discriminate against minority voters. It would have been a dark day for our democracy if the Court today had chosen to undermine Congress’ determination to ensure voting rights for all."

The National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW) is a grassroots organization of volunteers and advocates who turn progressive ideals into action. Inspired by Jewish values, NCJW strives for social justice by improving the quality of life for women, children, and families and by safeguarding individual rights and freedoms.

 ###

Rep. John Lewis Responds to U.S. Supreme Court Decision

On Voting Rights Act Case

          “I am glad to say that even after a significant constitutional challenge, the Voting Rights Act still stands.  Section 5 remains a powerful tool for voters who believe their voting rights are being violated, and pre-clearance continues to be the most effective legal means voters have today to protect themselves from present-day discriminatory voting laws and practices.

“In 2008--not in 1968 but during last year’s election—the state of Georgia implemented a practice that would have rendered over 200 thousand American-born or naturalized citizens ineligible to vote.  These citizens were mainly African Americans, but many were Hispanic and Asian Americans as well.  Without the power of Section 5, without the pre-clearance provision, those voters would have been barred from voting in last year’s election, and could have only defended their voting rights through a lawsuit, which would have taken years to resolve.  Meanwhile, a practice the Justice Department subsequently determined was discriminatory would have remained in place in Georgia, keeping lawful citizens from participating in the electoral process.

                “Before the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized in 2006, Congress developed a 16,000 page record that documented contemporary instances of voting discrimination in states throughout the country—not just Southern states but other states as well, like South Dakota and Arizona.  Though we have made significant steps forward, this record proves that there are still many reasons today to maintain the protections offered by Section 5 of the VRA.  We have come a great distance, but the struggle for voting rights in America is not over, and we should not rest until the voting process is fair, easy, and equally available to all citizens of this nation.

                “It should also be noted that bail-out or exemption from the requirements of the Voting Rights Act is available to any jurisdiction that can show it no longer discriminates against eligible voters.  The provisions for exemption are described in the act and any jurisdiction that can prove it no longer practices voting discrimination can be relieved from the pre-clearance provision.”

####

 PLF and Project 21 Statements on Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act Ruling

Sacramento, CA;  The Supreme Court declined to address head-on the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. However, in a welcome move, the court did permit one local jurisdiction, with no history of discrimination, to "bail out" from Section 5’s coverage.

Section 5 is the "preclearance" rule that requires targeted states and localities (throughout the South and in a number of jurisdictions elsewhere) to ask federal permission before they make changes, no matter how minute, in how they conduct their elections. Today, in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, the Court issued a narrow ruling that exempts the utility district from Section 5 but stopped short of overturning Section 5 itself.

PLF attorneys submitted an amicus brief urging that Section 5 be overturned, because it undermines constitutional principles of federalism by allowing sweeping federal supervision of local elections – without evidence of continued race-based discrimination in the states and localities that it targets for federal supervision.

PLF Principal Attorney Sharon L. Browne issued the following statement in response to today’s ruling:

"It is disappointing that the Supreme Court chose to sidestep the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This provision gives the federal government too much power by allowing it to micromanage local elections in targeted states and localities even where there is no evidence of race-based discrimination in voting procedures. The Supreme Court did give relief to one local jurisdiction – the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One – that has no history of racial discrimination. However, while it is welcome that the Court allowed this one local district to ‘bail out’ from federal control, the structure of overbearing federal intrusion in other local elections remains in place. So the Court stopped short of its duty to defend the constitutional principle that federal power is and should be strictly limited."

PLF s amicus brief was submitted in conjunction with the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) and Project 21, the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives.

Mychal Massie, chairman of Project 21, had this comment: "We are deeply disappointed that the Supreme Court did not see the common sense in relieving states and municipalities from the onerous and unnecessary continuance of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. As with affirmative action, the Court recognizes the unconstitutionality of the statute but refuses to go the distance to make things right. The only certainty of this ruling is that the problem of preclearance standards will continue to be a problem. The question to be pondered is how many of these aggrieved voting districts will knuckle under to overbearing and unnecessary standards because the justices chose to kick the can down the road rather than actually do something about it."

The authors of PLF’s amicus brief, PLF’s Sharon Browne, Ralph Kasarda, and Joshua Thompson, are available for interviews at (916) 419-7111. Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie is available for interviews at (202) 543-4111 or (484) 515-0259.

About Pacific Legal Foundation
Pacific Legal Foundation (www.pacificlegal.org) is the nation’s oldest and most successful public interest legal organization that litigates for limited government, property rights, and a balanced approach to environmental regulations, in courts nationwide.

About CEO and Project 21
Project 21, the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives, is an initiative of The National Center for Public Policy Research to promote the views of African-Americans whose entrepreneurial spirit, dedication to family, and commitment to individual responsibility have not traditionally been echoed by the nation’s civil rights establishment. Project 21 seeks to make America a better place for African-Americans, and all Americans, to live and work.

The Center for Equal Opportunity is a nonprofit research and educational organization devoted to issues of race and ethnicity, such as civil rights, bilingual education, and immigration and assimilation. CEO supports color-blind public policies and seeks to block the expansion of racial preferences and to prevent their use in, for instance, employment, education, and voting.

# # #

NAACP COMMENDS SUPREME COURT FOR KEEPING SECTION 5 OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT INTACT

Washington DC—The NAACP issued the following statement today in response to the United State Supreme Court Ruling in the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Eric Holder, a case challenging Section Five of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

“The NAACP commends the Supreme Court Justices today for upholding one of the most crucial enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act,” said Benjamin T. Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP.  “As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, ‘[t]he historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable.’  In 2006 Congress voted to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and now in 2009 the Supreme Court has upheld Section 5, “President and CEO Jealous continued.

Section 5, regarded by many as the heart of the Voting Rights Act, both blocks and deters discriminatory voting changes in a select number of jurisdictions around the country. Specifically, Section 5 requires jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting to submit proposed voting changes to its election process to the Department of Justice or to the D.C. District Court for pre-approval.  In 2006, after careful review of an expansive record, Congress concluded that the Section 5 preclearance provision is still necessary to prevent minority citizens from being deprived of the right to fully participate in our democracy. Accordingly, with overwhelming bipartisan support, Congress voted to reauthorize Section 5 and former President Bush signed the reauthorization into law.

“While some may think that voter discrimination is a thing of the past, it is clear that it is not.  Jim Crow might be dead but James Crow Esquire is alive and well, and while we may not see fire hoses and police dogs any longer, [but] they have been replaced by false emails and polling station trickery,” Jealous said.

“When Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights act of 1965 in 2006, they compiled more than 16,000 pages of documentation and head from scores of witnesses in support of Section 5 and its continued relevance.  We are very pleased that the Supreme Court ruled to keep this crucial provision [Section 5] intact,” stated Hilary O. Shelton Vice President for Advocacy and Director of the DC Bureau of the NAACP. 

“Evidence of voter intimidation and voter discrimination are ongoing throughout our country.  From thousands of people being turned away from the polls in 2000 in Florida, to the Ohio controversy in 2004, and even to polling place problems in St. Louis during the past election, it is important now more than ever that Section 5 remain intact.  The Supreme Court did the correct thing and protected all people of color from voter discrimination and ensured that their voices will be heard,” said Shelton.

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization. Its members in the U.S. around the world advocate for civil and human rights, conducting voter mobilization campaigns, and monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private sectors.

###