4:25PM EST November 9. 2012 - The Supreme Court agreed Friday to consider a challenge to the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, which could result in less federal oversight of the racial impact of state and local election laws.
The high court accepted the case of Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder, in which the Alabama municipality sought to change its voting laws without federal review. For decades, the law's key provision has prevented states and municipalities with a history of racial discrimination from changing their election laws unilaterally.
Federal oversight has existed for 47 years, since the heyday of the civil rights era. Under Section 5 of the law, nine states and municipalities in seven others are barred from changing their voting procedures without approval from the Justice Department or a special federal court. That has helped minorities to vote and to win elections.
The court agreed to consider Congress' 2006 reauthorization of the landmark civil rights law for another 25 years. A decision by the conservative-leaning court could force Congress to reconsider its actions, rather than effectively knocking down the law's key provision. But it also could strike a major blow to one of the civil rights era's most important statutes.
Opponents consider the law anachronistic and an infringement on states' rights. Shelby County's brief cites "the practical effect of Section 5's severe federalism burdens, as well as the disparate treatment of covered and non-covered states under the statute's selective and outdated coverage formula."
Proponents of the law argue that federal review safeguards the civil rights of racial minorities. Civil rights groups say the need for federal oversight in those mostly Southern states, from Virginia to Texas, was evident even in recent months, when South Carolina and Texas sought to tighten photo ID requirements and Florida sought to restrict early voting.
"The substantial evidence of intentional racial discrimination in the record is particularly significant," several civil rights groups argue in a brief. "Between 1980 and 2004, the attorney general issued at least 423 objections based in whole or in part on discriminatory purpose."
Jon Greenbaum, who wrote that brief for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and other groups, said the coalition wasn't surprised the court decided to take the case.
"We're prepared, and we're confident, and we think the recent cases demonstrate the continued constitutionality of Section 5," he said.
The case is likely to be scheduled for late winter or spring, and there should be a decision before the court's term ends in June.
