Law School report shows Voting Rights Act still needed

Forty years after Congress outlined provisions to prevent racial discrimination in electoral practices, a U-M report released Nov. 10 indicates violations persist.

The Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 guaranteed equal opportunity for all Americans in the voting process, and Congress reauthorized provisions in 1970, 1975 and 1982. With the central provisions of the VRA expiring in 2007, Congress must determine whether it should renew these provisions, make substantive alterations or let them lapse. To make this determination, Congress needs information about the past and present status of minority participation in the political process—the impetus for the U-M report.

"Four decades after the enactment of the Voting Rights Act, racial discrimination in voting is far from over," says Ellen Katz, a professor of law and faculty director of the Voting Rights Initiative, a cooperative student/faculty research effort.

The findings were released as the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives held VRA renewal hearings last week. The U-M report is entitled "Documenting Discrimination in Voting: Judicial Findings Under the Voting Rights Act Since 1982" and is available at: http://www.votingreport.org.

The report provides the first catalogue of findings of voting discrimination made by federal judges in published lawsuits brought under Section 2 of the VRA since 1982. It also provides a snapshot of complex cases under this provision, representing a larger set of lawsuits filed, since only an estimated 1 in 5 filed VRA lawsuits ended in a court decision that may be analyzed.

The findings included examples of persistent racial discrimination in voting during the past 23 years. Courts found 114 instances in which electoral laws and practices must be changed to remedy discrimination against minorities, including a higher number of statutory violations in jurisdictions subject to Section 5.

Section 5 freezes changes in election practices or procedures in certain states until the new procedures have been determined, either after administrative review by the U.S. Attorney General or after a lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Some examples of voting discrimination:

• The 2004 decision in a South Dakota lawsuit documents how county officials purposely have blocked Native Americans from registering to vote and from casting ballots.;

• The Charleston County litigation in South Carolina reveals deliberate and systematic efforts by county officials to harass and intimidate African American residents seeking to vote;

• A Philadelphia lawsuit describes a deliberate and collusive effort by party officials and city election commissioners to trick Latino and African American voters into casting illegitimate absentee ballots that would never be counted;

• Other cases tell of state and local authorities drawing district lines for the express purpose of diminishing the influence of minority voters, or to protect partisan interests knowing that doing so would hinder minority voting strength.

One significant report finding concluded that racially polarized voting, or "bloc voting" persists today, with 91 cases since 1982 that ended in a court decision finding racial polarization. In addition, federal judges have identified racial prejudicial campaign tactics in 31 lawsuits nationwide, such as manipulating photographs to darken the skin of opposing candidates, allusions or threats of minority group "take over" or imminent racial strife, and cynical attempts to increase turnout among voters perceived to be "anti-black."

The courts also have found significant racial polarization in voting at partisan primaries, which can affect the results in the general election.

Congress must include an assessment of the conduct of political party primaries, not just general election outcomes, in considering the reauthorization of the VRA, the study indicated.

More than 100 law students examined Section 2 cases nationwide and identified 323 lawsuits in which plaintiffs failed to pursue their claims, many settled, and others saw their cases go to judgment, but the courts involved did not issue any published opinion or ancillary ruling, according to the electronic databases surveyed.

More Stories

• Coleman: Business, political leaders must maintain higher ed. commitment
• Students seek support reporting academic integrity violations
• In environmental policy, we get what we pay for
• U-M leads nation in Fulbright fellowships
• U-M explores diversity from a complex systems approach
• Diversity impacts a corporation's bottom line
• Spotlight: From farming to flowers
• Football fans say widen seats, keep 'Big House' status
• Child Care Initiative identifies openings for infants, toddlers
• Tour set for May; apply by Nov. 30
• Faculty award nominations now done online
• Girls more likely to abuse prescription pain meds
• Instructors will up-'grade' to new reporting system
• Media help, hinder women's health
• Performance shows men suffer eating disorders, too
• Law School report shows Voting Rights Act still needed
• U-M investment funds update
• Don't Miss
• Photo: Corpuscle clash
• Photo: UMMA shows "Silk Road to Clipper Ship: Trade, Changing Markets and East Asian Ceramics"
• Photo: "Five Women Wearing the Same Dress" at U-M-Flint
• Photo: "Laramie Project" at Mendelsohn Theater