1.) The Supreme Court’s decision “is actually a victory for civil rights.”
The Shelby County v. Holder ruling is “A Civil-Rights [sic] Victory” according to National Review’s John Fund, who argues that the Justice Department’s “consideration of state requests for election changes was often arbitrary and partisan, as witnessed by the recent smackdown that the DOJ got from a federal court when it tried to block South Carolina’s voter ID law.”
That rather depends on what you think constitutes a “smackdown”; it’s worth noting that the federal court which Fund mentions also delayed implementation of S.C.’s voter ID law for a year.
2.) The racial voter registration gap has narrowed enough to make Section 5 irrelevant.
For those upset about VRA decision, at least understand why SCOTUS says the formula must be changed: pic.twitter.com/53uX7aR83d
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) June 25, 2013
The chart shows the percentage of eligible white citizens registering to vote versus the percentage of eligible black citizens, in 1965 and 2004. Note that the racial disparities haven’t disappeared in several states, though they have narrowed significantly. Also: voter ID laws affect people only after they’ve registered to vote.
3.) Democrats were racist first!
A history lesson from one of the RedState.com editors:
Standard reminder: basically every bad thing that made the VRA necessary at the time was done by Democrats.
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) June 25, 2013
Standard reminder, addendum: As Erick Erickson alluded to, some things have changed between 1965 and 2004.
4.) People who discriminate go to jail anyway.
“I don’t know what would be needed after this,” Senator Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, told reporters after the ruling. “If anybody discriminates against voters in Alabama because of the color of their skin, they will go to jail if there’s any proof to that. That wasn’t so in 1965.”
5.) Breitbart.com: The decision was a “win for the Obama campaign.”
From Joel B. Pollak:
And yet Obama’s attacks on voter ID laws served their political purpose. They created a sense of alarm and outrage among black voters, who were told by Obama and Holder that their rights were in jeopardy. That, in turn, likely motivated some Obama voters to make sure they went to the polls in the belief their rights, and the gains of the civil rights struggle more generally, were at stake in Obama’s victory or defeat in 2012.
So—a loss for the Obama administration, and a win for the Obama campaign. Most important, the decision is a win for the country as a whole, both as a confirmation of our progress and as an affirmation of states’ constitutional powers. But for campaign purposes, look for more outrage from the Obama administration.
Ned Resnikoff is an urban policy analyst, researcher, writer, and editor. His byline has appeared in a variety of publications, including the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Dissent, and The Nation. He writes the newsletter Public Comment, which can be found at publiccomment.blog.