National Review Online publishes PLF essay on Shelby County
Roger Clegg and I penned this essay on Shelby County v. Holder, the case challenging the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Shelby County is going to be argued before the Supreme Court tomorrow. Here’s the conclusion of the essay:
The Left is crying that the Supreme Court of Chief Justice Roberts is poised to “turn back the clock” on civil rights: It already has heard a case this term that calls into question the use of racial preferences in university admissions, and now it will be hearing another case that calls into question a statute that empowers federal bureaucrats to insist on a politically correct number of “majority minority” districts.
Listen to that and then think about how far from the ideals of the civil-rights movement the Left’s definition of civil rights has led us. Universities must be able to discriminate against students on the basis of skin color, and voters must be required to vote only among those of their own kind.
Much was made of the fact that the Court granted review in Shelby County just three days after President Obama’s reelection in which he received overwhelming support from racial and ethnic minority groups — as if the Court were striking back at the electoral success of those groups. But actually the changing, increasingly multiracial and multiethnic face of America is precisely what makes Section 5’s divisive, race-driven policies less and less tenable.
So, if the Court strikes down Section 5, it will not be overstepping its authority. What’s more, it not only be vindicating principles of federalism, it will be pulling the plug on a statute that now does more harm than good for race relations and the principle of racial nondiscrimination.
Read the rest over at National Review.
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›