From An amicus brief co-authored by SCSJ and filed in the U.S. Supreme Court to support the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization.
An amicus brief co-authored by SCSJ and filed in the U.S. Supreme Court to support the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization.
SCSJ co-authored this amicus brief, filed in the U.S. Supreme Court to support the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization. The brief refutes appellants’ argument that private litigation under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can provide an adequate substitute for the protection offered by Section 5 preclearance. For individual minority voters, the cost and effort required to pursue Section 2 cases are insurmountable barriers to private enforcement, a problem made more acute by the small number of practitioners in covered jurisdictions who are willing and able to take such cases. This creates a perverse incentive – all too often realized – for officials to continue suspect practices because they know most voters cannot challenge them. In contrast, Section 5 deters such practices. Amici have seen Section 2 and Section 5 operate in the complementary fashion that Congress intended. Where minority voters in covered jurisdictions cannot find a lawyer or afford to pay one, Section 5 provides the means to redress new violations of their rights. And where minority voters are able to get their day in court, Section 5 provides the assurance that their hard-won and expensive battles will not be in vain if a jurisdiction repeats similar violations. Thus, Amici’s experience confirms the determination of Congress that there is a persistent need for timely enforcement capable of deterring illegal voting schemes before they are implemented–a task for which case-by-case litigation under Section 2 is ill-suited, but for which Section 5 was designed.
From /wp-content/uploads/VRA_Reauthorization_Amicus_Brief.pdf