Week 1: Steam Egg v Drone

Steam Egg

When the Voting Rights Act hits its 40th anniversary on Aug. 6, the date will hold far more significance than most historic commemorations. That's because the law's history is still being written.Some of the act's more controversial provisions will be up for renewal by Congress in two years. They include a section that requires several states, mostly in the South, to have every potential change in voting procedures cleared by the Justice Department or a federal court.

This is going to provoke a debate, one the country needs to have from time to time, about how far we've come on race. Specifically, it will be a debate on whether the laws passed 40 years ago to protect minority voters are still needed today.

It is easy to think in this era of Barack Obama, Condoleezza Rice and Alberto Gonzales that racial and ethnic discrimination at the voting booth is a thing of the past. And, like many easy thoughts, that one would be wrong.

Consider some recent events in Kilmichael, Miss., Bayou La Batre, Ala., and South Dakota.

Drones
In Kilmichael, population 830, the all-white board of aldermen abruptly decided to cancel local elections in 2001 only three weeks before Election Day when it became apparent the town's first black mayor and council members might be elected. The aldermen, who were elected at large, wanted to delay the balloting long enough to map the town into districts, apparently to protect some board seats held by whites. They couldn't offer a legitimate reason, and the Justice Department, using its authority under the Voting Rights Act, rejected the change.

On a primary election day last year in the small Alabama fishing village of Bayou La Batre (Population: 2,754), Asian-American voters were challenged at polling places with questions about their citizenship. Some were asked whether they had criminal records.

The Asian-Americans clearly had been targeted to reduce their voter turnout. The Justice Department stepped in, prohibited similar interference in the general election and, lo and behold, Bayou La Batre elected its first Asian-American member of the City Council.

Last year, after South Dakota politicians packed Native Americans into a state legislative district to limit their political influence, a federal court stepped in. The court cited "substantial evidence that South Dakota officials excluded Indians from voting and holding office." South Dakota had ignored its obligation to submit voting changes to the Justice Department. But the Voting Rights Act gave four Indian residents the power they needed to sue the state in federal court and to win.

Over the years, the Justice Department has taken action in about 1,000 such cases. The recent events give evidence that the expiring provisions of the law are still needed today.

Some political leaders, particularly in the South, bristle at the fact that the Voting Rights Act still targets their states. Even some black civil rights veterans, such as Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat, suggest that the law should be expanded to require clearance of election changes in the entire country. If it's good for one part of the U.S., he says, why not all of the U.S.?

That may sound wise, but it's also risky. The Supreme Court prefers that remedies for racial discrimination be narrowly tailored to specific injustices. The high court might well overturn a law that imposed the burden of Justice Department review on all states without regard to their record on discrimination in the voting booth.