When Martin Luther King penned his Letter From The Birmingham Jail there was little question on anybodies mind as to the inequality of people of colour and Caucasian individuals in the United States. There were those in favour of the inequality and those opposed to it, but no one would call into question that the country discriminated against non-whites. Race disparity was plainly visible in the world the Americans of the cold-war era found themselves in, from schools and drinking fountains to the courts and the voting booths.
So when the Voting Rights Act was instated, as the first legislation of the American government that focused on amending the effect of the prior laws regarding voting rather than changing their intent it made sense in its social context. Though the bill was uncommon in form and intent as well as uncommon in that it was a legislation on voting made at the federal level rather than at the state level, it served an incontestable purpose: ensuring that the inalienable American right of equality was preserved at the voting booths.
This past June, a section of the Voting Rights Act was overturned. The section in question required that election changes in nine states (including Louisiana and Texas) gain approval by the American Justice Department prior to enactment. Chief Justice John Roberts, among others, suggests that due to recent voter turnout statistics in these states showing that a larger percentage of ethnic minorities attending the voting booths, these states can no longer be subjected to extra scrutiny under the VRA. Any claims and complaints issued by individual members of these states against the state government will be dealt with on a case by case basis by the courts.
My opinions are fairly divided on the matter. Intellectually, I understand that there are several legitimate claims that can be made against the VRA, not the least of which is its outdated status. If recent statistics show that voter turn out has improved in states in the south, then they cannot possibly be held to the current level of scrutiny they are under. The amount of power this lends to the federal government in a federation such as the USA is unconstitutional.
I recognise, of course, that it is no small thing to call the constitution of a great nation into question. But one (perhaps heretical) question has plagued me since I began regarding law and society at the start of this school year: if laws are unconstitutional but just, then what is wrong? Is the law wrong and the constitution to be followed? Or is the constitution inherently flawed and therefore deserving abandonment? Though the power of a constitution is perhaps not worth calling into question over one law, how many laws must challenge its authority before it falls? I am willing to respect a constitution so long as it upholds the justice of the people it serves. But when it no longer serves even that simple purpose, it no longer serves any purpose worth serving. Order, safety, and even democracy are petty things to consider when the equality of human beings is at stake. For true democracy cannot exist in an unequal society, and when democracy crumbles, safety and order are never far in its wake.
Fighting a constitution with a long history of upholding injustice may be an uphill battle, but in the words of Atticus Finch, in Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird: “Simply because we were licked a hundred years before we started, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to win.”