ASSISTANT OPINION EDITOR

The Supreme Court recently gutted many aspects of the Voting Rights Act, clearing the way for discrimination. (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia)

With the mayoral race now over, voters are either validated to see their candidate succeed or bracing themselves for four years under a new administration. Others are glad that the constant ad campaigns and the very public character attacks are over.

This race and the many more to come remind all of us of the cliche: every vote counts. Campaigns fight to the last minute to reach voters, whether it be through press junkets, commercials, kissing babies or random scandals.

This dire need to reach voters is proof that, at least politically, voting is perhaps the ultimate tool that brings together people from different racial, social and economic backgrounds.

This election has also reminded me, however, of the recent Supreme Court ruling impeding the greatest tool the individual is given to enact change.

Unlike the other divisions of the Judicial Branch, and the other branches of our government for that matter, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitrator. While many of us are frustrated with local government, Congress, the president and recently the NSA, I suggest that the spotlight should not solely focus on those we see on C-SPAN or the nightly news, but the nine men and women who have the power to change the direction of our country’s policies with a brief opinion.

Appointed by the president, the members of the Supreme Court are intended to be the guardians of the Constitution. However, recent rulings have, in my opinion, shown regression in the court’s justice. Perhaps the biggest and most recent misstep by the Supreme Court came in the form of a 5-4 decision that  declared  sections of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.

The sections struck down from the Voting Rights Act contained a provision in which certain states that were found to be discriminatory against their voters had to first receive permission from the federal government before making changes to voting laws. This provision, a key victory in the civil rights movement, protected African Americans against racially-biased state legislatures and eliminated laws and prerequisites to voting, such as grandfather clauses and literacy tests.

In the past decade, the Supreme Court has made it a point to dodge every opportunity to keep the control of our country in the hands of the individual. The history of the Voting Rights Act and the potentially racially motivated reason for wanting to eliminate section 4 of the act drives the majority of the commentary against the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“The Act required States to obtain federal permission before enacting any law related to voting — a drastic departure from basic principles of federalism.”  said Chief Justice John Roberts in the opinion of the court. Roberts also went on to state, “Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically.” While I agree with Roberts on both accounts, African Americans have come a long way since the civil rights movement; I make the claim that discrimination has not. Voting discrimination still exists and, since voting is such a vital part of democracy, it needs extraordinary measures to insure that every vote counts.

While I also agree with Roberts that the provisions within the Voting Rights Act are a drastic departure from the principles of federalism, I am also in agreement with the dissenting opinion.

“The Voting Rights Act became one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation’s history”, said Justice Ginsburg.

To be clear, I am not making the assumption that states that fall under Section 4 are all racist, but I am making the claim that the Supreme Court is naïve to not foresee the repercussions of eradicating the provisions within the act. Currently it seems that the Supreme Court is delegating issues back to the states, avoiding rulings that would eradicate the ambiguities of current legislations and the infringement on individual rights.

However, those opinions fail to see the bigger picture.

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Ginsburg notes that “the Court today terminates the remedy that proved to be best suited to block that discrimination.”

Whether it is an issue of race, economic or sexual orientation, discrimination still exists. For the Supreme Court to leave matters that directly affect individuals up to states that have a history of infringing upon the rights of the minority is, in my opinion, a failure to uphold the essence of the judicial branch.

The states under Section 4 are not the only states to discriminate against their voters, but the Supreme Court allowing states with a history of discrimination to change voting laws creates a slippery slope. The ruling sends the message that it is okay for other states to implement discriminatory laws against their residents.

Catrina Livermore is a communication and media studies major and marketing minor from Queens, N.Y.