University of Virginia Library

Voting Rights

Reprinted from the Washington Post

There is a deceptive air of sweet
reasonableness to the administration "voting
rights" bill, which - appallingly - was passed
by the House on Thursday. On its face and as
advertised by the Attorney General, the bill
would merely enlarge upon the existing
Voting Rights Act of 1965, which expires
next August, and apply its principles to the
nation as a whole. What could be wrong with
that? The answer is, Plenty. For there is no
need to revise the Voting Rights Act and
every reason to keep it in existence in its
present form. The Voting Rights Act rests on
a formula for inferring discrimination before
its provisions can be invoked, which is why it
applies to the South. The Supreme Court has
ruled that federal intervention in state
election laws on this basis is constitutional
and it has also refined and clarified the
provisions of the act, so that the statute is
now workable and effective and no longer
subject to prolonged court testing. Moreover,
it seems passing odd that an administration
which has been making so much of its
shortage of manpower to enforce existing civil
rights statutes, should promote legislation that
would involve frivolous and wasteful deployment
of its personnel in parts of the
country where they simply are not required.

In addition to the fact that revision of the
law is not necessary and may prove harmful to
its effectiveness, there are far worse flaws in
the administration's plan, which proceed from
substantive changes it would make. Chief
among these is the proposed alteration of
Section Five of the present act, which would
relieve offending states of the obligation to
inform the Justice Department of changes in
county or state election law and to gain
Justice's approval for such changes. The
burden of proof and the initiation of action
against violation thus shift back to Washington,
and the prospect under the administration's
proposal is for prolonged, delaying
litigation that will deny immediate relief to
voters who have been discriminated against.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been
called the most successful piece of civil rights
legislation passed in recent times, and the
appraisal is accurate. That is not only because
of the spectacular increase in Negro registration
and voting it has made possible, but
also because for people who have been
systematically deprived of a voice and a vote
in their own affairs it provides a chance to
redress their grievances and improve their lives
by means of the traditional political processes.
Men like Charles Evers have been able to ward
off the pressures of potentially violent,
despairing blacks in large part by taking
advantage of the legal means to power
provided in this act and by citing their success
in proof. It was incredible that the administration
should have so cavalierly disregarded
this fact in its mischievous, Southern-minded
substitute and equally incredible that - even
by a squeak - the House should have upheld
it. What now remains is the chance and the
hope that the Senate will go about rejecting
the administration proposal, possibly tack a
few of the administration's less controversial
provisions onto the Voting Rights Act
extension, and somehow make its will prevail
in conference.