In
a current case before the Supreme Court, one that is challenging the
1965 Voting Rights Act, certain federalist issues are being
considered. I believe that the manner in which the case is being
argued by complainants picks up biased federalist views that do not
represent federalism in a complete and totally honest way. The
argument reflects the “state's rights” view of federalism. While
such an argument does engender legitimate federalist concerns, it
ignores other relevant aspects of federalism that I believe are more
central to its ideas and ideals. Yes, federalism argues for
respecting the entities that make up a federalist arrangement, but it
also argues for the integrity of the agreement by which the entities
have federated themselves in first place.
Specifically,
the case in question has been brought up by a county in Alabama.
Alabama, according to the 1965 legislation, has been identified as a
state with a history of significant discrimination against
African-Americans in terms of voting. That state, through state and
local laws, devised a variety of schemes to, in effect, deny blacks
the ability to vote. Such schemes as poll taxes and literacy tests
were used toward this end. Attempts by the federal government to
void such laws were met by state officials devising new strategies to
maintain the discriminatory practices. To meet this challenge, the
Voting Rights Act established the legal requirement that those
officials need to clear, ahead of time, any changes in their voting
laws. The clearance is be issued by the federal Justice Department.
In this way the Department could pass judgment on the
constitutionality of the proposed changes and, by so doing, head off
any new attempts to prevent blacks from exercising their right to
vote. I will conclude this quick review of the law by pointing out
that the media has repeatedly gone over this factual information.
Shelby
County, the Alabama county bringing the case to the Supreme Court,
claims that by not treating all the states the same, the law ignores
the constitutional requirement of equal protection under the law.
The law and its requirements apply only to those states and parts of
other states that have the type of history I described above. Many
of the states so identified, such as Alabama, are in the South where
it is well known that states have a past of extreme discrimination
against African-Americans. But my concern here is not so much with
the strength or weakness of Shelby County's claim, but with the bad
“rep” federalism gets from such “state rights” cases.
Here
is what is ignored about federalism: Federalism is a political
philosophy that is based on republican ideals. It calls for the
formation of government by people or groups who have a central and
shared sense about how they can come together and form that
government based on a set of shared ideals, aims, goals, needs and
desires. The entities, be they people, groups, or both, pledge that
they will hold to all of the stipulations of the agreement. The
pledge is in perpetuity or for a stated length of time. The
agreement spells out the demands and expectations each entity
promises to keep. The agreement also establishes the structure of
government that is meant to facilitate the attainment of those shared
ideals, aims, goals, needs, and desires. In the case of the United
States, a federated union, the agreement is our constitution.
As
part of that constitution, there are the Thirteenth,
Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. They are known
as the Civil War amendments since they were ratified shortly after
the Civil War ended and are considered the codification for the
reasons the war was fought. In short, they were to make the former
slaves full-fledged citizens of the US. In the case of voting
rights, the Voting Rights Act was an attempt by Congress to assure
that all of the states, including those that have a documented
history of, in effect, defying that agreement, live by the agreement.
The Act is a federalist reaction to a history of making a
mockery of the sacred, federal agreement that is our constitution.
Of
course, this argument does not address the question of the case.
Shelby County claims that beyond being treated differently, the
problem of denying blacks the right to vote no longer exists to the
degree that justifies this “discriminatory” treatment. For the
record and based on what I have heard in the media, I disagree. But
my attempt here is to present a more comprehensive and honest view of
what is meant by federalism. Why? Because federalism is too
important to our system of governance for us to have a muddled view
of what it means. It is not a means to deny any citizen his or her
right to vote. It instead stands for an active and involved
citizenry and that includes voting.
