Local

Georgia Lawmakers React to U.S. Supreme Court Decision

June 25th, 2013

Georgia’s Democratic and Republican lawmakers are reacting to a 5 to 4 U.S. Supreme Court ruling today which struck down a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The court’s majority says Section 4 of the act is unconstitutional because it relies on old data, which doesn’t reflect racial progress. Georgia was among the states that were required under the section to preclear any changes in election laws.

Georgia House Democratic Minority Leader Stacey Abrams says she’s disappointed with the ruling, because she’s concerned about how it will affect Section 5 of the law. Under section 5, any changes in voting laws in states that were included in Section 4 had to receive preclearance from the U.S. Justice Department.

“It severely weakens Section 5 and it makes it very difficult for legislators and for citizens to reach out to the justice department to ask for help when we see challenges coming in response to voting rights.”

Abrams is also worried about the effect the decision could have on Georgia’s growing Hispanic and Asian populations.

“I understand the court’s concern about the formulary, and making certain that it’s reflective of the changing demographics of the state, but I think what’s most important is that we remain responsible for anticipating what the impact of any changes to voting rights can be and make certain that this doesn’t become a way to harm these new communities before they have an opportunity to really develop their political muscle.”

But Abrams says because of the country’s changing demographics, Congress should expand the formula that determines which states need preclearance. And she says the expansion should include all states. Meanwhile, U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson says he supports the continuation of the Voting Rights Act and ensuring voting rights are protected. But he agrees with the Court’s majority that the formula in Section 4 is outdated.

“It’s important to understand that voting rights in this day and time need to be just as fair, equal and accessible as they were in 1965, so the formula for coverage should be reflective of contemporary numbers and contemporary times.

And because of the ruling, Isakson says Congress needs to make changes to the formula.

“I think we ought to rewrite the formula and let it apply to whomever the formula fits. There have been a lot of people who felt like and I feel like it make a lot of sense.”

However, Isakson says that’s not a prerequisite or a requirement. The Senator says he’s hopeful Congress will address the Act soon.

In a statement, Georgia U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss says, “The United States has changed considerably in the last 50 years, and I was pleased with the Supreme Court’s ruling today. The outdated formula in section four did not treat all states fairly. Now, every state will have to play by the same rules, and voters in Georgia will have the same rights as voters all across the country.”