Il!‘' ^flurtlanb CObseruer
Page 8
November 28, 2012
Opinion articles do not necessarily represent the views o f the
Portland Observer. We welcome reader essays, photos and
story ideas. Submit to news@portlandobserver.com.
New Prices
Effective
May 1,2010
«
Martin
Cleaning
Service
Carpet & Upholstery
Cleaning
Residential &
Commercial Services
Minimum Service CHG.
$45.00
A small distance/travel charge
may be applied
C A R PE T CLEANING
2 Cleaning Areas or
more $30.00 Each Area
Pre-Spray Traffic Areas
(Includes: 1 sm all H allway)
1 Cleaning Area (only)
$40.00
Includes Pre-Spray Traffic Area
(Hallway Extra)
S tairs (12-16 stairs - With
O th e r S ervices): $25.00
Area/Oriental Rugs.
$25.00 Minimum
Area/Oriental Rugs (Wool):
$40.00 Minimum
Heavily Soiled Area:
Additional $10.00 each area
(Requiring Extensive Pre-Spraying)
U PH O LSTERY
C LE A N IN G
Sofa: $69.00
Loveseat: $49.00
Sectional : $ 109 - $ 139
Chair or Recliner
$25 - $49
Throw Pillows (With
Other Services): $5.00
%
A D D ITIO N A L
SE R V IC E S
• Area & Oriental Rug
Cleaning
• Auto/Boat/RV Cleaning
• Deodorizing & Pet
Odor Treatment
• Spot & Stain
Removal Service
• Scotchguard Protection
• Minor Water Damage
Services
SEE CURRENT FLYER
FOR ADDITIONAL
PRICES & SERVICES
Call for Appointment
(503) 281-3949
Retain the Historic Voting Act
Rash of voter
ID laws make
the case
by
R aul A. R eyes
Well, that didn't
take long. Just three
days after a diverse
coalition of voters
re-elected President Barack Obama,
the Supreme Court announced that
it's going to review the Voting Rights
Act.
The justices will look at Section
5 of the landmark legislation, which
requires states with a history of
racial discrimination to get pre-ap
proval from the federal government
before they change their voting laws.
Most of the affected states are in the
South.
In Shelby County v. Holder, the
Court will consider whether Section
5 is u n c o n stitu tio n a l. Shelby
County, Alabama says it is, and that
the preclearance requirement is un
necessary and unfair.
Shelby County is wrong on all
counts. The bigger problem is that
the Supreme Court seems poised to
meddle in public policy, which is
bad for its reputation and for our
democracy.
We only have to look at the 2012
elections to see why Section 5 re
mains vital today. The federal gov
ernment used it to fight efforts to
curb early voting in Florida, and to
challenge Voter ID laws in South
Carolina and Texas. These laws
could have disenfranchised thou
sands of minority voters. Section 5
was also used to invalidate Texas'
redistricting plan, which was found
to discriminate against Latinos.
Shelby County says that Section
5 is outdated because the political
climate in the South has improved.
But voter suppression continues to
be an issue throughout the South.
Since 2010, eight southern states
have passed restrictive voting laws.
These measures make it harder for
minority and low-income voters to
cast their ballots. That gets at the
heart of why Section 5 is still vital: to
guarantee that voters are not de
nied access to the polls.
Opponents of Section 5 say that
it is unfair. They say it's a burden for
southern states to have to seek fed
eral review whenever they change
their election laws. Yet history can't
be erased. These states earned the
preclearance requirement with their
legacy of racial discrimination. And
if their proposed changes to elec
tion laws don't discriminate against
minority voters, then the federal pre
approval requirement should not be
a burden at all.
Congress has been clear that it
supports the entire Voting Rights
Act. Though Section 5 was origi
nally supposed to last five years,
our lawmakers have renewed it four
times. In 2906, Congress renewed it
for 25 years after 22 hearings and
15,000 pages of evidence established
persistent racial discrimination in
the South.
The 15th Amendment assigns
Congress— not the Supreme Court
— the responsibility of ensuring
that no citizens are denied their right
to vote. Section 5 has faced at least
two constitutional challenges in the
past, and survived both of them.
Two lower courts have already
ruled against Shelby County. Why
then, is the Supreme Court hearing
this case?
U nfortunately, it appears as
though the Court may be leaning
towards misguided judicial activ
ism. Chief Justice John Roberts has
indicated that he may find Section 5
a n a c h ro n istic . "T h in g s have
changed in the South," he wrote in
a 2009 opinion that touched on a
similar issue.
H o w ev er, "th in g s" h a v en 't
changed that much. The C onsti
tu tio n , C o n g re ss, and re c en t
events support upholding Sec
tion 5. It's an im portant barrier
against voter suppression, and
the court risks dam aging its repu
tation as an im partial arbiter of
justice if it tinkers with the act.
And it's not just a problem in the
South. Pennsylvania's House Ma
jority Leader Mike Turzai, a Repub
lican, bragged earlier this year that
the state's new voter ID law "is
gonna allow Governor Romney to
win the state of Pennsylvania."
A judge later ruled that Penn
sylvania couldn't enforce its new
voter ID law in 2012 but he didn't
stop the state from running ads
suggesting that it would be in
effect anyway. Though Mitt Rom
ney ultim ately lost Pennsylvania,
it's worrisom e that the Supreme
Court m ight soon wade into this
leg islativ e territory. The civil
rights of m illions of m inority vot
ers are at stake, as well as the
integrity of our electoral process.
The Court should leave Section 5
intact.
Raul A. Reyes is an attorney and
columnist in New York City.