Skip to main content
Part of complete coverage from

Congress, give us new Voting Rights Act

By Donna Brazile, CNN Contributor
June 26, 2013 -- Updated 1254 GMT (2054 HKT)
The Voting Rights Act is often called the crown jewel of the civil rights movement, yet many Americans do not know why or how it was passed. Pictured, NAACP Field Director Charles White speaks on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, June 25, after<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/politics/scotus-voting-rights/index.html'> the court limited use of a major part of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965,</a> in effect invalidating a key enforcement provision. Here are some key moments and characters in the voting rights saga. The Voting Rights Act is often called the crown jewel of the civil rights movement, yet many Americans do not know why or how it was passed. Pictured, NAACP Field Director Charles White speaks on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, June 25, after the court limited use of a major part of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, in effect invalidating a key enforcement provision. Here are some key moments and characters in the voting rights saga.
HIDE CAPTION
The Voting Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act
<<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
>
>>
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Donna Brazile: LBJ's 1965 speech enjoined Southerners to support blacks' right to vote
  • She says the Supreme Court, in a stroke, has eviscerated the Voting Rights Act
  • Brazile: President Obama must convince polarized Congress to save the act by fixing it
  • Voter ID laws show threats to rights remain, and Congress must pass new act, she says

Editor's note: Donna Brazile, a CNN contributor and a Democratic strategist, is vice chairwoman for voter registration and participation at the Democratic National Committee. She is a nationally syndicated columnist, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University and author of "Cooking With Grease: Stirring the Pot in America." She was manager for the Gore-Lieberman presidential campaign in 2000.

(CNN) -- In an earthshaking 1965 speech to Congress and to the nation, President Lyndon Johnson spoke directly to the sinister forces that had restricted black Americans' right to vote across the South -- laying out the goals of the Voting Rights Act in the form of a command to this shameful cabal.

"Open your polling places to all your people. Allow men and women to register and vote whatever the color of their skin. Extend the rights of citizenship to every citizen of this land," Johnson thundered. "There is no constitutional issue here. The command of the Constitution is plain." The speech stirred the country, moved the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to tears and secured this essential law's passage.

Donna Brazile
Donna Brazile

Today, if President Barack Obama wants to save the Voting Rights Act following Tuesday's shameful Supreme Court ruling, then he faces an even bigger challenge than Johnson did: He's got to convince a much more hostile Congress that the act is worth saving.

Hanging in the balance is the very foundation of American civil rights law. On Tuesday, nearly 50 years after Johnson's historic speech, the five conservative members of the Supreme Court eviscerated the Voting Rights Act in a single stroke. Why? According to the majority opinion, apparently it's because the discriminatory anti-voter rules the act prohibits aren't as much of a problem as they were before the law was passed.

If you're trying to think up a way to illustrate how completely nuts that is, don't worry, because Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg already put it best in her dissent. Striking down this essential part of the act, Ginsburg wrote, "is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."

Opinion: How segregation got busted

High court halts key civil rights law
Law professor on voting rights decision
Analysis: America's Voting Rights Act

Of course, Johnson was right in 1965, and he's just as right today. These protections are vital and necessary. There is no right more sacrosanct to the very foundations of our nation than the right to vote, and threats to equal voting loom every time we turn a blind eye. Constant vigilance is required to safeguard it, and for half a century the Voting Rights Act was a watchful guardian. But now that Section 5's "pre-clearance" formula has been made irrelevant, it falls to Congress to fix it.

Don't expect the conservative-controlled House of Representatives to jump at the chance though. Just last year, during the 2012 election cycle, Republican elected officials in states across the country pushed deeply hostile voter ID laws that disproportionately limit minority voters. Sometimes, the Republicans were even explicit that the purpose of these laws was to put victories in the "R" column. And all that took place with a full and complete Voting Rights Act still on the books.

Veterans of forgotten voting war count the cost

Now it's up to Obama to make a new case for a new Voting Rights Act. Of course, there's nothing partisan about equality in the ballot box. The act's great virtue is that it barred discrimination no matter which way it was directed. It was an equal opportunity shield from injustice -- protecting you no matter who you voted for or what you looked like.

It is a crying shame that the Supreme Court left a key part of Johnson's legacy in tatters. But today, Obama -- and every fair-minded American -- should look to the spirit of Johnson and King and pass a new Voting Rights Act that will stand the test of time. We can't wait. Election Day is just around the corner.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Donna Brazile.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
October 5, 2013 -- Updated 1609 GMT (0009 HKT)
Ten views on the shutdown, from contributors to CNN Opinion
October 5, 2013 -- Updated 1546 GMT (2346 HKT)
Peggy Drexler says Sinead O'Connor makes good points in her letter to Miley Cyrus, but the manner of delivery matters
October 4, 2013 -- Updated 1956 GMT (0356 HKT)
Sen. Rand Paul says there's no excuse for President Barack Obama to reject any and every attempt at compromise.
October 7, 2013 -- Updated 0406 GMT (1206 HKT)
Amy Stewart says the destruction of hornets' habitats sends them into cities and towns in their search for food
October 4, 2013 -- Updated 2331 GMT (0731 HKT)
John Sutter asks: When will homophobia in the United States start seeming so ridiculous it's laughable?
October 5, 2013 -- Updated 0853 GMT (1653 HKT)
Maurizio Albahari says the Mediterranean chronicle of death cannot end merely as a result of tougher penalties on smugglers, additional resources for search-and-rescue operations, and heightened military surveillance
October 4, 2013 -- Updated 2106 GMT (0506 HKT)
Richard Weinblatt says cops followed a standard of "objective reasonableness" in their split-second reaction to a serious threat, when a woman rammed police barricades near the White House.
October 4, 2013 -- Updated 1130 GMT (1930 HKT)
Ted Galen Carpenter says change of policy should begin with the comprehensive legalization of marijuana.
October 5, 2013 -- Updated 2031 GMT (0431 HKT)
Amardeep Singh: Victims of hate crimes and those convicted of them should work to overcome fear of one another.
October 4, 2013 -- Updated 1044 GMT (1844 HKT)
Meg Urry says a two-week government shutdown could waste $3 million, $5 million, even $8 million of taxpayer investment.
October 3, 2013 -- Updated 1332 GMT (2132 HKT)
Frida Ghitis: Most of the world is mystified by the most powerful country tangled in a web of its own making.
October 3, 2013 -- Updated 1346 GMT (2146 HKT)
Ellen Fitzpatrick and Theda Skocpol say the shutdown is a nearly unprecedented example of a small group using extremist tactics to try to prevent a valid law from taking effect.
October 4, 2013 -- Updated 1911 GMT (0311 HKT)
Danny Cevallos asks, in a potential trial in the driver assault case that pits a young man in a noisy biker rally against a dad in an SUV, can bias be overcome?
October 3, 2013 -- Updated 1410 GMT (2210 HKT)
Ben Cohen and Betty Ahrens say in McCutcheon v. FEC, Supreme Court should keep to the current limit in individual political donation
October 2, 2013 -- Updated 1616 GMT (0016 HKT)
Dean Obeidallah says if you are one of the 10% who think Congress is doing a good job, people in your family need to stage an immediate intervention.
October 2, 2013 -- Updated 1452 GMT (2252 HKT)
Let the two parties fight, but if government isn't providing services, Bob Greene asks, shouldn't taxpayers get a refund?
October 2, 2013 -- Updated 1658 GMT (0058 HKT)
Kevin Sabet says legalization in the U.S. would sweep the causes of drug use under the rug.
September 25, 2013 -- Updated 1359 GMT (2159 HKT)
James Moore says it is time for America to move on to a new generation of leaders.
ADVERTISEMENT