Advanced Level February 2014 PF Brief

Foundation Briefs
Advanced Level February Brief

Resolved: The Supreme Court rightly decided that
Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violated the
Constitution.
February 2014 Table of Contents

foundationbriefs.com Page 1 of 178
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Definitions............................................................................................................................................................. 12
Voting Rights Act Section 4, as summarized by USDOJ, DAT ............................................................... 12
History................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Summary of Section 4 and Supreme Court Opinion AMS ....................................................................... 13
Section 5 Explanation AMS...................................................................................................................... 13
Impacts of Section 4 and Court Decision DAT ........................................................................................ 14
Full summary of the Voting Rights Act, as renewed in 2006 DAT ......................................................... 15
Enforcement of the VRA since 1982 DAT ............................................................................................... 16
2006 retooling of section 5 DAT .............................................................................................................. 17
Topic Analysis One............................................................................................................................................... 18
Topic Analysis Two .............................................................................................................................................. 20
Topic Analysis Three ............................................................................................................................................ 22
Defend Your Source ............................................................................................................................................. 25
Washington Post ........................................................................................................................................... 29
Pro Evidence ......................................................................................................................................................... 30
Section Four is no Longer Needed ................................................................................................................... 31
Section 4 is based on outdated data, Fj ..................................................................................................... 31
Changes since 1965 AMS ......................................................................................................................... 31
Section 4 has no more work left to do, Fj ................................................................................................. 32
Further statistics on Section 4s obsolescence DAT ................................................................................. 32
Minority groups exclusively account for gains in voter numbers, DAT .................................................. 33
Electoral Body more Diverse than ever AMS .......................................................................................... 33
Blacks currently vote more actively than whites DAT ............................................................................. 34
Black Voter Participation Growing AMS ................................................................................................. 34
Minority voter turnout actually exceeds white voter turnout. JCD .......................................................... 35
There are potential ways to stop infringements of voting rights without Section 4. JCD ........................ 35

Decision Upholds States Rights ...................................................................................................................... 36
Victory for States Rights AMS ................................................................................................................ 36
Voting Rights Act Hurt States Rights AMS ............................................................................................ 37
States Now Free to Exercise Sovereignty AMS ....................................................................................... 37
Section 4 overruled conventions of precedent that typically guided states in making decisions DAT .... 38
The decision rightly follows the precedent set in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board DAT ..... 38
The pre-clearance provision is a violation of federalism. JCD ................................................................. 39
The Supreme Court Decision was not Extreme ................................................................................................ 40
Congress can still set preclearance requirements, Fj ................................................................................ 40
Individuals can still sue the state, Fj ......................................................................................................... 40
The Attorney General can still sue the state under Section 2 and Section 3, Fj ....................................... 40
Congress can potentially still deem all the same counties as requiring preclearance DAT ..................... 41
Preclearance Requirements Cost Money .......................................................................................................... 42
Supreme Court decision saves money, Fj ................................................................................................. 42
The enforcement of Section 5 caused an unjust and unnecessary amount of additional federal
bureaucracy. JCD ...................................................................................................................................... 42
Change to Coverage Formula was and is Necessary ........................................................................................ 43
Discriminatory Laws Exist Outside of Congress Un-updated Coverage Formula AMS ........................ 43
Loopholes Have Allowed Discrimination AMS ....................................................................................... 43
40 years have brought drastic changes to states that were formerly covered by Section 4 DAT ............. 44
The law was based on outdated voter turnout stats. JCD ......................................................................... 44
The coverage formula is outdated. JCD .................................................................................................... 44
The changes are not meant to be permanent. JCD .................................................................................... 45
Majority of Americans are unlikely to support a new list of covered jurisdictions. JCD......................... 45
Current reports on discrimination were not comparable to previous levels in the listed jurisdictions. JCD
................................................................................................................................................................... 45
Voter turnout in all 50 states has improved well above the targeted rate. JCD ........................................ 46
Voter turnout in Mississippi was the highest in the nation. JCD .............................................................. 46
The enforcement of the VRA gave minorities a false sense of security which has caused self-
segregation. JCD ....................................................................................................................................... 46

The enforcement of this section of the VRA hurt black candidates viability in large-scale political
scenes. JCD ............................................................................................................................................... 47
The conditions that required the additional protections are no longer present. JCD ................................ 47
An updated voting rights act needs to include a separate federal ballot. JCD .......................................... 48
An updated voting rights act needs to include a new voter registration regime. JCD .............................. 48
An updated voting rights act needs to include a Weekend Election Day. JCD ........................................ 48
An updated voting rights act needs to include a Social Security card as a valid voter ID. JCD .............. 49
Section 5 of the VRA was intended to be short term. JCD....................................................................... 49
Section 5 of the VRA has overextended its coverage to several other states. JCD .................................. 49
When renewing the VRA in 2006, Congress failed to consider other jurisdictions not included in the
VRA. JCD ................................................................................................................................................. 50
The outdated data misrepresents minority groups current representation in government. JCD.............. 50
Some jurisdictions previously cover by Section 4(b) had little to no evidence supporting its presence on
the list to be precleared. JCD .................................................................................................................... 51
Voter ID Laws are Necessary ........................................................................................................................... 52
Voter fraud does happen in Texas, Fj ....................................................................................................... 52
Voter fraud occurs nationwide, Fj ............................................................................................................ 52
The VRA Is Effective Without Section 4 ......................................................................................................... 53
VRA violations can still be interdicted, making overbearing voter ID law fears overblown DAT ......... 53
Preclearance currently is nearly a non-factor in stopping discriminatory policies DAT .......................... 54
Section 3 replicates section 4 without taking a guilty until proven innocent mindset DAT ................. 55
Most of the VRAs 21
st
century enforcement has largely concerned its language provisions DAT ........ 56
Preclearance was largely redundant with VRA section 2 DAT ................................................................ 57
Section 5 Allowed for the Unjust Regulation of Political Parties .................................................................... 58
The first amendment prohibits the regulation of political parties. JCD .................................................... 58
Section 5 allowed for the unjust regulation of political parties. JCD ....................................................... 58
Section 5 is contrary to the courts precedence to protect political parties. JCD ....................................... 59
Section 5 was used to interfere with internal affairs of political parties. JCD .......................................... 59
Recent cases have established judicial precedence to protect the rights of political parties. JCD ........... 60

This intrusion of the internal processes of political parties is an unprecedented overreach of government
power. JCD ............................................................................................................................................... 60
Allowing Section 5 to remain in practice set up a dangerous legal precedence that threatened federalism.
JCD ........................................................................................................................................................... 61
Con Evidence ........................................................................................................................................................ 62
The Supreme Courts decision wrongly overrides Congress ............................................................................ 63
The Supreme Court essentially struck down the law, Fj .......................................................................... 63
Congress repeatedly reauthorized the law, Fj ........................................................................................... 63
Congress is the appropriate body to make this decision, Fj ...................................................................... 64
Justice Ginsburg Argues in Favor of Congress AMS ............................................................................... 64
Court Should Defer to Congress AMS ..................................................................................................... 65
Supreme Court out of Bounds with Decision AMS.................................................................................. 66
Solely Congress Responsibility AMS ..................................................................................................... 67
Congressional Authority Overstepped AMS ............................................................................................ 67
The Supreme Court incorrectly decided on an issue of pragmatism DAT ............................................... 68
The Supreme Court ignored congruency, which should have been the judgment criterion DAT ............ 69
Congress had already specifically and almost unanimously ratified Section 4 criteria DAT .................. 70
The Supreme Court broke precedent and left Congress in limbo in the process DAT ............................. 71
Striking down this law will create Congressional gridlock. JCD ............................................................. 72
Preclearance Requirements are necessary ........................................................................................................ 73
History shows that no other remedies work, Fj ........................................................................................ 73
Section 4 has recently prevented discrimination, Fj ................................................................................. 74
Section 4 Still Relevant AMS ................................................................................................................... 74
Lewis Laments Decision AMS ................................................................................................................. 75
Key Officials Voice Out Against Decision AMS ..................................................................................... 75
Preclearance prevents backsliding, Fj ....................................................................................................... 76
Ethnic gerrymandering is still an issue and requires Section 5 as active prevention DAT ...................... 76
The 2006 reauthorization of preclearance is supported by ongoing discriminatory trends DAT ............. 76
Problems the VRA addressed consistently persist in some districts DAT ............................................... 77
Preclearance precludes the need for, and volume of, suits against laws DAT ......................................... 78

Political polarization among different ethnic groups require the need for increased protections. JCD ... 78
Discriminatory methods are still employed in these jurisdictions. JCD ................................................... 79
Texas has attempted discriminatory practices under the Voter Rights Act in recent history. JCD .......... 79
Georgia has attempted discriminatory practices under the Voter Rights Act in recent history. JCD....... 79
Mississippi has attempted discriminatory practices under the Voter Rights Act in recent history. JCD . 80
Arizona has attempted discriminatory practices under the Voter Rights Act in recent history. JCD....... 80
Safeguards to local elections have been removed. JCD ........................................................................... 80
Underrepresentation in state legislatures will become an even bigger problem. JCD .............................. 81
Direct oversight on election day has been removed allowing for corruption to occur. JCD .................... 81
Section 5 is a necessary alternative to costly, time-intensive litigation. JCD ........................................... 82
During the 2012 elections, a large number of discriminatory practices were passed. JCD ...................... 82
Discrimination is still a serious, but more subtle, problem. JCD ............................................................. 83
In 2013, numerous attempts by state legislatures would have passed with Section 4 in place. JCD ....... 83
Racial discrimination is also being used as a tool to give the Republicans more influence. JCD ............ 84
Section 5 was responsible for preventing discrimination before the 2012 election. JCD ........................ 84
Section 5 of the VRA has been responsible for fixing rights violations of Latinos as well in recent
history. JCD .............................................................................................................................................. 84
Section 4 served as a necessary deterrent measure against discriminatory policies. JCD ........................ 85
Section 4 is necessary for Congress to fulfill its duties outlined in the Constitution. JCD ...................... 85
Section 5 is necessary to stop abuse at the local level. JCD ..................................................................... 85
Section 5 of the VRA is necessary to help uphold democratic ideals. JCD ............................................. 85
Supreme Court Ruling allows for Voter ID laws ............................................................................................. 86
The connection between Section 4 and voter ID laws, AMS ................................................................... 86
Abusive North Carolina Changes AMS .................................................................................................... 86
Abusive Texas Changes AMS .................................................................................................................. 87
Abusive Florida ID Laws AMS ................................................................................................................ 87
Abusive Virginia Voting Law Changes AMS .......................................................................................... 88
South Carolina and Mississippi Voting Law Changes AMS .................................................................... 88
Alabama, Arizona, South Dakota Voting Law Changes AMS ................................................................. 89
Voter ID Laws are unfair .................................................................................................................................. 90

The Texas voter ID law targets minorities, Fj .......................................................................................... 90
The North Carolina voter ID law makes voting harder, Fj ....................................................................... 91
Some voters turned away, Fj ..................................................................................................................... 91
Voter ID laws create more confusing government bureaucracy, Fj ......................................................... 92
Voter ID laws have huge loopholes, Fj ..................................................................................................... 92
Citizens Without Proof methodology, Fj .................................................................................................. 93
Citizenship documentation is not easy to access, Fj ................................................................................. 93
Poorer citizens are less likely to have documentation of their citizenship, Fj .......................................... 94
Citizenship documentation is often inaccurate, Fj .................................................................................... 94
Photo ID is not easy to access, Fj ............................................................................................................. 94
Elderly citizens are less likely to have Photo IDs, Fj ............................................................................... 94
Minority citizens are less likely to have Photo IDs, Fj ............................................................................. 95
Poorer citizens are less likely to have Photo IDs, Fj................................................................................. 95
How Voting Laws Hurt Minorities AMS ................................................................................................. 95
Photo IDs are often inaccurate, Fj ............................................................................................................. 96
Drivers Licenses are not a reliable form of photo ID, Fj .......................................................................... 96
A noticeable percentage of citizens lack identification, Fj ....................................................................... 96
There is a correlation between having voter IDs and voting, Fj ............................................................... 97
Voter ID Laws Hurt Minorities AMS ....................................................................................................... 97
Voting Inequality in America AMS .......................................................................................................... 98
Voter ID laws institutionalize racial, geographic, and income discrimination DAT ................................ 99
Voter ID Laws Discourage Voters AMS ................................................................................................ 100
Voter ID Laws in Kansas AMS .............................................................................................................. 100
Women Disenfranchised with Voter ID laws AMS ............................................................................... 101
In Texas ID Laws Cause Political Conflict AMS ................................................................................... 102
Voter ID Laws Disenfranchise Elderly Voters AMS ............................................................................. 102
Mississippis voter ID system puts those without preexisting ID in an inescapable bind DAT ............. 103
Political Bias in Voter ID Laws AMS .................................................................................................... 103
Voter ID Laws Hurt Minorities AMS ..................................................................................................... 104

Voter ID Laws are unnecessary ...................................................................................................................... 105
Voter Fraud is extremely rare, Fj ............................................................................................................ 105
Voter Fraud Not a Risk AMS ................................................................................................................. 105
Voter ID Laws will not prevent voter fraud, Fj ...................................................................................... 106
Voter ID laws ignore the basic solution to fraud DAT ........................................................................... 107
Redistricting is harmful .................................................................................................................................. 108
Gerrymandering distorts democracy on a federal level, Fj ..................................................................... 108
Bill Does not Go far Enough .......................................................................................................................... 109
Justice Thomas argues majority opinion does not go far enough. AMS ................................................ 109
Congress weakened the constitutionality of section 5 in its 2006 revision DAT ................................... 110
Section 4 Still Necessary ................................................................................................................................ 111
Justice Ginsburg Argues Section 4 Necessary AMS .............................................................................. 111
Bill Will Have Immediate Negative Consequences AMS ...................................................................... 112
President Obama Goes Against Court Decision AMS ........................................................................... 112
Decision Renders VRA Useless AMS .................................................................................................... 113
Expected Implications of Court Decision AMS ..................................................................................... 113
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro calls Decision Unconstitutional AMS ................................................. 114
Modern implementation of section 5 shapes policy in the South DAT .................................................. 115
Section 4 counties are still liabilities in a modern context DAT ............................................................ 116
Section 2 litigation is a less viable alternative to preclearance than ever DAT ...................................... 117
A mere six years ago the new coverage plan received little to no dissent. JCD ..................................... 118
Revisions are Inadequate ................................................................................................................................ 119
Voting Discrimination Falls through Cracks under Revised VRA AMS ............................................... 119
Counties recalcitrance against section 5 indicates things will be far worse without it DAT ................ 120
Southern states need more scrutiny than ever DAT ................................................................................ 121
A new coverage act is unlikely to be passed. JCD ................................................................................. 121
Pro Counters........................................................................................................................................................ 122
Discriminatory Voting Rules Still Not Allowed ............................................................................................. 123
Court Decision Does not Overturn Voting Rights Acts Ban on Discriminatory Voting Rules AMS ... 123

Voting Rights will Still be Enforced AMS ............................................................................................. 123
Tepid enforcement of VRA section 2 has overblown the perceived need for section 4, DAT .............. 124
Unlikely to cause a massive response in voting laws. JCD .................................................................... 125
Voter ID laws are not discriminatory ............................................................................................................. 126
Voter ID Laws are nothing new, Fj ........................................................................................................ 126
No evidence of voter suppression, FJ ..................................................................................................... 126
The Citizens Without Proof study is flawed, Fj ...................................................................................... 127
The Citizens Without Proof study uses misleading survey questions, Fj ............................................... 128
The Citizens Without Proof studys respondents were confused, Fj ...................................................... 128
The Citizens Without Proof study does not have statistically significant results, Fj .............................. 129
The Citizens Without Proof study does not explain its methodology, Fj ............................................... 129
The Citizens Without Proof study ignores how easy it is to obtain photo ID, Fj ................................... 129
The Citizens Without Proof study is wrong, Fj ...................................................................................... 130
Access to IDs is Equal AMS ................................................................................................................... 131
Voter ID Laws Have Been Determined Legal and Fair .............................................................................. 132
The Supreme Court ruled on section 4 having already ruled voter ID laws constitutional DAT ........... 132
Voter ID laws (including photo ID) are already in wide use aside from section 4 regions DAT........... 133
New Coverage Formula will be Determined .................................................................................................. 134
Other Methods of Determining a Coverage Formula Exist AMS .......................................................... 134
Congressional Support for Creating a New Formula AMS .................................................................... 135
Republican Support AMS ....................................................................................................................... 136
Likely Republican Support for VRA AMS ............................................................................................ 137
Other Methods of Preventing Voter Discrimination ....................................................................................... 138
Transparency is Key AMS ...................................................................................................................... 138
Section 2 of the VRA provides more than enough protection in this day and age. JCD ........................ 138
Decision Rightly Responds to Laws Abuses ................................................................................................. 139
VRA was Abused in Arizona AMS ........................................................................................................ 139
Section 2 of the VRA will continue to protect voter rights regardless of the preclearance provision. JCD
................................................................................................................................................................. 139
The Department of Justice corruptly and overzealously applied section 5 DAT ................................... 140

Response to Congressional Intent Argument .................................................................................................. 141
The 2006 VRA reauthorization had flawed criteria in section 4 of which Congress was aware DAT .. 141
Congress essentially has a decade to rewrite section 4 DAT.................................................................. 142
Impacts of the Decision Should Not Be Considered ...................................................................................... 143
The Court was correct in not taking into account effects on individuals DAT ...................................... 143
Con Counters ...................................................................................................................................................... 144
Ruling makes it harder to prosecute discriminatory laws ............................................................................... 145
Burden of proof has shifted to the Attorney General, Fj ........................................................................ 145
Discriminatory laws are left either unchallenged or to face challenges only after elections DAT ........ 145
New Congressional action unlikely ................................................................................................................ 146
Attorney General alienated Republicans, Fj ........................................................................................... 146
Congress is gridlocked, Fj....................................................................................................................... 146
Voter Fraud is virtually non-existent .............................................................................................................. 147
Republican National Lawyers Association evidence is flawed, Fj ......................................................... 147
Both public perception and legislative reaction to voter fraud is overbearing DAT .............................. 148
Equal Sovereignty not applicable to Section 4 ............................................................................................... 149
Equal sovereignty only applies to when states enter the Union, Fj ........................................................ 149
Response to State Rights Defense .................................................................................................................. 150
Argument that Section 4 Hurt States Rights is Invalid AMS ................................................................ 150
The Fifteenth Amendments intent discards states rights in discriminatory voting cases DAT ........... 151
The reach of Section 5 was already adequately checked. JCD ............................................................... 151
Judicial precedence had already been established limiting Section 5s interpretation. JCD .................. 152
Section 5 of the VRA is directly supported by Section 5 of the 14
th
amendment itself. JCD ................ 152
Both the 14
th
Amendment and Section 5 of the VRA are supported by Article IV of the Constitution
itself. JCD ............................................................................................................................................... 153
State rights do not supercede the rights of its citizens. JCD ................................................................... 153
Unwritten state-equality principles should not stand in the way of justice. JCD ................................... 154
Section 2 of the 15
th
amendment supports the continuation of Section 5 of the VRA. JCD .................. 154
The 15
th
amendment already has limits built in to prevent Congressional abuses. JCD ........................ 155

Support for the ratification for the 26
th
Amendment shows that American support for Congressional
oversight has now shifted over the past 150 years. JCD......................................................................... 155
There is No Adequate Substitute for Preclearance ......................................................................................... 156
The Department of Justice lacks VRA enforcement power under section 2 DAT ................................. 156
Section 2 cannot prevent abuses the way preclearance does DAT ......................................................... 157
The VRA is less speedy, cost-efficient, and effective without preclearance DAT ................................. 158
Section 3 bail-ins cannot match section 4s ease or comprehensiveness DAT ...................................... 159
Litigation is an inadequate preventative measure to discriminatory measures. JCD ............................. 159
State courts in Michigan are insufficient to protect voters rights at the local level. JCD ..................... 160
State courts in North Carolina are insufficient to protect voters rights at the local level. JCD ............. 161
State courts in Florida are insufficient to protect voters rights at the local level. JCD ......................... 161
State courts in Ohio are insufficient to protect voters rights at the local level. JCD ............................. 162
Voter IDs Laws are discriminatory ................................................................................................................. 163
Inadequate operational hours disproportionately occur in minority-heavy regions DAT ...................... 164
Access is hampered by distance, hours, and misinformation across section 4 states DAT .................... 165
Fewer than 1 in 7 Have IDs in Pennsylvania AMS ................................................................................ 166
Free voter IDs have hidden financial costs which impact women and the poor DAT ........................... 166
Many Minorities Lack IDs AMS ............................................................................................................ 167
The Citizens Without Proof study is unbiased and statistically significant, Fj ...................................... 167
The Citizens Without Proof study is mostly limited to U.S. citizens, Fj ................................................ 168
The Citizens Without Proof study is not flawed, Fj................................................................................ 168
The Citizens Without Proof study correctly uses Census data ............................................................... 169
The Citizens Without Proof study uses unbiased survey questions, Fj .................................................. 169
The Citizens Without Proof studys respondents confusion is unbiased, Fj ......................................... 170
The Citizens Without Proof study does not explain its methodology, Fj ............................................... 170
The Citizens Without Proof study does not ignore how easy it is to obtain photo ID, Fj ...................... 171
Contrary to Von Spakovsky, Photo IDs are not plentiful in Ohio, Fj ................................................... 171
The studies cited by Von Spakovsky and Ingram are flawed, Fj............................................................ 172
Preclearance States Have Not Reformed ........................................................................................................ 173
Systematic continued attempts at discrimination abound in states covered by section 4 DAT .............. 173

Contentions ......................................................................................................................................................... 174
Pro Case .......................................................................................................................................................... 175
Introduction: ................................................................................................................................................ 175
Contention One: The ruling does not weaken the VRA ............................................................................. 175
Contention Two: The ruling puts states on rightfully even ground. ........................................................... 175
Contention Three: The ruling upholds a central tenet of Western justice .................................................. 176
Con Case ......................................................................................................................................................... 177
Introduction: ................................................................................................................................................ 177
Contention One: History shows that the need for a preclearance ............................................................... 177
Contention Two: There is a current need for a preclearance ...................................................................... 177
Contention Three: This was not the Supreme Courts decision to make .................................................... 178
February 2014 Definitions

Definitions
Voting Rights Act Section 4, as summarized by USDOJ , DAT
Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice.gov. United States Department of Justice.
n.d. Web. http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/misc/sec_4.php#sec4
When Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it determined that racial discrimination in voting had
been more prevalent in certain areas of the country. Section 4(a) of the Act established a formula to identify
those areas and to provide for more stringent remedies where appropriate. The first of these targeted remedies
was a five-year suspension of "a test or device," such as a literacy test as a prerequisite to register to vote. The
second was the requirement for review, under Section 5, of any change affecting voting made by a covered area
either by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or by the Attorney General. The third was
the ability of the Attorney General to certify that specified jurisdictions also required the appointment of federal
examiners. These examiners would prepare and forward lists of persons qualified to vote. The final remedy
under the special provisions is the authority of the Attorney General to sendfederal observers to those
jurisdictions that have been certified for federal examiners.
Section 4 also contains several other provisions, such as Section 4(e) and Section 4(f), that guarantee the right to
register and vote to those with limited English proficiency. Section 4(e) provides that the right to register and
vote may not be denied to those individuals who have completed the sixth grade in a public school, such as
those in Puerto Rico, where the predominant classroom language is a language other than English. In Section
4(f), the Act addresses the ability of those persons who are members of language minority groups identified in
Section 4(f)(2), to register and vote as well as to get information relating to the electoral process in a manner
that will ensure their meaningful participation in the electoral process. The Department has embarked on a
vigorous program to enforce the Act's language minority provisions.
The resolution more specifically targets section 4(a), questioning the formula used to decide whether
counties/states have a discriminatory history. Because these areas can no longer be verified due to the
SCOTUS ruling, Section 5 (the federal enforcement component of the bill) has no power until Section 4 is
remade using contemporaneous data.

February 2014 History

History
Summary of Section 4 and Supreme Court Opinion AMS
Schwartz, John. Between the Lines of the Voting Rights Act Opinion. June 25, 2013.
New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/25/us/annotated-
supreme-court-decision-on-voting-rights-act.html
The decision in Shelby County v. Holder revolves around Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which
establishes a "coverage formula" to determine which states and local governments fall under Section 5,
and therefore need to get approval before changing their voting laws. The justices ruled that Section 4 is
unconstitutional, and that the formula used for decades revised and extended several times by Congress
can no longer be used to establish those "preclearance" requirements: "The conditions that originally justified
these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions."
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who has previously expressed skepticism about the continued need for
parts of the Voting Rights Act, delivered the majority opinion. In the 5-to-4 ruling, he was joined by
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito. Justice Thomas
wrote a concurring opinion, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent, joined by Justices Stephen G.
Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
This piece summarizes the supreme courts decision on Section 4 of the Voting Rights Acta brief
refresher which both sides should present to their judges to clarify the resolution.

Section 5 Explanation AMS
Kara Brandeisky and Mike Tigas. Everything thats Happened since Supreme Court
Ruled on Voting Rights Act. Propublica. June 2013.
http://www.propublica.org/article/voting-rights-by-state-map
Under the Voting Rights Act, states and localities with a history of racial discrimination needed to get
permission from the federal government to enact any changes to their voting laws, in a process called
preclearance. As of June 2013, nine states, mostly in the South Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia,
Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia needed to get any new voting laws pre-approved.
Some counties and townships in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota and Michigan
were also subject to preclearance.

Section 5 first applied to states that imposed literacy tests or other unfair devices, and had low voter
registration or turnout. Congress later expanded the law to add jurisdictions with sizable minority
populations and English-only election materials.
States and localities could bailout, or get off the preclearance list, after 10 years of elections without any
problems. Several smaller jurisdictions bailed out over the years, including parts of Connecticut, Idaho, Maine,
Massachusetts, Wyoming, Hawaii, and Colorado.
Of course, some of the biggest voting law battles of the 2012 election were in states not covered by Section 5 at
all, such as Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Impacts of Section 4 and Court Decision DAT
Equality, Debated. The Economist. 29 June 2013. Web.
Section 4 sets out the formula for which jurisdictions are covered: any that once used a test or device to bar
blacks (and other minorities) from voting, and had either a voter-turnout rate below 50% in the 1964
presidential election or less than 50% of its voters registered on November 1st 1964. The formula was last
updated in 1975.
In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court found the coverage formula in Section 4 to be unconstitutional in light of
current conditions. It did not strike down Section 5. Instead, it said that Congress may draft another formula
based on current conditions. That could be hard. The current Congress could barely pass a resolution
stating that two plus two equals four.
After the ruling Texas Republicans said they would press ahead with a voter-ID law. Similar moves are
likely in North Carolina and Mississippi. Republicans say voter-ID laws are necessary to reduce fraud at the
polls. Democrats retort that they are intended to suppress minority turnout, since poorer Americans are less
likely to have driving licences or other photo ID.


Full summary of the Voting Rights Act, as renewed in 2006 DAT
Senate Report 109-295. United States Congress. Library of Congress. 26 July 2006.
Web. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/cpquery/?&r_n=sr295.109&dbname=cp109&sel=DOC&
Section 1, as amended, provides that the Act may be cited as the `Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott
King, and Cesar E. Chavez Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.'
Section 2 explains that the `purpose of this Act is to ensure that the right of all citizens to vote, including the
right to register to vote and cast meaningful votes, is preserved and protected as guaranteed by the Constitution.'
Section 2 sets forth the Senate's findings that `[s]ignificant progress has been made,' but `vestiges of
discrimination in voting continue to exist.'
Section 3 eliminates the provisions for federal election examiners, who, in the past, were used to ensure that
voters were not excluded from voter registration lists. These examiners have not been used for that purpose in
over 20 years. Section 3 also eliminates the provisions for terminating federal examiner certifications. In the
remaining provisions of the Act, all references to federal examiners have been replaced with references to
federal observers.
Section 3 also alters one of the standards for certifying jurisdictions for federal observer coverage. Currently,
the Attorney General may appoint federal observers to monitor polling places in covered jurisdictions if the
Attorney General has received written complaints from at least twenty residents who have been denied the right
to vote by the government. Section 3 amends the Voting Rights Act to allow the Attorney General to do so
provided that at least two `residents, elected officials, or civic participation organizations' have
complained in writing that voting rights violations `are likely to occur.'
Section 4 provides for a 25-year renewal of the coverage formula stated in section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of
1965. It also requires Congress to reconsider these provisions in 15 years.
Section 5 responds to, in part, two Supreme Court decisions that interpreted the criteria for preclearance of
voting changes under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, 528
U.S. 320 (2000) (Bossier Parish II), and Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003).
Section 6 amends the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to allow certain prevailing plaintiffs to collect `reasonable
expert fees, and other reasonable litigation expenses.'
Section 7 extends the requirements of section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 through 2032.
Section 8 allows use of American Community Survey census data under the Act.
While sections 4 and 5 were gutted by the Supreme Courts ruling in the Shelby case, section 3 still had
the teeth to enforce a semblance of preclearance on discriminatory districts.


Enforcement of the VRA since 1982 DAT
Voting Rights Act: Evidence of Continued Need. Subcommittee on the Constitution.
House.gov. 8 March 2006. Web.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju26411.000/hju26411_0f.htm
Regarding section 5 enforcement since 1982, which is the last time the Congress has acted, the District Court of
the District of Columbia and the Justice Department together have declined to preclear over 1,100 voting
changes contained in more than 650 section 5 submissions since 1982. In addition, as a result of the
correspondence between the Justice Department and jurisdictions after submission, jurisdictions have
withdrawn 200 submissions. These withdrawals have the same functional effect as an objection blocking
a suspect voting change.
In addition, the act allows either the Justice Department or private citizens to bring section 5 enforcement
actions to force officials to submit changes they have refused to submit. Our research shows that there have
been a substantial number since 1982, numbering 105, in eight of the nine totally covered States plus North
Carolina.
The Department of Justice has also sent observers to monitor elections in more than 600 jurisdictions since
1982. Two-thirds of all post-1982 observer coverages occurred in five States covered entirely by section
5Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and South Carolina. Between 300 and 600 observers were
sent out each year between 1984 and the year 2000.
Regarding language minorities, we note that there remains an enormous gap in political participation.
According to the Census, in the 2000 election, 45 percent of Hispanic voting age citizens and 43 percent of
Asian voting age citizens participated, as compared to 62 percent of non-Hispanic voting age citizens, and the
number for African-Americans is 58 percent.


2006 retooling of section 5 DAT
Whitaker, L. Paige. Congressional Redistricting and the Voting RIghts Act: A Legal
Overview. Congressional Research Service. 30 August 2013. Web.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42482.pdf
Congress also amended Section 5 of the VRA in 2006 with the intent of expanding the definition of purpose.
Specifically, the law was changed to provide that [t]he term purpose ... shall include any discriminatory
purpose. The legislative history indicates that this amendment was made in response to the 2000 decision in
Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board (Bossier Parish II) where the Supreme Court found that 5 does not
prohibit preclearance of a redistricting plan enacted with a discriminatory but nonretrogressive purpose. A
Senate report accompanying the legislation to amend Section 5 observed that under the standard articulated in
Bossier Parish II, preclearance could be granted to redistricting plans enacted with a discriminatory
purpose, so long as the purpose was only to perpetuate unconstitutional circumstances, and not to make
them worse.
According to the Senate report,
The Supreme Courts decision in Bossier Parish II has created a strange loophole in the law: it is
possible that the Justice Department or federal court could be required to approve an
unconstitutional voting practice ... [and the] federal government should not be giving its seal of
approval to practices that violate the Constitution. Under this amendment, which forbids voting
changes motivated by any discriminatory purpose, it will not do so.
Congress essentially made preclearance a more stringent affair in 2006, whereas the previous six years
had seen a loophole allowing discriminatory laws to be continued so long as they were not made more
discriminatory. Starting in 2006, districts under section 4s jurisdiction no longer had this loophole.

February 2014 Topic Analysis

Topic Analysis One
Februarys resolution, Resolved: The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act
violated the constitution, is fairly straightforward in terms of wording. The issues it surrounds, however, are
anything but simple. The resolution is based on last summers Shelby County v. Holder decision and requires
teams to evaluate the intricacies of constitutional law. Lets start with a brief explanation and history of the
Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Act (Sections 4 and 5)

Last year the Supreme Court made waves with Shelby County v. Holder, a decision which changed the Voting
Rights Act (VRA) in a crucial way. In a 5-to-4 split the Court ruled that Section 4 of the VRA, which
establishes a coverage formula to determine which states fall under Section 5, is unconstitutional. The VRA
required the states included in Section 4 to get approval before changing their voting laws.

The Voting Rights Act was developed in 1965 as a mechanism to prevent the disenfranchisement of minorities.
Section 4s coverage formula included all jurisdictions that once used a test or device to prevent minorities
from voting and either had a voter turnout rate below 50% in the 1964 presidential election or fewer than 50%
of its voters registered on November 1st of 1964.

While all 9 justices agreed on the importance of the VRA in 1965, the majority opinion delivered by Chief
Justice John G. Roberts expressed the need for a new coverage formula, since the current formula was last
updated nearly forty years ago, in 1975. The court did not strike down Section 5, but instead declared that
Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions.

This resolution comes down to two essential questions:

1. Did the Court violate the constitution with this decision?

This months resolution pits the Fifteenth Amendment (which prohibits federal and state governments from
denying a citizen the right to vote on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude) against
constitutional guarantees of equal states rights. Pro teams should argue that the decision struck down an
antiquated coverage formula and restored all states equal ability to change their own rules at the polls. Con
teams should focus on the Fifteenth Amendment itself, which clearly states that Congress shall have power to
enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Many judicial scholars see Shelby County v. Holder as
unconstitutional because it deprived Congress of its guaranteed power to enforce the VRA, stepping within an
area where Congress was clearly granted the sole power of regulation.

February 2014 Topic Analysis

2. Will the Supreme Courts decision cause the unjust disenfranchisement of U.S. citizens?

Although the resolution focuses on the constitutional basis for Shelby County v. Holder, this second question
will take up the majority of Februarys debates. The Supreme Courts request that Congress update the 1975
coverage formula seems reasonable enough, but many see this task as impossible for our notoriously gridlocked
congressmen and women. In the meantime, without a coverage formula, the VRA cannot prevent discriminatory
Voter ID laws and Texas, North Carolina, and Mississippi are already pressing ahead with new measures.
Although many see Shelby County v. Holder as a death sentence for Section 5 of the VRA, not everyone is
mourning. Several states declared the decision a victory for states rights. In particular the Attorney General of
South Carolina greeted the news enthusiastically, calling the decision ...a victory for all voters as all states can
now act equally without some having to ask for permission or being required to jump through the extraordinary
hoops demanded by federal bureaucracy." Pro teams should focus on the equal sovereignty granted by Shelby
County v. Holder.

Since Shelby County v. Holder allows states which were previously barred from discriminatory voting rules to
declare new voting regulations, many debates over this resolution will come down to voter ID laws. States like
Texas and Mississippi, which have already made steps towards new voter ID laws since the Supreme Courts
decision, argue that Voter ID laws are necessary to reduce and prevent voter fraud. On the other hand, many see
these laws as deliberately discriminatory because minority Americans are less likely to have the IDs demanded
by stricter voting regulations.

Con teams should focus on the ample evidence which shows that voter ID laws mostly affect poorer Americans.
Pro teams can counter evidence based on the allowance of voter ID laws by emphasizing other ways to cut
down on voter discrimination. For example, this brief provides evidence that under section 3 of the VRA judges
can order jurisdictions with discriminatory rules to be forcibly included in the preclearance requirement even
without a coverage formula.

Dont be daunted by the thick wording of the VRA. This brief has all the definitions, history, and unique
arguments you need to win your debates this February.

--Amanda Sopkin
February 2014 Topic Analysis Two

Topic Analysis Two
First FISA (remember November?), now Supreme. Another resolution, another big-name court to assess. This is
an important distinction from the standard PF resolution, in which you are tasked with deciding whether some
policy element is right; is the effect of a policy acceptable? Here, teams are asked to be the arbiter of both cause
(constitutionality, which allows a law to continue existing) and effect. This means an expanded approach. The
previous Topic Analysis already discussed both of these elements, with voter disenfranchisement being the
chief effect in play with the VRA. In understanding the Supreme Courts decision-making process and arguing
either for or against it, its helpful to step into their shoes.
The Supreme Court and voting rights: a recent history
Congress has been ruling on voting rights issues long before the Shelby County case. The Supreme Court
effectively crippled section 5 of the VRA, but its heartbeat continues; under section 3, plaintiffs can essentially
sue for states to continue facing preclearance on account of discriminatory voting practices. We may be seeing
another ruling dealing with section 5, particularly if Congress manages to rewrite section 4. At any rate, the
Supreme Courts history of ruling on voting rights can help elucidate their reasons this time around and
potentially provide arguments for both sides.
Vieth v. Jubelirer (2003)
Using 200 census data, the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state legislature redistrict the state in a way that
benefitted Republican candidates. Members of the Democratic Party sued based on the principle of one person,
one vote and the case hit the Supreme Court.
This case marked an instance in which the Court took no action on a voting rights issue; the case ended in a split
vote, with Justice Kennedy writing a concurrent opinion which served as a fifth vote for Jubelirer. In practice,
the court did not take interventional action; instead, Justice Scalia wrote that courts could not hear cases of
political gerrymandering.
League of Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2005)
The 2003 Texas redistricting plan used 2000 census data in reconstructing county boundaries in the state. It was
charge that in doing so (and diminishing minority blocs voting power), the state violated the Voting Rights
Acts section 2.
In a 5-4 ruling, the Court decided that the redistricting plan was constitutional but violated the VRA in one
district by denying its predominantly Latino citizen base from voting for its candidate of choice. This marks a
clear instance of the Supreme Court reaffirming section 2 of the VRA.
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2007)
In 2005, the state of Indian began mandating a state or federal photo idea for casting ballots. The Supreme
Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the state of Indiana, allowing the photo ID law to finish implementation. This ruling
followed a divided appellate panel ruling (chunks of the majority and dissenting opinions and subsequent

analysis is found throughout this brief). The Supreme Courts ruling was based on the equal protection clause It
was ruled that Indianas voter ID law was well-grounded on the interest of preventing voter fraud, and that
voters as a group had only a slight burden which did not outweigh the fraud interest.
Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion which took issue with the notion of a slight burden. In a more
activist mindset, Ginsburg contended that the burden was uneven and disproportionately (and unacceptably
high) for certain populations, making the law effectively discriminatory.
Northwest Austin Municipal v. Holder (2008)
In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that the VRA allows for any political subdivision to seek a
preclearance exemption. Their reasoning centered on section 4s language, which did not preclude subunits (e.g.
Northwest Municipal) from seeking bailouts from the VRAs preclearance clause. Their ancillary reasoning was
that Congress original intent was not for a bailout from exemption to be extremely difficult.
This decision is a background point that teams on the Con can work with; teams wishing to portray the Shelby
County decision as an overreach by the Court can paint a contrasting scene with this decision, in which the
Court weakened, in a sense, section 4 without directly attacking it.
Why it matters
This analysis is intend das a showcase of Supreme Court attitudes and reasoning on voting rights cases in the
past decade. Each of these cases had multiple opinions from different justices, all laying out their rationales for
their decisions. In familiarizing themselves with this resolution, teams will likely find it helpful to go over past
Supreme Court cases to get an idea of how to argue right with respect to a court decision. The above cases
demonstrate the Court taking stances from upholding VRA enforcement to weakening it to standing by
altogether, all of which present advocacies for teams to look into.
Many of these debates, as mentioned in the previous analysis, may come down to voter ID laws. And thats
fine. Voter ID laws are a big issue. As you will see throughout this brief, theres a lot to say about them and
their effects on the American status quo. This is also a good time to look into SCOTUS precedent, case law, and
the subtler arguments that make up the backbone of the Supreme Courts rulings on past voting rights issues and
which play into this one as well.
Supreme Court resolutions bring out my inner legal/political junkie. Even if this resolution doesnt do the same
for your team, hopefully youll find what you need for a winning case in the following pages. Best of luck!
--Daniel Tsvankin

Topic Analysis Three

The previous two topic analyses have hinted at the large role that voter ID laws will play in these debates. The
Pro will argue that voter ID laws prevent voter fraud while also not infringing on the right to vote, while the
Con will argue that voter ID laws disproportionately impact minorities. While voter ID laws are not the only
area of concern, they are a very important one. However, voter ID laws are not the same in every state.
Understanding the commonalities in voter ID laws will be useful, but so will understanding each states
individual laws. That helps you prevent your opponent from cherry picking evidence and also helps you
understand if the overall effect of voter ID laws is positive or negative. The following is an analysis of some of
the more important states and general arguments that can be made for both sides. In the parentheses you will
find the tagline of the corresponding evidence in this brief.

Georgia
Background
o Georgia is one of the few states to have an already instituted voter ID law. This law was
instituted and has been in effect since 2008. This means that we already have tangible evidence
on the effects of voter ID laws in this specific state.
Pro
o Black voter turnout and registration have actually increased since the law being implemented
(No evidence of voter suppression)
o Citizens can use student ID, tribal ID, military ID, and employee ID cards. Thus, the IDs
themselves are easy to obtain (The citizens without proof study ignores how easy it is to obtain
photo ID)
Con
o This is technically not a voter ID law; Voters who disagree with having to show photo ID can
just mail in their ballots (Voter ID Laws have huge loopholes)
o ID offices with limited hours are located in areas with the highest concentration of blacks
(Inadequate operational hours disproportionately occur in minority-heavy regions)
o Voter ID laws create more confusing government bureaucracy (Access is hampered by distance,
hours, and misinformation across section 4 states)
Indiana
Background
o Like Georgia, Indiana already had a voter ID law prior to this Supreme Court case.
Pro
o Black voter turnout and registration have increased (No evidence of voter suppression)

o Citizens can use their military ID (The Citizens Without Proof study ignores how easy it is to
obtain photo ID)
o Only a small amount of registered voters in Indiana lack voter ID (The Citizens Without Proof
study is wrong)
o The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the Indiana voter ID law is constitutional (The
Supreme Court ruled on section 4 having already ruled voter ID laws constitutional, and The
Court was correct in not taking into account effects on individuals)
Con
o There is a correlation between having voter IDs and voting; other evidence can provide
causation. This means that even though voter turnout rose, it could have risen more without voter
ID laws (There is a correlation between having voter IDs and voting)
Virginia
Pro
o The preclearance never was airtight in the first place; several Virginia cities and counties
petitioned to be exempt even though the rest of the state was under federal oversight (Loopholes
Have Allowed Discrimination)
Con
o The Justice Department approved of the last round of Virginia voter ID laws but they are about
to implement a new set of abusive restrictions thanks to this Supreme Court case (Abusive
Virginia Voting Law Changes AMS)
Pennsylvania
Con
o A staggering amount of minority members dont have the appropriate ID (Fewer than 1 in 7
Have IDs in Pennsylvania, pg. 158 and Many Minorities Lack IDs)
Michigan
Con
o The state courts (which will process the legal challenges to the new voting laws) are very biased
by Republican spending (State courts in Michigan are insufficient to protect voters rights at the
local level)
Texas
Pro

o In 2004, a higher percentage of blacks were registered to vote (Further statistics on Section 4s
obsolescence)
o The U.S. government can still prosecute discriminatory voting laws under Sections 2 and 3 (The
Attorney General can still sue the state under Section 2 and Section 3)
o The original reasons for bringing Texas under a preclearance are longer applicable; the state is
much more accessible to Hispanic voters (40 years have brought drastic changes to states that
were formerly covered by Section 4)
o Texans can use their drivers license, concealed handgun permits, or get a free ID card; This has
resulted in turnout increasing (VRA violations can still be interdicted, making overbearing
voter ID law fears overblown)
o The only reason student IDs are not allowed is because illegal immigrants are allowed to attend
Texas universities (Access to IDs is Equal)
Con
o There are still attempts to make discriminatory laws in Texas (Section 4 has recently prevented
discrimination, and Section 4 Still Relevant)
o The law targets minorities (The Texas voter ID law targets minorities)
o The free voter IDs are not actually free (Free voter IDs have hidden financial costs which
impact women and the poor)
o In a state as big as Texas, getting an ID is extremely difficult(Access is hampered by
distance, hours, and misinformation across section 4 states)
o Many of the offices that close up early are in minority heavy regions (Inadequate operational
hours disproportionately occur in minority-heavy regions)
Florida
o Pro
o Individuals can still prosecute discriminatory voting laws(Individuals can still sue the state)
o The preclearance cost money (Supreme Court decision saves money)
o The wrong counties were covered under Section 4 (The 2006 VRA reauthorization had
flawed criteria in section 4 of which Congress was aware)

o Con
o Without Section 4, Florida will enact laws that incorrectly target minority members(Abusive
Florida ID Laws)
o Section 5 expanded to also protect Hispanics (Section 5 of the VRA has overextended its
coverage to several other states)
o The Florida state court is not protected from politics (State courts in Florida are insufficient
to protect voters rights at the local level)
February 2014 Defend Your Source

Defend Your Source
Rose DeLauro
Rosa Luisa DeLauro is the U.S. Representative for Connecticut's 3rd congressional district, serving since 1991.
The district is based in New Haven, and includes most of that city's suburbs. Rosa serves in the Democratic
leadership as co-chair of the Steering and Policy Committee, and she is the ranking member on the Labor,
Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, where she oversees our countrys
investments in education, health, and employment.
Dan Froomkin
Dan Froomkin is the Senior Washington Correspondent for the Huffington Post. He has experience as a
political producer for the Washington Post. He is contributing editor of Nieman Reports, and the former senior
Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post.
ACLU
The ACLU works daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and
liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country. The ACLU
works in particular to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their
rights, including people of color; women; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; prisoners; and
people with disabilities.
American Association of University Women (AAUW)
The American Association of University Women (AAUW) is the nations leading voice promoting equity and
education for women and girls. Since our founding in 1881, AAUW members have examined and taken
positions on the fundamental issues of the day educational, social, economic, and political.


The Atlantic
The Atlantic is an American magazine founded in 1857 in Boston, Massachusetts, as The Atlantic Monthly. It
was created as a literary and cultural commentary magazine. It quickly achieved a national reputation, which it
has held for more than 150 years. It was important for recognizing and publishing new writers and poets, and
encouraging major careers. It published leading writers' commentary on abolition, education, and other major
issues in contemporary political affairs.
Brennan Center for Justice
The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that seeks to
improve our systems of democracy and justice. The Centers work ranges from voting rights to campaign
finance reform, from racial justice in criminal law to Constitutional protection in the fight against terrorism. A
singular institution part think tank, part public interest law firm, part advocacy group, part communications
hub the Brennan Center seeks meaningful, measurable change in the systems by which our nation is
governed.
CNN
The Cable News Network (commonly referred to by its initials, CNN) is an American basic cable and satellite
television channel that is owned by the Turner Broadcasting System division of Time Warner. The 24-hour
cable news channel was founded in 1980 by American media proprietor Ted Turner. Upon its launch, CNN was
the first channel to provide 24-hour television news coverage,

and the first all-news television channel in the
United States.
Color Lines
ColorLines, founded in 1998, is an American magazine that covers race and politics in society. It was originally
a print publication published jointly by the Applied Research Center and the Center for Third World
Organizing. Articles are primarily composed of essays, investigative reports, think pieces, opinion columns,
cultural criticism, fiction, and humor pieces.


Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. Heritage's stated
mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise,
limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense".
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is a private research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts
known traditionally for research and education in the physical sciences and engineering, and more recently in
biology, economics, linguistics, and management as well. The university is one among a small group of Institute
of Technologies in the United States which tend to be primarily devoted to the instruction of technical arts and
applied sciences. It has five schools and one college, which contain a total of 32 departments. Eighty-one
Nobel laureates, 52 National Medal of Science recipients, 45 Rhodes Scholars, and 38 MacArthur Fellows have
been affiliated with the university.
New York Times
The New York Times (NYT) is an American daily newspaper, founded and continuously published in New
York City since September 18, 1851. It has won 112 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization. Its
website is one of America's most popular news sites, and the most popular among all the nation's newspapers,
receiving more than 30 million unique visitors per month as reported in January 2011.
New York University School of Law
New York University School of Law (NYU Law) is the law school of New York University in Manhattan.
Established in 1835, it is the oldest law school in New York City. The school offers J.D., LL.M., and J.S.D.
degrees in law, and is located in Greenwich Village, in downtown Manhattan. Known for its dedication to
public-interest and government study, NYU Law is perennially regarded as one of the most prestigious and
selective law schools in the United States. U.S. News & World Report currently ranks NYU Law 6th in the
nation.


NPR
NPR, formerly National Public Radio, is a privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media
organization that serves as a national syndicator to a network of 900 public radio stations in the United States.

NPR produces and distributes news and cultural programming. Individual public radio stations are not required
to broadcast all NPR programs that are produced. Most public radio stations broadcast a mixture of NPR
programs, content from rival providers American Public Media, Public Radio International and Public Radio
Exchange, and locally produced programs.
PBS
The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American broadcast television network. The non-profit public
broadcaster has 354 member television stations which hold collective ownership. PBS is the most prominent
provider of television programs to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as PBS
NewsHour and Frontline. Since the mid-2000s, Roper polls commissioned by PBS have consistently placed the
service as America's most-trusted national institution.
ProPublica
ProPublica is a non-profit corporation based in New York City. It is an independent non-profit newsroom that
produces investigative journalism in the public interest. In 2010 it became the first online news source to win a
Pulitzer Prize. ProPublica's investigations are conducted by its staff of full-time investigative reporters and the
resulting stories are given away to news 'partners' for publication or broadcast.
Reuters
Reuters is an international news agency headquartered in London and a division of Thomson Reuters. Since the
acquisition of Reuters Group by The Thomson Corporation in 2008, the Reuters news agency has been a part of
Thomson Reuters, forming part of its financial and risk division. It transmits news in ten different languages,
producing well-respected stories from every corner fo the globe.


Salon.com
Salon Media Group (Ticker Symbol: SLNM.PK) operates the pioneering, award-winning news site Salon.com.
With an audience of 15 million monthly unique visitors, Salon.com covers breaking news, politics, culture,
technology and entertainment through investigative reporting, fearless commentary and criticism, and
provocative personal essays. Salon.com has been a leader in online media since the dawn of the digital age and
has bureaus in San Francisco, New York City and Washington, D.C.
USA Today
USA Today is a national American daily newspaper published by the Gannett Company. The newspaper vies
with The Wall Street Journal for the position of having the widest circulation of any newspaper in the United
States, something it had previously held since 2003. USA Today remains the widest circulated print newspaper
in the United States.
Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal is an American English-language international daily newspaper with a special emphasis
on business and economic news. The Journal is the largest newspaper in the United States, by circulation.
According to the Alliance for Audited Media, it has a circulation of about 2.4 million copies (including nearly
900,000 digital subscriptions).
Washington Post
The Washington Post (WP) is an American daily newspaper. It is the most widely circulated newspaper
published in Washington, D.C., and was founded in 1877, making it the area's oldest extant newspaper. Located
in the capital city of the United States, the newspaper has a particular emphasis on national politics.


Pro Evidence
February 2014 Pro: No Longer Needed

Section Four is no Longer Needed
Section 4 is based on outdated data, Fj
Liptak, Adam. Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act The New
York Times. June 25, 2013.
Congress renewed the act in 2006 after holding extensive hearings on the persistence of racial discrimination at
the polls, again extending the preclearance requirement for 25 years. But it relied on data from the 1975
reauthorization to decide which states and localities were covered.
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is based on 40-year-old facts having no logical
relationship to the present day.
Changes since 1965 AMS
The chief justice concludes that times have changed: the formulas that govern singling out one state from
another for different treatment, which once "made sense," have lost their relevance, and "nearly 50 years
later, things have changed dramatically." But the rules governing which jurisdictions must be overseen have
been repeatedly passed by Congress without change:
But history did not end in 1965. By the time the Act was reauthorized in 2006, there had been 40
more years of it. In assessing the current need[] for a preclearance system that treats States
differently from one another today, that history cannot be ignored. During that time, largely
because of the Voting Rights Act, voting tests were abolished, disparities in voter registration and
turnout due to race were erased, and African-Americans attained political office in record numbers. And
yet the coverage formula that Congress reauthorized in 2006 ignores these developments, keeping the
focus on decades-old data relevant to decades-old problems, rather than current data reflecting current
needs.

The Fifteenth Amendment commands that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of
race or color, and it gives Congress the power to enforce that command. The Amendment is not
designed to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future.
Justice Roberts enforces the ideas at the core of the courts decision. While the Amendment served a
clear purpose in 1965, changes over time have rendered it moot and it should be abolished to prevent
future harm.

Section 4 has no more work left to do, Fj
Our country has changed, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. While any racial
discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem
speaks to current conditions.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was one of the towering legislative achievements of the civil rights movement,
and Chief Justice Roberts said its strong medicine was the right response to entrenched racial
discrimination. When it was first enacted, he said, black voter registration stood at 6.4 percent in
Mississippi, and the gap between black and white registration rates was more than 60 percentage points.
In the 2004 election, the last before the law was reauthorized, the black registration rate in Mississippi
was 76 percent, almost four percentage points higher than the white rate. In the 2012 election, Chief
Justice Roberts wrote, African-American voter turnout exceeded white voter turnout in five of the six states
originally covered by Section 5.
The chief justice recalled the Freedom Summer of 1964, when the civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew
Goodman and Michael Schwerner were murdered near Philadelphia, Miss., while seeking to register black
voters. He mentioned Bloody Sunday in 1965, when police officers beat marchers in Selma, Ala.
Today, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, both of those towns are governed by African-American mayors.
Problems remain in these states and others, but there is no denying that, due to the Voting Rights Act, our
nation has made great strides.

Further statistics on Section 4s obsolescence DAT
The Preclearance Problem. The Economist. 3 February 2011. Web.
http://www.economist.com/node/18073323
The Shelby County plaintiffs argue that the VRA has served its purpose. They have a point: voting among
black Southerners has risen dramatically: in 1965 a mere 6.7% of black voters in Mississippi were registered; by
1988 the proportion was 74.2%. That year in Louisiana, as in Texas and Georgia in 2004, a higher
proportion of blacks than whites were registered to vote. And nationally in 2008, more blacks than whites
between the ages of 18 and 44 voted. High time, say opponents, to retire a section of the VRA that poses
thorny constitutional problems.


Minority groups exclusively account for gains in voter numbers, DAT
File, Thom. The Diversifying ElectorateVoting Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin in
2012 (and Other Recent Elections). census.gov. U.S. Census Bureau. May 2013.
Web. http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-568.pdf
Since 1996, the number of citizens eligible to vote has increased in every presidential election, as has the
number of citizens who have reported voting. Table 2 displays these relative increases by race and Hispanic
origin over the five most recent election cycles. Overall, 133 million people reported voting in 2012, a turnout
increase of about 2 million people since the election of 2008. Between 1996 and 2008, turnout increases varied
but were always larger than in 2012, reaching a high of about 15 million additional voters in 2004.
In comparison to the election of 2008, about 1.7 million additional Black voters reported going to the polls in
2012, as did about 1.4 million additional Hispanics and about 550,000 additional Asians. The number of non-
Hispanic White voters decreased by about 2 million between 2008 and 2012. Since 1996, this is the only
example of a race group showing a decrease in net voting from one presidential election to the next, and it
indicates that the 2012 voting population expansion came primarily from minority voters.
The original purpose of preclearance was the prevention of minority discrimination. At this point,
minority voter rolls are growing while white ones are shrinking nationwide, which is heavily indicative of
the idea that there is no longer a problem for Sections 4 and 5 to address.

Electoral Body more Diverse than ever AMS
Matt Stiles. Census: Black Voting Rate Topped Rate For Whites In 2012. May 8, 2013.
NPR. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/05/08/182301593/census-black-
voting-surpassed-white-in-2012
About 1 in 4 voters last year was either black, Asian or Hispanic, reflecting a steady increase in minority
participation in presidential elections since 1996, when the bureau began issuing the post-election report.
At the same time, the number of white, non-Hispanic voters also declined the first time any race or ethnic
group decreased since 1996. About 2 million fewer whites voted last year compared with 2008. Contrast that
with the black, Asian and Hispanic voters, who increased by roughly 3.5 million from the last election.
"The American electorate is growing increasingly diverse," said Thom File, a bureau sociologist who
authored the study.


Blacks currently vote more actively than whites DAT
Pointless, Punitive, and Permitted. The Economist. 17 May 2013. Web.
A report released earlier this month by the Census Bureau found that in 2012, for the first time, voting rates of
black Americans exceeded that of whites: 66.2% of eligible black voters cast ballots in the last presidential
election, compared with 64.1% of whites (in 2008, the numbers were 64.7% of blacks and 66.1% of
whites). Beneath those top-line numbers, however, lie significant gender-based disparities in voting. More than
70% of black women voted, while just 61.4% of black men did. Black women voted at higher rates than white
men and women; black men's voting rates appear to be lower. I say "appear" because the Census Bureau's
numbers do not take felony disenfranchisement into account. When you do thatwhen you subtract from
each of the four race/gender-based categories those members who cannot vote because they have been
convicted of a felony, leaving you with a pool of truly eligible votersthe share of black male voters rises
to 68%. That is still lower, but only just, than black women, and higher than the share of white voters of
either gender.
This evidence adds some layer of nuance to voter statistics by taking felonies into account, giving the most
accurate picture of voter proportionality.

Black Voter Participation Growing AMS
Matt Stiles. Census: Black Voting Rate Topped Rate For Whites In 2012. May 8, 2013.
NPR. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/05/08/182301593/census-black-
voting-surpassed-white-in-2012
Blacks voted at historic rates, surpassing the participation of whites for the first time since 1968, when
the bureau first began publishing data on voting and race.
About 1.7 million additional black voters reported going to the polls last year compared to in 2008. Black
turnout rates have also increased incrementally in each presidential election since 1996.
The study also revealed a gender gap among black voters. Black women voted at higher rates than black men by
roughly 9 percentage points about 6 percentage points higher than other race/ethnicity groups. (Women
outvoted men overall by 4 percentage points).
In order to counter con teams arguments about how voter ID laws hurt minorities, pro teams should
open by painting a positive picture of the United States electoral body. Use the statistics provided above
showing tremendous growth in minority voting in the last presidential election to show that voter ID laws
are unnecessary.

Minority voter turnout actually exceeds white voter turnout. J CD
Von Drehle, David. "High Court Rolls Back the Voting Rights Act of 1965." Time. N.p., 25
June 2013. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
The list of places is based on blatant race discrimination in a troubled past now 40 years distant, Chief Justice
John Roberts wrote for the majority. The conditions that originally justified these measures no longer
characterizes voting in the covered jurisdictions, he declared, noting that African-American voter turnout has
come to exceed white voter turnout in five of the six states originally covered by the provision.

There are potential ways to stop infringements of voting rights without Section 4. J CD
Ornstein, Norman. "Let's Enact a New Voting Rights Act." American Enterprise Institute.
N.p., 17 July 2013. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
Section 4 of the act, which the court struck down, set out a formula by which certain states and jurisdictions are
designated to need federal permission for any changes to their voting procedures. If Congress cannot agree on a
formula for which states and localities to include for this preclearance, election reform expert Heather Gerken
has suggested another option: Allow civil rights groups and the minority voters they represent, anywhere in the
nation, to opt in to the Voting Rights Act by filing an administrative complaint with the Justice Department
when their voting rights are constrained.

February 2014 Pro: Upholds States Rights

Decision Upholds States Rights
Victory for States Rights AMS
Invoking the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers to the states that are not specifically granted to the
federal government, and citing doctrines claiming that states should be treated equally, Chief Justice Roberts
argues that the Voting Rights Act "sharply departs" from these principles of states' rights:
The Voting Rights Act sharply departs from these basic principles. It suspends all changes to
state election law however innocuousuntil they have been precleared by federal authorities in
Washington, D. C.Id., at 202. States must beseech the Federal Government for permission to
implement laws that they would otherwise have the right to enact and execute on their own,
subject of course to any injunction in a 2 action. The Attorney General has 60 days to object to a
preclearance request, longer if he requests more information. See 28 CFR 51.9, 51.37. If a State seeks
preclearance from a three-judge court, the process can take years.

And despite the tradition of equal sovereignty, the Act applies to only nine States (and several
additional counties). While one State waits months or years and expends funds to implement a
validly enacted law, its neighbor can typically put the same law into effect immediately, through the
normal legislative process. Even if a noncovered jurisdiction is sued, there are important differences
between those proceedings and preclearance proceedings; the preclearance proceeding not only
switches the burden of proof to the supplicant jurisdiction, but also applies substantive standards quite
different from those governing the rest of the nation.
This piece quotes from one of the most relevant sources available for this topicChief Justice Roberts
court opinion. Roberts clearly delineates how Section 4 infringes upon guaranteed state rights.

Voting Rights Act Hurt States Rights AMS
Barnes, Robert. Supreme Court Stops Key Part of Voting Act. Washington Post. June
25, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-stops-use-of-key-
part-of-voting-rights-act/2013/06/25/26888528-dda5-11e2-b197-
f248b21f94c4_story.html
Edward Blum, who coordinated the current challenge to Section 5 and a previous one in 2009, said the
decision restores an important constitutional order to our system of government which requires that all
50 states are entitled to equal dignity and sovereignty. Our nations laws must apply uniformly to each
state and jurisdiction.

States Now Free to Exercise Sovereignty AMS
Jess Bravin. Court Upends Voting Rights Act. Wall Street Journal. June 25, 2013.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014241278873234698045785213638409620
32
South Carolina unsuccessfully challenged the Voting Rights Act immediately after its 1965 passage. On
Tuesday, the state's attorney general said the court's ruling was long past due.
"For nearly 50 years, Sections 4 and 5 have imposed an extraordinary intrusion into state sovereignty in
certain states, including South Carolina," said the attorney general, Alan Wilson. "This is a victory for
all voters as all states can now act equally without some having to ask for permission or being required to
jump through the extraordinary hoops demanded by federal bureaucracy."


Section 4 overruled conventions of precedent that typically guided states in making decisions
DAT
Richey, Warren. Appeals court upholds key provision of Voting Rights Act. Supreme
Court could loom. Christian Science Monitor. 18 May 2012. Web.
In 2011, both states adopted voter ID laws patterned on an Indiana voter ID statute that was upheld by the
Supreme Court in 2008.
Normally, that existing precedent would be enough to insulate the statutes from legal challenge. But because
both Texas and South Carolina are among covered jurisdictions with past histories of discrimination under the
VRA, both states had to submit the laws to the Justice Department for pre-approval. Despite the Supreme Court
precedent in Indiana, the Justice Department blocked both laws.
Why should voter ID laws from South Carolina and Texas be judged by different criteria from those governing
Indiana, Williams asked.
Despite a congressional record of over 15,000 pages and 22 hearings, there is little to suggest that [the VRAs]
coverage formula continues to capture jurisdictions with especially high levels of voter discrimination,
Williams said.
Judge Stephen Williams penned the dissenting opinion of the Court of Appeals decision throwing out
Shelby Countys suit (which the Supreme Court later upheld).

The decision rightly follows the precedent set in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
DAT
[Justice Antonin Scalia] That sort of detailed judicial supervision of the election process would flout the
Constitutions express commitment of the task to the States. See Art. I, 4. It is for state legislatures to weigh
the costs and benefits of possible changes to their election codes, and their judgment must prevail unless it
imposes a severe and unjustified overall burden upon the right to vote, or is intended to disadvantage a particular
class. Judicial review of their handiwork must apply an objective, uniform standard that will enable them to
determine, ex ante, whether the burden they impose is too severe.
To potentially extrapolate from this argument, and the argument of this section in general, pro teams will
it find helpful to directly compare the states rights principles already upheld by the SCOTUS to the
general strategy of the Department of Justices enforcement of the VRAs preclearance mandate.


The pre-clearance provision is a violation of federalism. J CD
Totenberg, Nina. "Supreme Court: Congress Has To Fix Broken Voting Rights
Act."NPR. NPR, 25 June 2013. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
Joining Roberts' opinion on Tuesday were Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and
Clarence Thomas. Thomas wrote separately to say that he would have struck down more than the coverage
formula. He would have invalidated the concept of pre-clearance as unconstitutional, too, and he pointed to
language in the chief justice's opinion that would allow the court to invalidate the pre-clearance provision even
if the coverage formula is rewritten.

February 2014 Pro: Not Extreme

The Supreme Court Decision was not Extreme
Congress can still set preclearance requirements, Fj
Congress if it is to divide the states must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that
makes sense in light of current conditions, he [Chief Justice John Roberts] wrote. It cannot simply rely on the
past.
The decision did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4, the later section is without significance
unless Congress passes a new bill for determining which states would be covered.
I ndividuals can still sue the state, Fj
Bousquet, Steve and Sharockman, Aaron. Court blocks application of Voting Rights Act
in Florida, unless Congress updates rules Miami Herald. June 25, 2013.
Florida's top elections official, Secretary of State Ken Detzner said Tuesday.
Detzner, who was appointed by Gov. Rick Scott to oversee the state's election apparatus, said it made no sense
for five Florida counties to be subjected to decades-old voting rights data.
Any person or group who thinks a Florida voting law discriminates against racial or language minorities
can file a lawsuit in the courts, Detzner said.
The Attorney General can still sue the state under Section 2 and Section 3, Fj
Rapoport, Abby. Eric Holders Big Voting-Rights Gamble The American Prospect.
October 2, 2013.
Eric Holders announcement Monday that the Justice Department was going to bring a lawsuit against North
Carolinas new and wide-sweeping election law, which includes a laundry list of voter restrictions and changes
making it harder to vote, showcases just how high hes willing to make the stakes when it comes to voting
rights. His department is now going to be litigating two high-profile casesone against a voter-ID law in
Texas, and the other against the omnibus bill in North Carolina. The DOJ is also involved in a case to
show that Texass redistricting maps intentionally discriminated.
Holder has repeatedly expressed his determination to fight these restrictions with the tools he still hasmost
notably Sections 2 and 3 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 outlaws any legislation that has either a
discriminatory intent or effect. Section 3 allows judges to require states with laws found to be
intentionally discriminatory to get preclearance.
February 2014 Pro: Not Extreme

Congress can potentially still deem all the same counties as requiring preclearance DAT
Persily, Nathaniel, and Thomas Mann. Shelby County v. Holder and the Future of the
Voting Rights Act. Brookings Institution. 9 August 2013. Web.
These sharp differences between the majority and the dissent notwithstanding, William Consovoy, the lawyer
for Shelby County at the conference, argued that the decision was actually modest, not revolutionary. First,
although the precise standard of the review the majority applied may be unclear, it purports to be closer to
McCulloch-style review than the more-restrictive City of Boerne standard, which would have required that the
law be congruent and proportional to the constitutional evils it was trying to prevent or remedy. Second, it did
not decide the constitutionality of the preclearance regime in Section 5. Third, according to Consovoy, the
Court ruled against the coverage formula on grounds that it was not rational in theorythat it did not
make sense to base the trigger on data from the 1960s and 1970s. The Court did not decide that the
geographic scope of Section 4 was irrational in practice meaning that it left for another day the question
of whether congressional findings of discrimination could lead the exact same set of jurisdictions to be
covered under an alternative formula. And fourth, by doing so, it gave Congress the opportunity to revisit the
VRA. Others at the conference struck a similar tone, noting that the likely doctrinal and practical fallout from
the decision was limited.
While this card is helpful in assessing and grounding the general impacts of the decision, the third point
is potentially the most important. While the scope of section 4 would be greatly reduced if it used modern
data, its formula does not have to stay the same. A different formula which covers exactly the same
jurisdictions and imposes the same requirements could still be considered constitutional.

February 2014 Pro: Preclearance Requirements Cost Money

Preclearance Requirements Cost Money
Supreme Court decision saves money, Fj
Bousquet, Steve and Sharockman, Aaron. Court blocks application of Voting Rights Act
in Florida, unless Congress updates rules Miami Herald. June 25, 2013.
Two years ago, Scott's administration tried without success to have the pre-clearance process removed from the
review of a series of election law changes, arguing that the 40-year-old formula was "arbitrary and irrational."
"It will be better without the Department of Justice looking over our shoulder all the time," Florida's top
elections official, Secretary of State Ken Detzner said Tuesday.
Detzner said the state spent as much as $750,000 on legal fees over the past two years, gaining pre-
clearance for a series of controversial voting law changes that the Legislature approved and Scott signed
in 2011.

The enforcement of Section 5 caused an unjust and unnecessary amount of additional
federal bureaucracy. J CD
Blum, Edward. "Striking Down Section 5 Would Mark a Return to Constitutional
Order." US News. U.S.News & World Report, 27 Feb. 2013. Web. 06 Jan. 2014
The time has come to end the punishment and federal bureaucratic oversight of nearly 25 percent of the nation's
population.
If the Supreme Court strikes down these provisions, as it should, an important constitutional order will be
restored: All 50 states must be treated equally under our system of laws.

February 2014 Pro: Change to Coverage Formula Necessary

Change to Coverage Formula was and is Necessary
Discriminatory Laws Exist Outside of Congress Un-updated Coverage Formula AMS
Brad Heath. Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act. USA Today.
2013. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/25/supreme-court-
shelby-voting-rights-alabama-congress-race/2116491/
Civil rights advocates and the court's left-leaning justices noted that the provision was used as recently as last
year to beat back photo ID laws, redistricting plans and restrictions on early voting. Without it, they said, states
could resume discriminatory practices.
But opponents of the law argued that the types of state and local election laws that continue to draw fire
today "exist to a greater degree outside those covered jurisdictions than they do inside the jurisdictions,"
said Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, who helped initiate Shelby County's
lawsuit.
The Supreme Court has been calling for an update coverage formula for years. This action is meant to
spur the congress to action and create a more fitting formula to encompass discriminatory voting rules
outside of the current covered zones.

Loopholes Have Allowed Discrimination AMS
Bill Mears and Greg Botelho. Outrageous or Overdue? Court Strikes Down Part of
Historic Voting Rights Law. CNN. June 26, 2013.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/politics/scotus-voting-rights/
The Obama administration points out some governments have gotten out of Section 5 under the now old
rules. For example, 31 cities and counties and Virginia successfully petitioned to be exempt from the
preclearance requirements in recent years, though the rest of the state remains under federal oversight.


40 years have brought drastic changes to states that were formerly covered by Section 4 DAT
Mischief at the Polls. The Economist. 14 December 2013. Web.
The Texan law was therefore in limbo until June, when the Supreme Court addressed the Voting Rights Act
in Shelby County v Holder, a dispute between an Alabama county and the attorney-general of the United
States, Eric Holder. The court held that the preclearance requirement was constitutional in itself, but that the
formula used to establish preclearance had to be binned. It had not been revised since 1975, and therefore
punished states for the sins of officials who retired long ago. Texas first came under preclearance because the
1975 revision added a note about jurisdictions that provided voter information only in English, despite having a
lot of Spanish speakers. Yet Texas has changed dramatically in the past four decades. It is much less
bigoted and more Hispanic: no sane candidate today would fail to produce Spanish campaign ads.
The Texan law refers to the voter ID law Texas implemented in 2013 following the Supreme Court
striking down Section 4.

The law was based on outdated voter turnout stats. J CD
The law and the coverage formula have been extended repeatedly, most recently in 2006. But the Supreme
Court on Tuesday declared the coverage formula unconstitutional because it is based on old voting data and has
not been updated since 1975.
Writing for the five-justice majority, Chief Justice John Roberts noted that in 1965 when the law was enacted,
only 7 percent of eligible African-Americans registered to vote in Mississippi, while in 2004 the number was up
to 76 percent. Despite these and similar numbers in other states covered by the law, he said, Congress did not
change the coverage formula when it extended the law in 2006.

The coverage formula is outdated. J CD
"In 1965, the states could be divided into two groups: those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter
registration and turnout, and those without those characteristics," Roberts said. "Congress based its coverage
formula on that distinction. Today, the nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act
continues to treat it as if it were."


The changes are not meant to be permanent. J CD
He also noted that Congress is still free to design a new and modernized coverage formula something that it
has not done in the past largely because it was politically impossible. No new jurisdiction wants to be labeled a
bad actor under a new formula. And leaders of both parties said repeatedly in 2006 that the law's existing
system worked well.

Majority of Americans are unlikely to support a new list of covered jurisdictions. J CD
June 2013. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
The majority (which included Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito)
ruled that Congress must do a fresh analysis of contemporary voting patterns to create a new list of covered
jurisdictions. But politically speaking, thats unlikely to happen. While passage of the original list wasnt easy,
the charter members were obvious to most Americans at a time when civil rights workers were being beaten and
murdered, and Southern governors were openly defying federal civil rights laws.

Current reports on discrimination were not comparable to previous levels in the listed
jurisdictions. J CD
Blotky, Andrew. "State and Federal Courts: The Last Stand in Voting Rights." Center for
American Progress. N.p., 25 June 2013. Web. 6 Jan. 2014.
The majority did not ignore the voluminous record of voting discrimination that Congress compiled when it
repeatedly reauthorized the act, but Chief Justice Roberts dismisses the record as failing to show anything
approaching the type of discrimination that clearly distinguished the covered jurisdictions in 1965. Justice
Clarence Thomas wanted the Court to clearly strike down Section 5 as unconstitutional, arguing that declining
to do so needlessly prolongs the demise of Section 5.


Voter turnout in all 50 states has improved well above the targeted rate. J CD
Weil, Dan. "AEI Scholar: Voting Rights Decision Good for Blacks." Newsmax. N.p., 27
June 2013. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
Voter turnout statistics for last year's elections show that vote suppression wasn't an issue, says Thernstrom,
vice-chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "In 2012, no state in the union had a total voter
turnout rate, for whites or minorities, under 50 percent a figure that was the heart of the old formula," she
says.

Voter turnout in Mississippi was the highest in the nation. J CD
June 2013. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
"The turnout in six states covered [by the old provision] was well above the national average. Mississippi,
once the worst of the Jim Crow states, had the highest total turnout rate in the nation."
Black America comes out a winner, Thernstrom says.

The enforcement of the VRA gave minorities a false sense of security which has caused self-
segregation. J CD
June 2013. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
"Enforcement of the statute including the imposition of 'safe' black (and Hispanic) legislative seats as a
remedy for discrimination has herded black voters into what even North Carolina Democrat and
Congressional Black Caucus member Rep. Mel Watt once called 'racial ghettos,'" she writes.


The enforcement of this section of the VRA hurt black candidates viability in large-scale
political scenes. J CD
June 2013. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
"Rep. Watt was referring to race-based districts that have generally rewarded minority politicians who
campaign (and win) by making the sort of overt racial appeals that are the staple of invidious identity politics."

The black candidates running in those districts didn't learn how to compete in majority-white environments,
Thernstrom maintains. "They were thus thrust to the sidelines of American political life which is precisely
what the statute did not intend. In this sense the law became a brake on minority political aspirations."

The conditions that required the additional protections are no longer present. J CD
June 2013. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
The safe districts protected black candidates from white opponents when Southern whites refused to vote for
black candidates, she says. "But times have changed, and whites now vote for black candidates at every level of
government."

Political journalist and Newsmax contributor John Fund also sees the provision overturned by the court as
outdated.

"This part of the Voting Rights Act covers states that had a bad voter registration record, a bad voter turnout
record among minorities," he told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV. "They had to get Justice
Department approval even if they wanted to move a polling place by 20 feet, nothing to do with voting,"
Fund says.

"This became a completely ridiculous standard. Why in the world should we be frozen like a fly in amber and
treated the same way after almost 50 years, and there's really no way to escape?"


An updated voting rights act needs to include a separate federal ballot. J CD
N.p., 17 July 2013. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
Congress has the clear constitutional right to manage federal elections. A separate ballot for federal races
strengthens that control. Other advantages include no more confusing butterfly ballots; there would be no more
than three races (president, Senate and House) on a federal ballot. No more provisional ballots or access denied
if someone shows up at the wrong polling place; the vote would still count only for those federal offices.
This and the following sections are meant to show how rendering certain sections of the VRA null has
created a situation that will lead to imminent changes to the coverage and as a result additional necessary
amendments that would have been unlikely unless serious thought was given towards revision. These
arguments are best thought of as side-benefits.

An updated voting rights act needs to include a new voter registration regime. J CD
N.p., 17 July 2013. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
The United States is the only major democracy where the burden of registering to vote is on the citizen. The
default should be that eligible citizens are presumed registered, with same-day voter registration available for
those not registered via their draft registration or drivers license. Ideally, Congress would provide the funds to
modernize voter registration lists and create a 21st-century voting process in which voters could get
personalized ballots printed, with all the offices they are eligible to vote on, at any polling place in their vicinity.
Why shouldnt Americans be able to vote at any nearby polling center?

An updated voting rights act needs to include a Weekend Election Day. J CD
N.p., 17 July 2013. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
Weekend Election Day. As WhyTuesday.org has pointed out, the law mandating federal elections on Tuesdays
was crafted in 1845 to accommodate Market Day. Election Day should suit contemporary American life: a
24-hour period from noon Saturday to noon Sunday, with early voting the week before. This would eliminate
rush-hour backlogs early in the morning and at the end of the day, as well as Sabbath problems. If Wal-Mart
can stay open 24/7, our democracy can stay open 24 hours once every two years.


An updated voting rights act needs to include a Social Security card as a valid voter I D. J CD
N.p., 17 July 2013. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
A Social Security card as a valid voter ID. Any American citizen who can provide proof of a valid Social
Security number should be able to obtain, free, a Social Security card with a photo. It should be mandated as
acceptable for identification wherever a photo ID is required to vote. Such cards should be available not just at
Social Security offices but also at post offices.

Section 5 of the VRA was intended to be short term. J CD
Edward, Blum. "The Supreme Court Can Update the Obsolete Voting Rights Act."
American Enterprise Institute. N.p., 24 Feb. 2013. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
Section 5, however, was originally set to expire after five years. The framers of the act understood that they
were on shaky legal ground here. After all, shifting procedural control of elections from the states to the federal
government was an unprecedented extension of federal authority.
Yet Section 5 has proved to be anything but temporary. Congress has renewed it four times. It is now scheduled
to expire in 2031.

Section 5 of the VRA has overextended its coverage to several other states. J CD
Furthermore, in 1975, Section 5 was amended so that it would apply not only to blacks in the South but to
minorities such as Hispanicsand in an expanded list of states, including all of Texas, Arizona and Alaska,
areas of states such as Florida, New Hampshire and California, and in the New York boroughs of Manhattan,
Brooklyn and the Bronx, among other jurisdictions.


When renewing the VRA in 2006, Congress failed to consider other jurisdictions not
included in the VRA. J CD
It is a compelling argument. Congress reauthorized these provisions in 2006 based upon the black-voter
disenfranchisement in the deep South that existed in 1965, but those conditions measurably don't exist anymore.
Furthermore, Congress made no effort to analyze minority electoral conditions outside of the covered
jurisdictions. It makes no sense today for Texas and Alabama, but not Arkansas or Kentucky, to be supervised
by the federal government.

The outdated data misrepresents minority groups current representation in government.
J CD
Spakovsky, Hans A. Von. "Voting Rights Act's 'Preclearance' Was Meant to Be
Temporary." US News. U.S. News & World Report, 27 Feb. 2013. Web. 06 Jan.
2014
Thus, jurisdictions are covered today based on over 40-year-old data. Yet the disparity in the registration and
turnout of black voters compared to white voters has virtually disappeared and in some covered states actually
exceeds that of whites. They would not be covered today based on current registration and turnout levels.
Most importantly, as the Supreme Court itself previously acknowledged, "[t]hings have changed in the South
Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare" and "minority candidates hold office at
unprecedented levels."


Some jurisdictions previously cover by Section 4(b) had little to no evidence supporting its
presence on the list to be precleared. J CD
Shapiro, Ilya. "The Voting Rights Act Doesn't Reflect Current Political Conditions." US
News. U.S.News & World Report, 27 Feb. 2013. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
Section 5's preclearance scheme is an anachronism, based on 40-year-old data that doesn't reflect current
political conditions. For example, the racial gap in voter registration and turnout is lower in states originally
covered by Section 5 than it is nationwide. Blacks in some covered states actually register and vote at higher
rates than whites. Facetious tests and sinister devices are now permanently bannedwhile even individual
violations are exceedingly rare and no more likely to occur in Section 5 jurisdictions.
Indeed, the list of Section 5 jurisdictions is bizarre: six states of the Old Confederacy, plus Alaska, Arizona, and
parts of states ranging from New Hampshire to South Dakota. Three New York counties are covered, all
New York City boroughs. What's going on in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Manhattan that isn't in Queens
or Staten Island? Four justices famously hail from Gotham; maybe they know something we don't.

February 2014 Pro: Voter ID Laws Necessary

Voter ID Laws are Necessary
Voter fraud does happen in Texas, Fj
Voter fraud occurs in Texas, though convictions and guilty pleas are rare PolitiFact.
2013.

Abbott spokeswoman Lauren Bean emailed us records showing that from August 2002 through September
2012, the office received 616 allegations of election-code violations and recorded78 election-code prosecutions.
By our count, 46 of the prosecutions ended with a conviction, guilty plea, no-contest plea or guilty plea as part
of deferred adjudication. Of those, 18 cases appeared to involve fraud committed by individual voters: 12 cases
with ineligible voters, five cases of voter impersonation and one case of voting more than once.
So, by our reading of the attorney generals records, 18 instances of voter fraud have been confirmed in
Texas since 2002.

Voter fraud occurs nationwide, Fj
Bingham, Amy. Voter Fraud: Non-Existent Problem or Election-Threatening Epidemic
ABC News. September 12, 2012.
Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted
for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only
26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas.

Democracy hinges on an untainted voting process. Even though the amount of voter fraud is extremely
low, it harms the legitimacy of our democracy. Any amount of voter fraud is too much of voter fraud.
February 2014 Pro: VRA Effective Without Section 4

The VRA Is Effective Without Section 4

VRA violations can still be interdicted, making overbearing voter I D law fears overblown
DAT
Mischief at the Polls. The Economist. 14 December 2013. Web.
The effect of the Shelby County ruling was that all the states and parts of states that had been subject to
preclearance were freed to make their own electoral rules, at least for now. In theory, Congress has the authority
to amend the law with a new preclearance requirement; in theory, Congress can do a lot of things. Democrats
are worried. Mr Holder promises to bring Texas back under federal oversight. Under Section 3 of the Voting
Rights Act, he argues, judges can order that jurisdictions with egregiously burdensome rules can be
forcibly enrolled in the preclearance club.
In the meantime, the results of the November elections in Texas surprised both sides. More than 1.1m Texans
voted: turnout was two-thirds higher than in the previous off-year election. Whatever Democrats say, that
hardly suggests widespread voter suppression. Republicans note that it is not hard to get a photo ID: Texans
without driving licences can get voter-ID cards free from the state. Or they can use their concealed-handgun
licence, naturally.
This card reinforces the previous sections point while illustrating a nuance of the resolution: the VRAs
teeth are not limited to the Section 5 (preclearance) enforcement of Section 4. The federal government is
still left with some tools to keep states in check through the Voting Rights Act.


Preclearance currently is nearly a non-factor in stopping discriminatory policies DAT
Toobin, Jeffrey. Do We Still Need the Voting Rights Act? The New Yorker. 22 May 2012.
Web.
The dissent of Judge Stephen Williams came down to a simple idea: times have changed. Even the Justice
Department, he pointed out, scarcely ever objects to the changes submitted for preclearance. (There were
only five objections for every ten thousand submissions between 1998 and 2002.) Williams acknowledges
that racial bias still exists, but he noted, with some justification, that its now as evident in uncovered
jurisdictions (i.e., the rest of the country) as in the South. But that melancholy observation led Williams to
conclude that the Voting Rights Act should not apply anywhere anymore.
Its a hard case. Things have changed in the South, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., wrote in the 2009
opinion that put off the Voting Rights Acts day of reckoning. Voter turnout and registration rates now
approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold
office at unprecedented levels. All true, to be sure. One might also add that the President of the United States,
who won office with the Electoral College votes of Virginia and North Carolina, is African-American. In this
way, the United States of 2012 is an almost unrecognizable version of the country in 1965.
Judge Stephen Williams sat on the Court of Appeals which upheld (2-1) the VRA in 2012. Williams
argument does not touch the idea that section 5 potentially acts as a deterrent, but he hits on the arguably
larger point that the key difference is not just of attitudes, but of section 5s function: at this point, the
Department of Justices lack of action on preclearance indicates that the legislation is a rubber stamp due
to a generally complete eradication of discriminatory tendencies in regions targeted by section 4.


Section 3 replicates section 4 without taking a guilty until proven innocent mindset DAT
Voting Rights Act after the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County : Hearing before
the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice of the Committee on the
Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, first
session, July 18, 2013. United States Congress House Committee on the Judiciary.
Government Printing Office. 18 July 2013. Web.
[Hans A. von Spakovsky] It is very interesting hearing people say that we need this administrative process. Like
I said, it violates fundamental due process. The government is supposed to prove its case, not the other way
around. I am sure it would be very easy if we allowed the government to simply jail individuals when
they were accused of crimes, and then force them to prove that they were innocent. That is basically what
Section 5 did.
I dont deny that discrimination still occurs, but Section 2 and Section 3 are powerful weapons to do that, and
particularly Section 3. Look, what the Supreme Court said was you cant put this blanket Section 5 preclearance
requirement on all these states based on 40-year-old data, particularly given the most recent evidence of how
that kind of discrimination has disappeared. You cant do a blanket imposition of this.
But Section 3 allows you to put in a preclearance requirement for specific jurisdictions if the government goes
to court and actually proves they engage in racially discriminatory behavior and they are going to do it in the
future. That is something you can do. You can win those cases, and it is not just the government that can
bring these. The ACLU has a huge voting rights project that brings many cases. I just checked their
assets. Their assets as of 2012 were $360 million. They have the ability to bring cases like this if the
Justice Department is not, but the Justice Department in the past has brought Section 2 cases when it was
required.
Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow with the Heritage Foundation


Most of the VRAs 21
st
century enforcement has largely concerned its language provisions
DAT
Opportunities Exist to Strengthen the Civil Rights Divisions Ability to Manage and
Report on its Enforcement Efforts. gao.gov. Government Accountability Office. 3
December 2009. Web. http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/123818.pdf
From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Voting Section initiated 442 matters and filed 56 cases to enforce
federal statutes that protect the voting rights of racial and language minorities, disabled and illiterate persons,
and overseas and military personnel, among others. The Voting Section has the discretion to initiate a matter or
pursue a case under its statutes, with the exception of the review of changes in voting practices or procedures,
which it is statutorily required to conduct under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). According to
Section officials, the Section had as its priority the enforcement of all the statutes for which it was responsible
throughout the period covered by our review. However, Section and Division officials identified shifts in the
Sections priorities beginning in 2002. For example, the Assistant Attorney General in place from
November 2005 through August 2007 stated that since 2002, the Section had increased its enforcement of
the minority language provisions of the VRA and instituted the most vigorous outreach efforts to
jurisdictions covered by the minority language provisions of the act.
During the 7-year period, the Section initiated nearly 70 percent of VRA matters (246 of 367) on behalf of
language minority groups, primarily Spanish speakers (203 of 246). The Section also initiated 162 matters
under section 2 of the VRA. The Section initiated about half of these matters on behalf of language minority
groups (80), primarily Spanish speakers (71), and about half on behalf of racial minorities (88 of 162), primarily
African American voters (71 of 88). During the 7-year period, the Voting Section filed 56 cases, primarily
under the VRA (39). The majority of the cases the Section filed in court under the VRA were on behalf of
language minority groups (30 of 39), primarily Spanish speakers (27). The Acting Assistant Attorney General
reported in September 2008 that the Division had brought more cases under the VRAs minority
language provisions during the past 7 yearsa stated priority than in all other years combined since
1975. While cases involving language minority groups were filed under various VRA provisions, the
largest number of cases (24 of 30) involved claims under section 203 alleging that the covered jurisdiction
had failed to provide voting-related materials or information relating to the electoral process in the
language of the applicable minority group. The Section filed 13 cases involving a claim under section 2 of
the VRA5 on behalf of language minority groups and 10 on behalf of racial minority groups (6 on behalf of
Hispanics, 3 on behalf of African Americans, and 1 on behalf of whites).
The data, illustrates two concepts: not all Department of Justice enforcement hinges on the VRA; 39 of
56 cases filed in the given time period fit under the VRA. Additionally, this card combats the idea that
section 4s nonapplicability somehow entails the end of the VRAs enforcement; as shown above, the
VRA is being enforced even more; the Supreme Court did not gut the act in many respects.

Preclearance was largely redundant with VRA section 2 DAT
Katz, Ellen et al. Discrimination in Voting: Judicial FIndings Under Section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act Since 1982. University of California at Berkeley Law School.
2005. Web. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/kats_discrimination_in_voting.pdf
Of the identified lawsuits, 209 produced at least one published liability decision under Section 2. The remaining
113 include lawsuits in which the only decisions published on Westlaw or LexisNexis addressed preliminary
matters (73 decisions) or fees, remedy, or settlement issues (40 decisions). Of the 209 lawsuits that ended
with a determination of liability, 98 (46.9%) originated in jurisdictions covered by Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act, and 111 (53.1%) were filed in non-covered jurisdictions.
Of lawsuits identified, 88 documented a violation of Section 2 either on the merits or in the course of another
favorable determination for the plaintiff. Another 29 lawsuits made a favorable determination for the plaintiff
(such as issuing a preliminary injunction, granting a settlement, awarding fees, or crafting a remedy) without
stating whether Section 2 was actually violated. Plaintiffs accordingly succeeded in 117 (36.3%) of the lawsuits
identified in this study.
Plaintiffs won more Section 2 lawsuits in Section 5-covered jurisdictions than they did in non-covered
jurisdictions even though less than one-quarter of the U.S. population resides in a jurisdiction covered by
Section 5. Of the 117 successful plaintiff outcomes documented, 67 originated in covered jurisdictions and
50 elsewhere. Plaintiffs in covered jurisdictions also won a higher percentage of the cases decided than
did those in non-covered ones. Thirty percent of the 163 lawsuits published in non-covered jurisdictions ended
favorably for plaintiffs, while 42.1% of the 159 lawsuits from covered jurisdictions produced a result favorable
to the plaintiffs.
The most direct impact demonstrated in this card is that there is little to fear in section 4 districts, given
that section 2 suits are more successful there and can protect voters even without preclearance. This card
still needs to be used carefully; con teams can make the more indirect (and admittedly more difficult to
prove) point that section 2 suits in section 5-covered districts tend to be more successful because section 5
districts are prone to passing more egregious legislation in violation of the VRA.

February 2014 Pro: Allowed for Unjust Regulation of Parties

Section 5 Allowed for the Unjust Regulation of Political
Parties
The first amendment prohibits the regulation of political parties. J CD
Levanon, Neta. "THE ASCENDANCY OF ASSOCIATIONAL FREEDOMS: SECTION
5 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND POLITICAL PARTY DELEGATE
ALLOCATION." Columbia Law Review (2012): n. pag. Web. 6 Jan. 2014.
In contrast, the First Amendments emphasis on traditional libertarian principlesspecifically, freedoms of
speech and associationreflects a national desire to limit state intrusion into private spheres of political party
activity

Section 5 allowed for the unjust regulation of political parties. J CD
Although, on its face, section 5 applies only to State[s] or political subdivsion[s],8 the Supreme Court has
precluded such a narrow interpretation. Specifically, the Court has held that, in the interest of protecting the
exercise and efficacy of minority voting rights, the VRA will sometimes subject political parties to regulation
when their actions cross the boundary from private to public action.9 Subsequent Supreme Court opinions and
lower court interpretations have failed to address adequately how far the holding extends, however.


Section 5 is contrary to the courts precedence to protect political parties. J CD
Most courts have circumvented this question by avoiding an interpretation of the relevant legal issues that
would bring the two lines of cases into direct conflict.11 But skirting the controversy in this manner seems
impossible in the area of state party delegate allocation formulas. In this context, state parties make decisions
that can affect minority voting rights and that necessarily blur the line between internal party procedure and
state action. Since state party delegate allocation formulas bring the two aforementioned jurisprudential strands
into direct conflict, courts will finally be forced to choose a dominant one between them. This Note argues that
the pattern of election law decisions under the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts indicates a convergence of the two
traditionally divergent lines of cases. The Supreme Court has simultaneously expanded its defense of
political party associational rights under the First Amendment, and retreated from earlier expansive
interpretations of section 5. This might be thought to counsel lower courts that First Amendment associational
freedoms should win out over minority voting rights in the state party delegate allocation context such that the
nature of the party procedure at issue, rather than its potential impact on minority voting rights, should be the
basis for determining the permissibility of regulating the procedure under section 5.

Section 5 was used to interfere with internal affairs of political parties. J CD
Contrary to this implication, the August 2009 district court decision in LULAC of Texas v. Texas Democratic
Party (LULAC II) held section 5 applicable to the method of allocating party delegates from precinct-level
conventions to the state nominating convention as part of the partys se lection of delegates to the Democratic
National Convention (Convention) for the 2008 presidential election.14 The courts decision in LULAC II
underscores the lack of explicit judicial guidance in this arena


Recent cases have established judicial precedence to protect the rights of political parties.
J CD
The Court dealt broadly with these issues44 in Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La
Follette, in which the state of Wisconsin challenged the rules governing the seating of delegates at the 1980
Convention.45 The Court framed the issue as whether the State may compel the [Democratic] National Party
to seat a delegation chosen in a way that violates [its] rules46 and held that the national party retained a
protected right of political association under the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the
Fourteenth Amendment.47 Additionally (and relevant to an analysis of the LULAC II decision), the Court
stated that a state, or a court, may not constitutionally substitute its own judgment for that of the Party. A
political partys choice among the various ways of determining the makeup of a States delegation to the partys
national convention is protected by the Constitution.48 This served as the first major indication of the Courts
vigorous defense of party autonomy, at least outside of the race context.

This intrusion of the internal processes of political parties is an unprecedented overreach of
government power. J CD
In the minority voting rights context, certain activities of political parties have been subjected to federal
regulation. The main statutory framework through which this regulation occurs is the VRA, specifically section
5. The standard of analysis in a determination under section 5 is rooted in the same kinds of constitutional
analysis discussed in Part I.A. In essence, courts adjudicate section 5 claims based largely on theories of state
action, but within a specific statutory framework enacted by Congress pursuant to its power under section 2 of
the Fifteenth Amendment. As an initial matter, it should be noted that this statutory framework represents one
of the most creative and contentious exercises of congressional power in American history: Nowhere else does
the federal government intrude so much upon state sovereignty as to require certain states or local subdivisions
to obtain preclearance before implementing legislation.


Allowing Section 5 to remain in practice set up a dangerous legal precedence that threatened
federalism. J CD
This reasoning was extended in Katzenbach v. Morgan, which rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of the
VRA coverage formula under 42 U.S.C. 1973b. The Court held that this was a permissible exercise of
congressional power under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, the Court reasoned that to
hold otherwise would be to con fine the legislative power . . . to the insignificant role of abrogating only those
state laws that the judicial branch was prepared to adjudge unconstitutional. This constituted a clear indication
of the Courts acceptance of Congressional power under the VRA to regulate in the minority voting rights
context, beyond the contours of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Con Evidence
February 2014 Con: Wrongly overrides Congress

The Supreme Courts decision wrongly overrides
Congress
The Supreme Court essentially struck down the law, Fj
The decision did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4, the later section is without significanceIt
was hardly clear, at any rate, that the courts conservative majority would uphold Section 5 if the question
returned to the court in the unlikely event that Congress enacted a new coverage formula. In a concurrence,
Justice Thomas called for striking down Section 5 immediately, saying that the majority opinion had
provided the reasons and had merely left the inevitable conclusion unstated.
Congress repeatedly reauthorized the law, Fj
Section 5, which sets out the preclearance requirement, was originally scheduled to expire in five years.
Congress repeatedly extended it: for five years in 1970, seven years in 1975, and 25 years in 1982. Congress
renewed the act in 2006 after holding extensive hearings on the persistence of racial discrimination at the polls,
again extending the preclearance requirement for 25 years.
Congress reauthorized the law in 2006 by large majorities; the vote was 390 to 33 in the House and
unanimous in the Senate. President George W. Bush, a Republican, signed the bill into law, saying it was an
example of our continued commitment to a united America where every person is valued and treated with
dignity and respect.


Congress is the appropriate body to make this decision, Fj
Ginsburg, Ruth. Shelby County v. Holder dissent. June 25, 2013.
It is well established that Congress judgment regarding exercise of its power to enforce the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Amendments warrants substantial deference.
The basis for this deference is firmly rooted in both constitutional text and precedent. The Fifteenth
Amendment, which targets precisely and only racial discrimination in voting rights, states that, in this
domain, Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate,
which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the
constitution, are constitutional. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 421 (1819) (emphasis added).
J ustice Ginsburg Argues in Favor of Congress AMS
Justice Ginsburg, who was a civil rights lawyer specializing in gender issues before joining the Supreme Court,
writes a strongly worded dissent. While her fellow justices believe the "very success" of the act "demands its
dormancy," she notes that Congress "was of another mind" and had reauthorized the act repeatedly:
With overwhelming support in both Houses, Congress concluded that, for two prime reasons, 5
should continue in force, unabated. First, continuance would facilitate completion of the
impressive gains thus far made; and second, continuance would guard against back sliding. Those
assessments were well within Congress province to make and should elicit this Courts unstinting
approbation.


Court Should Defer to Congress AMS
In voting rights cases, she wrote, the court should defer to Congress, which has been given sweeping
powers under the Constitution, and especially in amendments passed after the Civil War, to protect such
rights. Applying different rules to different states is nothing so unusual, she wrote, and the court should only
ask if the methods used by Congress to address the problem are rational, and not subject them to a tougher test.
"Congress approached the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA with great care and seriousness," she said. "The
same cannot be said of the courts opinion today."
The stated purpose of the Civil War Amendments was to arm Congress with the power and
authority to protect all persons within the Nation from violations of their rights by the States. In
exercising that power, then, Congress may use all means which are appropriate, which are
plainly adapted to the constitutional ends declared by these Amendments. McCulloch, 4 Wheat., at
421. So when Congress acts to enforce the right to vote free from racial discrimination, we ask not
whether Congress has chosen the means most wise, but whether Congress has rationally selected
means appropriate to a legitimate end. It is not for us to review the congressional resolution of [the
need for its chosen remedy]. It is enough that we be able to perceive a basis upon which the Congress
might resolve the conflict as it did. Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S. 641, 653 (1966).
Until today, in considering the constitutionality of the VRA, the Court has accorded Congress the
full measure of respect its judgments in this domain should garner.
The Courts role, then, is not to substitute its judgment for that of Congress, but to determine whether
the legislative record sufficed to show that Congress could rationally have determined that [its chosen]
provisions were appropriate methods. City of Rome, 446 U. S., at 176177.
This Court has repeatedly reaffirmed Congress prerogative to use any rational means in exercise of its
power in this area. And both precedent and logic dictate that the rational-means test should be easier to
satisfy


Supreme Court out of Bounds with Decision AMS
Andrew Cohen. John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Courts Voting-Rights Decision. The
Atlantic. July 20, 2013. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/john-
paul-stevens-on-the-supreme-courts-voting-rights-decision/277962/
Then comes the passage in Stevens's essay that naturally got the most publicity following its publication. In it,
Stevens is not just attacking the majority's judgment in Shelby County but the fact that the Court's conservatives
were willing to judge at all. What follows is a direct accusation against the Roberts Court that, in Shelby
County, it engaged in a form of so-called "judicial activism" that conservatives typically decry. What Stevens is
saying here is that the Chief Justice and his four colleagues inappropriately inserted themselves between the
15th Amendment and Congress when it comes to voting rights. He writes:
The statistics set forth in Roberts's recent opinion persuasively explain why a neutral decision-maker could
reasonably conclude that at long last the imposition of the preclearance requirement on the states that lost the
Civil War--or more precisely continuing to use the formula that in 1965 identified those states--is not justified
by the conditions that prevail today. The opinion fails, however, to explain why such a decision should be made
by the members of the Supreme Court.

The members of Congress, representing the millions of voters who elected them, are far more likely to
evaluate correctly the risk that the interest in maintaining the supremacy of the white race still plays a
significant role in the politics of those states. After all, that interest was responsible for creating the slave
bonus when the Constitution was framed, and in motivating the violent behavior that denied blacks access to the
polls in those states for decades prior to the enactment of the VRA.
The several congressional decisions to preserve the preclearance requirement--including its 2006 decision--were
preceded by thorough evidentiary hearings that have consistently disclosed more voting violations in those
states than in other parts of the country. Those decisions have had the support of strong majority votes by
members of both major political parties. Not only is Congress better able to evaluate the issue than the
Court, but it is also the branch of government designated by the Fifteenth Amendment to make decisions
of this kind.


Solely Congress Responsibility AMS
Deborah Vagins. Supreme Court put a Dagger in the Heart of the Voting Rights Act.
ACLU. July 2, 2013. https://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/supreme-court-put-
dagger-heart-voting-rights-act
In 2006, Congress developed an extensive record, showing that Section 5, and the coverage formula on which it
depends, is still needed. Congress amassed over 15,000 pages, heard from over 90 witnesses, held over a dozen
hearings, and voted nearly unanimously to extend Section 5. What makes the Supreme Court's decision so
shocking is that in addition to this record, Congress acts at the height of its authority when it enforces the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to root out invidious discrimination. The decision is an attack on
Congress' constitutional authority to protect voters from racial discrimination.
Congressional Authority Overstepped AMS
Stephen Dinan. Supreme Court Says Voting Rights Act of 1965 is no longer Relevant.
Washington Post. June 25, 2013.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/25/court-past-voting-
discrimination-no-longer-held/?page=all
J. Gerald Hebert, a voting rights lawyer, said the ruling marks the first time since the 1880s that
the Supreme Court found Congress had overstepped itself under the 15th Amendment, which guarantees
that the right to vote cannot be denied because of race, and grants the legislature broad powers to ensure those
rights are protected.
I think todays decision is an extreme act of judicial activism. Just four years ago, this precise issue was
before the court and there were five justices at that time who did not declare the Voting Rights Act or the
coverage provisions unconstitutional, he said. What has changed in four years?


The Supreme Court incorrectly decided on an issue of pragmatism DAT
Toobin, Jeffrey. Do We Still Need the Voting Rights Act? The New Yorker. 22 May
2012. Web.
But as those changes illustrate, nothing about the nation is static, and its not easy to say which way the country
is moving on racial matters. By overwhelming majorities, both Houses of Congress thought it was
worthwhile to maintain the federal monitoring that has made such changes took place. Its a more
complicated country these days, but its not a fully healed one, either. So far, the Roberts Court has been
eager to portray the nation as beyond the need for racial remediesespecially with regard to public schools. In
light of that record, the odds are that the Court will reach the same kind of conclusion with regard to the Voting
Rights Act and declare Section 5 unconstitutional. At that point, the white-controlled legislatures of the former
Confederacy will be largely on their own in protecting minority voting rights. For better or worse, our
problems are solved when the Court says they areand these Justices appear determined indeed to close
the door to an era that may not be completely over.
In deciding on constitutionality, the Court overstepped its bounds; that is, its judgment on
constitutionality was based on a pragmatic judgment of racism in America. Congress, given that it
responds to a representative constituency, is the proper judge of whether something is no longer a
problem, not the Supreme Court. The Court essentially decided that Congress, which reaffirmed Section
5 in 2006 for another 25 years, gave Section 5 nearly two decades more than it needed.


The Supreme Court ignored congruency, which should have been the judgment criterion
DAT
Richey, Warren. Appeals court upholds key provision of Voting Rights Act. Supreme
Court could loom. Christian Science Monitor. 18 May 2012. Web.
At issue is whether Congresss decision to extend Section 5 of the VRA for 25 years meets a Supreme
Court requirement that the remedy be congruent and proportional to the level of discrimination that
currently exists in nine states and parts of seven other states covered by the provision.
A federal judge rejected the countys argument and upheld the statute. On Friday, the appeals court affirmed
that result, eliciting praise from civil rights organizations.
Our job is to ensure that Congresss judgment is reasonable and rests on substantial probative
evidence, Judge David Tatel wrote in the 63-page majority opinion. After thoroughly scrutinizing the
record and given that overt racial discrimination persists in covered jurisdictions we are satisfied that
Congresss judgment deserves judicial deference.
Tatel added: Does the severe remedy of [Section 5] preclearance remain congruent and proportional? The
legislative record is by no means unambiguous. But Congress drew reasonable conclusions from the extensive
evidence it gathered.
The real task was to decide whether section 5 (preclearance) was a reasonable way to screen for
discriminatory practices. Instead, the Court decided on whom to screen, which was a separate issue not
at the heart of the matter.


Congress had already specifically and almost unanimously ratified Section 4 criteria DAT
[Rep. Jerrold Nadler] We did consider revising the formula challenged in Shelby County but determined
that the existing formula still served as a useful and effective method of applying Section 5 where needed.
That determination was not based solely on the questions focused on by the Court and identified by Congress in
1965 but by the full weight of the evidence we found in 2006.
The Court, arrogating to itself the quintessentially congressional power to decide what facts are relevant
and what constitutes an appropriate remedy, struck down the formula in Section 4, eviscerating and
rendering a nearly dead letter the preclearance provisions of Section 5.
Congress long ago made the correct determination that requiring voters to go to court after they had already
been disenfranchised rendered voting rights unenforceable and encouraged local political leaders to rig the
system to their advantage. To be clear, the Voting Rights Act is not solely about racial animus. It is about
political power. It is not a matter of determining whether one part of the country is more racist than another
but only whether certain jurisdictions engage in conduct requiring special scrutiny to protect the right to vote.
Excluding minorities from effective participation in our democracy renders them something less than full
citizens. Here, Justice Scalia was dead wrong. The right to vote in a free and fair election is not a racial
entitlement but rather the birthright of every American regardless of race.
The Court ruled based on what was pragmatic, essentially disputing the modern relevance of data used in
section 4. But as this evidence clearly shows, Congress actually took the more pragmatic approach and
already expressly considered the impacts of sections 4 and 5. The Supreme Courts ruling thus does not
have constitutional or applied meritwhere needed is an important phrase here.


The Supreme Court broke precedent and left Congress in limbo in the process DAT
[Rep. John Conyers, Jr.] Without question, the Act has been an unqualified success, helping rid our Nation of
legal barriers to voting discrimination, paving the way for the election of the first African-American in our
history to the White House.
But these successes do not mean that the work of the Voting Rights Act is complete. And for that reason, my
colleague, Jim Sensenbrenner, and I compiled a voluminous record in support of reauthorization of the Act in
the year 2006. This record in many respects greatly exceeded previous reauthorization efforts. Most
importantly, we carefully followed the parameters set out in the City of Boerne v. Flores in updating the
Act so that it would pass legal scrutiny and protect voters from well-documented continuing
discrimination.
In response to legal challenges to the Act following 2006, we asserted congressional authority to enact
voting rights legislation under the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments of the Constitution in two separate
amicus briefs. We were confident that the United States Supreme Court, following precedents set in
South Carolina v. Katzenbach and the City of Rome v. United States, would uphold the constitutionality
of the Act. This explains why I and many of my colleagues, most legal commentators were deeply disappointed
by the Courts 5-4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which invalidated the coverage formula or trigger in
Section 4(b) of the Act as being outdated.
As a result of Shelby, Section 5 of the Act, which requires preclearance for jurisdictions covered by Section
4(b), is effectively suspended. Section 5 is the Acts key provision requiring covered jurisdictions to obtain
advance approval from the Department of Justice or a three-judge panel before they can implement voting
changes. The suspension of Section 5 immediately enables jurisdictions with a clear and recent history of
discrimination to dilute the impact of minority voting through redistricting and to implement procedures that
could create barriers to the ballot box.
In addition, the suspension of Section 5 preclearance deprives the Justice Department of a critical tool that has
been used to protect the voting rights of minority citizens in jurisdictions with a history of discrimination.
Although the Supreme Court has invited Congress to pass an updated coverage formula, the opinion left
unresolved several important questions. The most immediate of these issues pertains to the current state of
existing voting rights enforcement law during the interim between this ruling and the enactment of any
new coverage formula.
The issue is not simply that the Supreme Court subverted multiple rulings that served as the VRAs
precedence. The Court also created a power vacuum that left both Congress and the DOJ unable to deal
with potentially serious voting infringement issues due to a lack of section 5 powers.

Striking down this law will create Congressional gridlock. J CD
Duke Law School's Guy-Uriel Charles says he thinks the court's decision may have some nasty consequences,
provoking partisan fights, with both Republicans and Democrats using the issue to turn out their respective
bases.
There was already some evidence of a partisan divide on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, as some key Republicans
applauded the court's decision and Democrats condemned it.

February 2014 Con: Preclearance necessary

Preclearance Requirements are necessary

History shows that no other remedies work, Fj
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) has worked to combat voting discrimination where other remedies had
been tried and failed. Particularly effective is the VRAs requirement of federal preclearance for all changes to
voting laws in the regions of the country with the most aggravated records of rank discrimination against
minority voting rights.
Congress learned from experience that laws targeting particular electoral practices or enabling case-by-case
litigation were inadequate to the task. In the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, Congress authorized
and then expanded the power of the Attorney General to seek injunctions against public and private
interference with the right to vote on racial grounds. But circumstances reduced the ameliorative
potential of these legislative Acts:
Voting suits are unusually onerous to prepare, sometimes requiring as many as 6,000 man-hours
spent combing through registration records in preparation for trial. Litigation has been
exceedingly slow, in part because of the ample opportunities for delay afforded voting officials and
others involved in the proceedings. Even when favorable decisions have finally been obtained, some
of the States affected have merely switched to discriminatory devices not covered by the federal decrees
or have enacted difficult new tests designed to prolong the existing disparity between white and Negro
registration. Alternatively, certain local officials have defied and evaded court orders or have simply
closed their registration offices to freeze the voting rolls. Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 313


Section 4 has recently prevented discrimination, Fj
Protecting Voters of Color In the Wake of the Supreme Courts Ruling in Shelby
County, Alabama v. Holder NAACP Legal Defense Fund. July 2013.
Passed at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has protected the rights
of millions of voters of color in those places of our country where discrimination has been the most persistent
and adaptive, and difficult in time and expense to dislodge through case-by-case litigation. In the past 25
years, Section 5 blocked over 1,000 discriminatory voting changes. With the stroke of a pen, a five member
majority of the Court removed this vital protection. Section 5 has protected voters in the following ways:
In 2008 in Calera, Alabama, located in the very county that brought down this key voter
protection, Section 5 reinstated the citys only African American city council member after he lost
his seat when his district was changed from 79% to just 29% Black registered voters.
In 2001 in Kilmichael, Mississippi, Section 5 stopped a city council election from being cancelled
after voters of color had become a majority of the city and candidates of color were poised to win
for the first time in the citys history.
In 2008 in Alaska, Section 5 rejected plans to eliminate precincts in several Native American villages,
which would have required voters to travel by air or sea to cast a ballot.
In 2012 in Texas, Section 5 stopped a discriminatory photo ID measure that would have
permitted concealed gun licenses but not student photo IDs to be accepted to vote.
Beginning in 2013, because of Section 5, South Carolina voters still can vote if they have a reasonable
impediment to lacking a photo ID.

Section 4 Still Relevant AMS
Brad Heath. Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act. USA Today.
2013. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/25/supreme-court-
shelby-voting-rights-alabama-congress-race/2116491/
The law's defenders say Section 5 prevented Texas, Florida and South Carolina from enacting new voting
restrictions in 2012. This year, they say, it stands as a bulwark against similar discrimination. In
Beaumont, Texas, a school board election was canceled to prevent white candidates from running
unopposed in three majority-black districts. In North Carolina, lawmakers have proposed new
restrictions on voter identification, registration and early voting.


Lewis Laments Decision AMS
Officials hailed the decision in places such as Selma and Shelby County, Alabama, which raised the case when
it sued the federal government. But President Barack Obama did not, nor did civil rights leaders.
John Lewis is one of them. Born to sharecroppers in Alabama in 1940, he became a leader in the civil rights
movement, working with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and others. In March 1965, he led hundreds protesting
voting rights in Alabama when they were confronted by Alabama authorities after crossing the Edmund Pettus
Bridge in Selma -- an incident that became known as "Bloody Sunday."
Long a U.S. representative from Georgia, Lewis said what happened then is relevant now, and he claimed
"numerous attempts to impede voting rights" nationwide still need to be addressed. To him, the high
court decision -- which he said "stuck a dagger into the heart of the Voting Rights Act" -- is personal.
"These men never stood in unmovable lines," said Lewis of the justices, referring to voter registration
ques that never moved. "They were never denied the right to participate in the democratic process. They
were never beaten, jailed, run off their farms or fired from their jobs.
"No one they knew died simply trying to register to vote. They are not the victims of gerrymandering or
contemporary unjust schemes to maneuver them out of their constitutional rights."
While mostly pathological, John Lewis explanation of the problems with the Supreme Courts decision
hits home. Using Lewis words as an opener will be effective for con teams.
Key Officials Voice Out Against Decision AMS
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York called Tuesday's decision a "devastating blow for civil rights and voting
rights;" New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo described it as "deeply troubling;" and NAACP President Ben Jealous
called the decision "outrageous," because it makes minority voters "more vulnerable to the flood of attacks we
have seen in recent years.
One of the best sources for con teams is the literature available from officials speaking out against the
Courts decision. These strong words provide convincing evidence for con teams.


Preclearance prevents backsliding, Fj
Arnwine, Barbara and Johnson-Blanco, Marcia. Voting Rights at a Crossroads
Economic Policy Institute. October 25, 2013.
Justice Ginsberg noted that [t]hrowing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to
stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not
getting wet.

Ethnic gerrymandering is still an issue and requires Section 5 as active prevention DAT
Toobin, Jeffrey. Do We Still Need the Voting Rights Act? The New Yorker. 22 May 2012.
Web.
Still, while the days of Bull Connor are long gone, Tatel said that Congress still had reason to keep Section 5 in
place when it held the reauthorization vote in 2006. Vote dilution remained a big problem for black citizens;
that is, white legislators were still packing minorities into a single district, spreading minority voters thinly
among several districts, annexing predominately white suburbs, and so on. Certain facts, too, were
unavoidable, notably that not one African American had yet been elected to statewide office in Mississippi,
Louisiana, or South Carolina. In short, Tatel concluded that serious and widespread intentional discrimination
persisted in covered jurisdictions and that case-by-case enforcement alone would leave minority citizens
with an inadequate remedy. Without Section 5, Tatel concluded, the rights of minority voters would be in
jeopardy.
Judge David Tatel wrote the majority opinion of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld the
VRA in 2012.

The 2006 reauthorization of preclearance is supported by ongoing discriminatory trends DAT
Wrong Questions, Wrong Answers. The Economist. 23 May 2012. Web.
People are no longer being asked to tell poll workers how many bubbles are in a bar of soap in order to cast
their ballots. This was not 1960s discrimination but the 1990s variantsome intimidation, but a lot of electoral
shenanigans that had the effect of making it harder for minorities to vote and making their votes count for less.
Between 1982 and 2006 the Justice Department objected to over 1,000 proposed voting changes. Why this
is controversial, or doubted, is beyond me. Many of these jurisdictions did everything in their power to keep
minorities from voting for nearly a century. Before that they enslaved minorities. Which is more likely: that
such attitudes would simply vanish with the stroke of Lyndon Johnson's pen, or that they would
continue, admittedly weakened and attenuated, in different forms? Evidence of continuing discrimination
was compelling enough to get Tom Coburn, John Cornyn and Jon Kylnot exactly raving leftists with a

love for federal authorityto support reauthorisation. The Republican president concurred, and signed the
reauthorisation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) into law for another 25 years (pictured). You may have
noticed that it is not yet 2031.
The Justice Departments need to step in against changes up to 2006 is heavily indicative of a continuing
need for Sections 4 and 5 in a contemporary context. To say that discriminatory practices or racism are
weaker is a categorically different assertion from saying they are dead.

Problems the VRA addressed consistently persist in some districts DAT
McDonald, Laughlin, and Daniel Levitas. The Case for Extending and Amending the
Voting Rights Act. American Civil Liberties Union. March 2006. Web.
https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/votingrightsreport20060307.pdf
The three-judge court in Burton v. Sheheen, decided in 1992, relied upon the stipulation of the parties "that
since 1984 there is evidence of racially polarized voting in South Carolina." A subsequent three-judge court in
Smith v. Beasley, decided in 1996, found that "[i]n South Carolina, voting has been, and still is, polarized by
race. This voting pattern is general throughout the state." In Colleton County Council v. McConnell, decided in
2002, the three-judge court made similar findings: "[v]oting in South Carolina continues to be racially polarized
to a very high degree in all regions of the state and in both primary and general elections." In 2004, the court of
appeals affirmed the finding of a district court in South Carolina "that voting in Charleston County Council
elections is severely and characteristically polarized along racial lines."

The District Court for the District of Columbia, in a Section 5 preclearance action involving Georgia's
legislative redistricting plan, found there were areas of the state where "white voters consistently vote
against the preferred candidates of African Americans."

A three-judge court found that in West Tennessee there is "a high level of white bloc voting which usually
enables the majority to defeat the black community's candidate of choice," and that racial polarization is so
extreme that "black candidates cannot expect to succeed in majority-white districts."
Racially-motivated voting is exacerbated by section 5-eligible redistricting plans. Without preclearance,
the door is open for this behavior to continue in counties and states which still are not fully reformed.


Preclearance precludes the need for, and volume of, suits against laws DAT
Aside from blocking the implementation of discriminatory voting changes, Section 5 has a strong deterrent
effect. In 2005, the Georgia legislature redrew its congressional districts, but before doing so it adopted
resolutions providing that it must comply with the non-retrogression standard of Section 5. The plan it
drew maintained the black voting age population in the two majority black districts (represented by John Lewis
and Cynthia McKinney) at almost exactly their pre-existing levels, and it did the same for the two other districts
(represented by Sanford Bishop and David Scott) that had elected black members of Congress. There was no
objection by the Department of Justice when the plan was submitted for preclearance. That does not mean,
however, that Section 5 did not play a critical role in the redistricting process. Rather, it means Section 5
encouraged the legislature to ensure that any voting changes would not have a discriminatory effect on minority
voters, and that it would not become embroiled in the preclearance process.
This shows that not only does section 5 have a deterrent effect, but it strengthens laws. Every law that
gets bolstered by adherence to section 5 prevents citizens from having to file suits and retrogression from
occurring, a net positive benefit.

Political polarization among different ethnic groups require the need for increased
protections. J CD
June 2013. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
In challenging the 2006 extension of the law, authorities in Shelby County, Alabamasuburban Birmingham
argued that the conditions that earned their county a place on the list of covered jurisdictions no longer apply.
Ginsburg and her associates (Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan) werent buying it.
Given the racial polarization of Alabamas political parties, she observed, such practices as drawing district
boundaries and scheduling electionsthe ordinary push and pull of party strategists jockeying for advantage
may produce outcomes that dilute black votes.


Discriminatory methods are still employed in these jurisdictions. J CD
June 2013. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
Arguing that the past is still with us were four dissenting justices, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg doing the
writing. Noting that Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act as recently as 2006including its list of
covered jurisdictionsGinsburg maintained that the lawmakers found after extensive study that 40 years has
not been sufficient time to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination following nearly 100 years of racial
discrimination. While poll taxes and literacy tests no longer bar black citizens from exercising their franchise,
subtler modes of discrimination are still employed to dilute the impact of their votes, Ginsburg wrote. She cited
such practices as at-large elections of city council members (allowing a white majority to elect the entire
council) and annexation of majority-white neighborhoods to raise the percentage of white voters in a given
jurisdiction.

Texas has attempted discriminatory practices under the Voter Rights Act in recent history.
J CD
Bathija, Sandhya. "5 Reasons Why Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Enhances Our
Democracy." Center for American Progress. N.p., 19 Feb. 2013. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
Texas would have passed the strictest voter ID law in the nation in 2011, placing unforgiving burdens on
minority voters. The law would have allowed concealed handgun licenses to serve as a form of valid
identification to vote, but would have rejected the use of a college ID or a state employee ID. Luckily, Section 5
blocked the law and saved African American and Latino voters from being disenfranchised in the 2012 election.

Georgia has attempted discriminatory practices under the Voter Rights Act in recent history.
J CD
Georgia would have continued to use a voter verification program to check the citizenship status of every
person seeking to register to vote. Because Georgia failed to receive Section 5 preclearance before
implementing the law, evidence was obtained that made it clear that minority voters were being flagged at
higher rates, requiring time-consuming additional steps to be taken to prove their citizenship. The Department
of Justice denied preclearance for this law in 2009.

Mississippi has attempted discriminatory practices under the Voter Rights Act in recent
history. J CD
Mississippi would have required people to register to vote twice: once for federal elections and once for state
and local elections. Knowing that it is more difficult for minorities to overcome administrative barriers, this
tactic would have resulted in diluting the minority vote in state and local elections. The Department of Justice,
using Section 5, blocked the law in 1997.

Arizona has attempted discriminatory practices under the Voter Rights Act in recent history.
J CD
Arizona would have implemented a redistricting plan that would have divided certain election districts so
Latinos would no longer be the majority in those districts and would no longer be able to elect candidates of
their choice to represent them. The Department of Justice denied preclearance for this law in 2002.

Safeguards to local elections have been removed. J CD
The elimination of Section 5 may have the most devastating consequences in small cities and communities
where individuals are less likely to litigate discriminatory changes. Section 5 requires covered jurisdictions to
submit requests for even minor changes at the local level and protects against discriminatory practices that
would otherwise go unnoticed.
In 2011 the Pitt County School District in North Carolina decided to reduce the number of school board
members from 12 to 7 and shorten their terms in office. Section 5 blocked the change from going into effect
after the Department of Justice determined that such a change would decrease representation of minority-
preferred candidates on the school board.
In Clinton, Mississippi, where 34 percent of the population is African American, the city proposed to its six-
member council a redistricting plan that did not include a single ward where African American voters had the
power to elect candidates of their choice. Racially polarized voting is still a problem in Mississippi, and the
redistricting plan ensured there was no longer a majority African American ward. The Department of Justice
found reliable evidence that the city had acted with a racially discriminatory purpose and blocked the change
from going into effect in 2011.

Underrepresentation in state legislatures will become an even bigger problem. J CD
Under the Voting Rights Act, jurisdictions that must seek preclearance have a history of racial discrimination in
voting practices, and there is still evidence that racial discrimination is prevalent in Section 5-covered
jurisdictions. Most of the states fully covered under Section 5 have the highest African American populations in
the country, which should mean that African Americans are strongly represented in the government. But that is
unfortunately not the case.
African Americans are still significantly underrepresented in state legislatures, in Congress, and in statewide
offices such as governor and U.S. Senate positions. Where African Americans do serve in public office, they are
elected in districts that are majority minority voters. Racially polarized voting such as this indicates that race is
still a factor in how people vote. (see Figure 2 on following page)
Mississippi, which is nearly 40 percent African Americanthe highest population of African Americans in any
state in the countryhas never elected an African American governor. There is one African American currently
in Congress who represents Jackson, Mississippi, which is more than 60 percent African American.
Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia, Georgia, and South Carolina lead the country in being the most
underrepresented when it comes to African Americans in the state legislature.

Direct oversight on election day has been removed allowing for corruption to occur. J CD
In addition, federal observers are frequently sent to Section 5-covered states on Election Day. The U.S. attorney
general is permitted to send federal observers to certain Section 5-covered jurisdictions if there is reason to
believe that voting rights will not be protected. Between 1966 and 2004, the attorney general sent a total of
1,142 federal observers to different states to monitor voting practices during elections. Most of these observers
are sent into counties that are more than 40 percent nonwhite. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and
South Carolina accounted for 66 percent of all federal observer coverages between 1982 and 2004. When
federal observers are sent to a jurisdiction, it is referred to as an observer coverage. (see Figure 3) In the 2012
presidential election, the Department of Justice sent observers into counties in all of the fully covered Section 5
states except Virginia.


Section 5 is a necessary alternative to costly, time-intensive litigation. J CD
Congress passed the Voting Rights Act because case-by-case litigation was not working to protect the right to
vote in states where racial and ethnic discrimination mostly occurred. It was slow, difficult, and costly to
challenge every type of voter suppression tactic used in counties and states around the country. And even when
litigation was successful in stopping the unconstitutional practices, state officials would ignore the court orders
or find some new discriminatory scheme to ensure minorities could not exercise their right to vote.
This would not be any different today. Consider the number of states that passed voter suppression laws since
2010 in Section 5-covered jurisdictions. Without Section 5, minority voters would have had to build a case,
front the costs, and challenge the following laws:
Proof-of-citizenship laws: Alabama, Arizona, and Georgia
Voter ID laws: Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texasin fact, because of Section 5, South Carolina
watered down its original version of the law before seeking approval from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia
Limits to early voting: Georgia
Instead, Section 5 required the Justice Department or the D.C. Circuit Court to approve the laws before they
disenfranchised minority voters.

During the 2012 elections, a large number of discriminatory practices were passed. J CD
The 2012 election cycle highlighted a significant and troubling trend in our democracy: states across the country
passing laws that would keep many Americans from participating in the political process. We witnessed states
enacting restrictive voter ID laws, purging voter rolls, limiting early voting and polling-place hours, and
redrawing congressional districts in a way that limits fair and equal participation in the political process.
Because of these efforts, as well as fundamental shortcomings in our election administration system, many
Americans had to wait in line for hours to cast their ballots in the 2012 election. These voter-suppression
measures had a disproportionate impact on people of color, low-income voters, and the growing Millennial
population. Post-election studies indicate that African American and Latino voters had to wait in line nearly
twice as long as white voters.



Discrimination is still a serious, but more subtle, problem. J CD
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg described the evidence of discrimination on which Congress relied in
reauthorizing the act, most recently in 2006. Congress noted that while progress had been made, voting
discrimination had evolved into subtler second-generation barriers, such as racial gerrymandering, at-large
voting, and discriminatory annexation. Justice Ginsburg criticizes the majority for failing to defer to the
Congress charged with the obligation to enforce the [the Fifteenth Amendment] by appropriate legislation.
Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), who as a young man was severely beaten by police during a voting rights march, calls
the decision was a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights Act.

I n 2013, numerous attempts by state legislatures would have passed with Section 4 in place.
J CD
Legislators and election administrators formerly subject to preclearance could erect more obstacles to voter
registration or casting a ballot. In 2013 alone, state legislatures considered more than 80 bills that would limit
voting opportunities, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Republicans in North Carolina gained control
of the state government in 2012 for the first time since 1896, and their effort to restrict the right to vote is now
in full swing. Republican legislators in the Tar Heel State are considering a bill that would impose a tax on
parents whose college-student children register to vote in the city or town where they attend college. North
Carolina legislators are also considering bills to make voter registration more difficult, end same-day voter
registration, make it harder for ex-felons to vote, reduce early voting, and end early voting on Sundays. Similar
efforts are underway in scores of state legislatures, including several jurisdictions that were previously required
to preclear their voting laws.



Racial discrimination is also being used as a tool to give the Republicans more influence.
J CD
The dissenting judge also said that an intellectually honest examination of the law would not ignore the fact
that the law would have a disproportionate impact on citizens who tend to vote for Democrats. This legislation
does not affect all Michigan citizens equally, said Justice Michael Cavanagh in dissent. A reasonable person
should not be blind to considering the possibility that politics may have played a role.

Section 5 was responsible for preventing discrimination before the 2012 election. J CD
Weiser, Wendy. "Section 5 Is Still Crucial to Maintaining Americans' Right to Vote." US

Leading up to the 2012 election, states passed a wave of restrictive laws that, had they gone into effect, would
have made it harder for millions of eligible Americans to vote. These lawswhich ranged from voter ID
requirements to registration cutbacks to curbs on early voting would have fallen most harshly on minorities.

Section 5 of the VRA has been responsible for fixing rights violations of Latinos as well in
recent history. J CD
Section 5 was critical in turning back the tide and stopping real discrimination. It blocked a discriminatory
photo ID requirement in Texas, which required a kind of ID more than 600,000 eligible voters did not have. It
required Florida to restore some early voting hours used especially by minority voters. And it blocked Texas
redistricting maps after a federal court found they intentionally discriminated against Latino voters.


Section 4 served as a necessary deterrent measure against discriminatory policies. J CD
But Section 5 did much more: It deterred states from passing discriminatory laws in the first place. In South
Carolina, lawmakers rejected a highly-restrictive voter ID requirement because they knew it wouldn't pass
muster. Instead, the state passed a law that was more flexible for the 216,000 registered citizens without driver's
licenses or nondriver's IDs. A federal court approved the less restrictive version.

Section 4 is necessary for Congress to fulfill its duties outlined in the Constitution. J CD
Gans, David. "The Supreme Court Should Side with Congress on Voting Rights Act." US
The biggest problem with Shelby County's argument is the Constitution itself, which explicitly gives to
Congress broad power to "enforce" by "appropriate legislation" the Constitution's prohibition on racial
discrimination in voting. In the Voting Rights Act, Congress used this express power to ensure that the right to
vote would be a reality for all persons regardless of race.

Section 5 is necessary to stop abuse at the local level. J CD
Henderson, Wade. "Voting Rights Act's Section 5 Still Stopping Discrimination Today."
US News. U.S.News & World Report, 27 Feb. 2013. Web. 04 Jan. 2014.
Section 5 is also effective in protecting voting rights at the local level. The town of Calera, in Shelby County
itself, is a perfect example. In Calera, the town's only black council member lost re-election after the town
annexed new, largely white communities and redrew election districts in a way that prevented voters from
choosing the candidate of their choice. Because of Section 5, the town was required to redraw the districts, and
voters returned the community's candidate of choice to office.
Section 5 of the VRA is necessary to help uphold democratic ideals. J CD
Henderson, Wade. "Voting Rights Act's Section 5 Still Stopping Discrimination Today."
US News. U.S.News & World Report, 27 Feb. 2013. Web. 04 Jan. 2014.
The Voting Rights Act is necessary to ensure that our aspirations for a stronger democracy are a reality
for all citizens. Ongoing evidence shows that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is the most effective tool our
nation has to stop discrimination against minorities at the ballot box. It stops real discrimination against real
voters and we must ensure that Section 5 can continue to do this important work.
February 2014 Con: Ruling allows for voter ID laws

Supreme Court Ruling allows for Voter ID laws
The connection between Section 4 and voter I D laws, AMS
Barnes, Robert. Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act The
There could be immediate consequences from the courts ruling. Just hours after the ruling, Texas Attorney
General Greg Abbott said his state will move forward with a voter-identification law that had been
stopped by a panel of federal judges and will carry out redistricting changes that had been mired in court
battles.
Abusive North Carolina Changes AMS
NORTH CAROLINA: Two months after the Supreme Court decision, North Carolina passed a number of
measures, including strict new photo ID requirements. The law also eliminates same-day voter
registration, shortens the early voting period by seven days, and specifies that ballots cast at the wrong
polling station will be thrown out. Some changes will be phased in starting in 2014, and the photo ID
provision goes into effect in 2016.
The North Carolina NAACP and a civil rights group called the Advancement Project havefiled a
lawsuit challenging the changes. The Justice Department also filed a suit of its own. But the suits venture into
some new legal territory.


Abusive Texas Changes AMS
TEXAS: Last year, a federal court rejected Texas voter ID law, calling it the most stringent in the
country. The panel also rejected the states redistricting maps, finding that they protected white
incumbents while altering districts with minority incumbents.
But on the very day of the Supreme Court ruling, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the state would
immediately enact both measures.
The photo ID law requires voters to present an approved form of photo identification, where before they
could present mail, utility bills or other proof of voter registration. TheJustice Department had refused to
approve the law based on the states findings that Hispanic registered voters were far less likely to have
the approved photo IDs. The new law also requires the photo ID presented on voting day to match the
states voter rolls complicating voting for some married women and others with name changes.
The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against the newly enacted photo ID requirements and joined an
ongoing lawsuit against the disputed redistricting maps.
Abusive Florida I D Laws AMS
FLORIDA: After the Supreme Court ruling, Florida resumed its plans to remove non-citizens from its
voter rolls using the federal SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) database.
The Department of Homeland Security database helps government agencies check the immigration statuses of
people applying for government benefits like drivers licenses, housing assistance, or Medicaid.
But opponents of Floridas measure say that SAVE data is faulty and not meant for elections, and that
using the database to verify voter rolls will disenfranchise eligible voters. (Colorado legislators rejected a
bill to purge rolls based on SAVE data for this very reason, but that didnt stop Secretary of State Scott Gessler
from moving ahead with the plan.) The Miami Herald found that Florida voters flagged for verification
weredisproportionately Hispanic, and most turned out to be citizens. The Department of Justice has also
said that SAVE is not meant to be a comprehensive and definitive listing of U.S. citizens, especially
since it doesnt include data about people born in the United States.
A nonprofit group has challenged the law, but a federal court dismissed the lawsuit after the Supreme Court
ruled that Florida was no longer subject to preclearance.

Abusive Virginia Voting Law Changes AMS
VIRGINIA: Virginia passed a number of voting laws this spring that seem likely to go into effect in wake
of the Supreme Court ruling.
The Virginia legislature passed a photo ID law last year (which the Justice Department approved), but
the more recent measure goes further to limit what kinds of voter identification are acceptable. Voters
can no longer show utility bills, bank statements, government checks or paychecks before they vote, but
they can get an ID for free if they dont already have one.
The new laws also require the Virginia State Board of Elections to remove ineligible voters by comparing state
voter rolls with the SAVE database and other states.The Democratic Party of Virginia has sued the state over
the interstate crosschecks, contending that the database has erroneous information and the law will
disenfranchise poor, elderly and minority voters, but a federal judge rejected the suit for lack of evidence. As of
Oct. 17, the Board of Elections had already purged more than 38,000 voters.
South Carolina and Mississippi Voting Law Changes AMS
SOUTH CAROLINA: In October 2012, a federal court blocked the implementation of South Carolinas
photo ID law until 2013. The court found that although the law was not discriminatory, there was not
enough time to implement changes before the 2012 election. South Carolina Attorney General Alan
Wilson said the Supreme Court ruling now allows states to implement reasonable election reforms, such as
voter ID laws similar to South Carolinas.

MISSISSIPI: Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann said Mississippi will enact a strict photo ID law by
2014. The state says it will provide free transportation to government offices where voters will be able to
obtain free photo IDs.


Alabama, Arizona, South Dakota Voting Law Changes AMS
ALABAMA: Secretary of State Beth Chapman said Alabama would also enact changes to its photo ID
law by 2014. Like Virginia, Alabama used to accept other kinds of non-photo identification, such as
utility bills and Social Security cards. But the new law requires voters to present photo IDs (the state will also
provide free voter IDs to those who dont have them). Legislators passed the measure in 2011, but Alabama
stalled in submitting the law for preclearance.

ARIZONA: The Supreme Court issued another significant ruling on voting laws this summer: In Arizona
et al. v Intertribal Council of Arizona, Inc. et al., the Court ruled that Arizona, formerly a preclearance
state, could not unilaterally require voters to show proof of citizenship before registering to vote in a
federal election. But the Court said Arizona could sue the Election Assistance Commission to get the federal
voter registration form amended to require proof of citizenship. Now, both Arizona and Kansas have sued the
commission.
In case their legal challenges are unsuccessful, the states are setting up two-tiered systems of voter registration,
requiring proof of citizenship for state and local races but not federal ones. So far, Kansas has suspended
registration for about 17,500 voters until those they submit proof of citizenship.

February 2014 Con: Voter ID laws unfair

Voter ID Laws are unfair
The Texas voter I D law targets minorities, Fj
Aguilar, Julian. Feds Reject Texas Voter ID Law The Texas Tribune. March 12, 2012.
The U.S. Department of Justice has rejected Texas' application for preclearance of its voter ID law, saying the
state did not prove that the bill would not have a discriminatory effect on minority voters.
The departments letter states that Texas did not meet its burden under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of
showing that the law will not have a discriminatory effect on minority voters, and therefore the department
objects to the Texas voter identification law, said Xochitl Hinojosa, a Justice Department spokeswoman.
According to the states own data, a Hispanic registered voter is at least 46.5%, and potentially 120%,
more likely than a non-Hispanic registered voter to lack the required identification.
Assistant U.S. Attorney General Thomas E. Perez wrote in a letter to Keith Ingram, the director of Texas
elections division on Monday:
First, according to the most recent American Community Survey three-year estimates, 7.3 percent of Hispanic
or Latino households do not have an available vehicle, as compared with only 3.8 percent of non-Hispanic
white households that lack an available vehicle. Statistically significant correlations exist between the
Hispanic voting-age population percentage of a county, and the percentage of occupied housing units without a
vehicle.
Second, in 81 of the states 254 counties, there are no operational drivers license offices. The disparity in the
rates between Hispanics and non-Hispanics with regard to the possession of either a drivers license or
personal identification card issued by DPS is particularly stark in counties without drivers license offices.
According to the September 2011 data, 10.0 percent of Hispanics in counties without drivers license offices
do not have either form of identification, compared to 5.5 percent of non-Hispanics. According to the
January 2012 data, that comparison is 14.6 percent of Hispanics in counties without drivers license offices,
as compared to 8.8 percent of non-Hispanics. During the legislative hearings, one senator stated that some
voters in his district could have to travel up to 176 miles roundtrip in order to reach a drivers license office.
The legislature tabled amendments that would have, for example, provided reimbursement to voters who live
below the poverty line for travel expenses incurred in applying for the requisite identification.
February 2014 Con: Voter ID laws unnecessary

The North Carolina voter I D law makes voting harder, Fj
October 2, 2013.
North Carolinas omnibus bill is the harshest of the bunch. In addition to limiting the types of ID voters
would be allowed to use at the polls, the law also ends same-day registrationin which you can register
and vote in one visitand cuts the states 17-day early voting period by one full week. It prohibits paid
voter-registration drives (which tend to register more poor and nonwhite voters) and eliminates
provisional voting if someone comes to the wrong precinct to cast a ballot. Any registered voter would be
able to challenge the eligibility of another at the polls. Its a doozyespecially for minority voters.
According to Bob Hall, the director of Democracy North Carolina, a civic group that fought the omnibus bill,
the changes will have a drastically disproportionate impact on African American voters. While African
Americans made up 22 percent of the states registered voters in 2012, they made up 45 percent of the
folks who used same-day registration to update their information and 43 percent of those who voted on
the first Sunday of early voting. Both same-day registration and early voting on Sunday have been
eliminated under the new law.
Some voters turned away, Fj
Jenkins, Colleen. Insight: Scant evidence of voter suppression, fraud in states with ID
laws Reuters. November 2, 2012.
Other possible measures of the law's impact are the number of people turned away from polls and the number
who cast "provisional" ballots, which could be counted later if valid ID is presented.
In Georgia, 2,244 provisional ballots have been cast owing to a lack of photo ID since 2008. Of those,
1,586 people did not return with proper identification within two days of the election, as required, and
their ballots were not counted.
Helen Butler, executive director of the Coalition for the Peoples' Agenda, an Atlanta voting advocacy group,
said even a small number of people disenfranchised is too many.
In Indiana, state officials said 3,767 provisional ballots had been filled out since the law went into effect in
2006, of which 2,056 were not counted. Voters there have 10 days to present an acceptable ID.


Voter I D laws create more confusing government bureaucracy, Fj
World War II veteran William S. Benford, 93, of Atlanta said he went to a Georgia Department of Driver
Services office in 2008 to get a free voter ID card with his Social Security card, Army discharge papers and
local transit card but was told he needed a birth certificate. He was misinformed, as a birth certificate is not
required.
Benford, who was born in rural Georgia and raised by foster parents, does not have a birth certificate and has
never had a driver's license. Although he is a longtime registered voter and tried to vote absentee, his ballot was
returned inexplicably.
Betty Lockett, 103 and blind from cataracts, moved from Illinois to Hammond, Indiana this year and wanted to
vote. Relatives helped her apply, but state officials would not accept her Illinois ID, asking for a passport or
birth certificate. She was born in Mississippi in 1909 before the state began providing birth certificates.
Her relatives pieced together an identity for her using Medicaid documents and paperwork related to her
husband's railroad pension, and Lockett has voted.
Renee Snead, a director at Central Outreach and Advocacy Center for the homeless in Atlanta, said there
is confusion among some voters over the ID requirements.
"People give up," Snead said. "They just move on to things that are higher priority."
Voter I D laws have huge loopholes, Fj
Indiana's absentee voting rules require that voters state why they cannot appear at the polls.
Georgia has relaxed its absentee voter requirements to allow anyone to get a ballot without a reason.
"In Georgia, if people disagree (with the photo ID law) or they don't want to participate, they can vote by
mail," said Secretary of State Kemp.
Kemp acknowledged that most of the state's voter fraud now involves absentee ballots rather than in-
person voting.


Citizens Without Proof methodology, Fj
Citizens Without Proof Brennan Center for Justice. November 2006.
From November 16-19, 2006, the independent Opinion Research Corporation conducted a telephone
survey of 987 randomly selected voting-age American citizens. The survey included several questions
sponsored by the Brennan Center, asking whether respondents had readily available documentary proof of
citizenship or government-issued photo identification, and if so, whether it contained current information:

1) Do you have a current, unexpired government-issued ID with your picture on it, like a drivers license or a
military ID?
2) If yes, does this photo ID have both your current address AND your current name (as opposed to a maiden
name) on it?

3) Do you have any of the following citizenship documents (U.S. birth certificate/U.S. passport/U.S.
naturalization papers) in a place where you can quickly find it if you had to show it tomorrow?
4) If yes, does [that document] have your current name on it (as opposed to a maiden name)?

Scholars recognize that many telephone surveys underrepresent low-income and minority households. See, e.g.,
Stephen J. Blumberg et al., Telephone Coverage and Health Survey Estimates: Evaluating the Need for Concern
About Wireless Substitution ... Although the results of this survey were weighted to account for
underrepresentation of race, they were not weighted to account for a likely skew toward higher-income
households. Because the survey found that low-income households were less likely to have documentary
proof of citizenship or photo ID, it is therefore likely that the survey results actually underestimate the
total number of American citizens who do not have readily available documentation.
The following cards are all from this one study. The estimates are based on the aforementioned survey.
Citizenship documentation is not easy to access, Fj
As many as 7% of United States citizens 13 million individuals do not have ready access to citizenship
documents. Seven percent of the American citizens surveyed responded that they do not have ready access to
U.S. passports, naturalization papers, or birth certificates. Using 2000 census calculations of the citizen voting-
age population, this translates to more than 13 million American adult citizens nationwide who cannot easily
produce documentation proving their citizenship.

Poorer citizens are less likely to have documentation of their citizenship, Fj
Citizens earning less than $25,000 per year are more than twice as likely to lack ready documentation of
their citizenship as those earning more than $25,000. Indeed, the survey indicates that at least 12 percent of
voting-age American citizens earning less than $25,000 per year do not have a readily available U.S. passport,
naturalization document, or birth certificate.
Citizenship documentation is often inaccurate, Fj
Documentation proving citizenship often does not reflect the citizens current name. Many of those who possess
ready documentation of their citizenship do not have documentation that reflects their current name. For
example, survey results show that only 48% of voting-age women with ready access to their U.S. birth
certificates have a birth certificate with current legal name and only 66% of voting-age women with
ready access to any proof of citizenship have a document with current legal name.
Using 2000 census citizen voting-age population data, this means that as many as 32 million voting-age women
may have available only proof of citizenship documents that do not reflect their current name.

Photo I D is not easy to access, Fj
As many as 11 percent of United States citizens more than 21 million individuals do not have
government-issued photo identification. Eleven percent of the American citizens surveyed responded that
they do not have current, unexpired government-issued identification with a photograph, such as a drivers
license or military ID. Using 2000 census calculations of the citizen voting-age population, this translates to
more than 21 million American adult citizens nationwide who do not possess valid government photo ID.
Elderly citizens are less likely to have Photo I Ds, Fj
Elderly citizens are less likely to possess government-issued photo identification. Survey results indicate that
seniors disproportionately lack photo identification. Eighteen percent of American citizens age 65 and above
do not have current government-issued photo ID. Using 2005 census estimates, this amounts to more than 6
million senior citizens.


Minority citizens are less likely to have Photo I Ds, Fj
Minority citizens are less likely to possess government-issued photo identification. According to the survey,
African-American citizens also disproportionately lack photo identification. Twenty-five percent of African-
American voting-age citizens have no current government-issued photo ID, compared to eight percent of
white voting-age citizens. Using 2000 census figures, this amounts to more than 5.5 million adult African-
American citizens without photo identification. Our survey also indicated that sixteen percent of Hispanic
voting-age citizens have no current government-issued photo ID, but due to a low sample size, the results did
not achieve statistical significance.
Poorer citizens are less likely to have Photo I Ds, Fj
Citizens with comparatively low incomes are less likely to possess photo identification. Citizens earning less
than $35,000 per year are more than twice as likely to lack current government-issued photo
identification as those earning more than $35,000. Indeed, the survey indicates that at least 15 percent of
voting-age American citizens earning less than $35,000 per year do not have a valid government-issued photo
ID.
How Voting Laws Hurt Minorities AMS
Hannah Moulton Belec. Why Voter ID Laws are Bad for Women, the Elderly, and
Everyone. American Association of University Women (AAUW). September 4,
2012.http://www.aauw.org/2012/09/04/voter-id-laws/
And though having ID might seem like a simple requirement, 11 percent of voting-age Americans dont
have ID. Thats 21 million people. The numbers are scarier for the elderly and women: 18 percent of
people over the age of 65 dont have a current ID, and only 66 percent of women voters have proof of
citizenship that reflects their current name. The vast majority of women change their names if they get
married, and most voter-ID rules require that your registration name match your photo ID name exactly. Genn
says that while some women do have access to the entire chain of documents that connects their current name
with birth name including birth certificates and marriage licenses thats not always the case.
These statistics clearly show the problem with voter ID laws, in particular how these laws hurt minorities.
Use them to get your judges attention.


Photo I Ds are often inaccurate, Fj
Photo identification often does not reflect current information. For many of those who possess current, valid
government-issued photo ID, the documentation does not reflect their current information. For example,
survey results show that ten percent of voting-age citizens who have current photo ID do not have photo
ID with both their current address and their current legal name. The rate is higher among younger citizens:
as many as 18 percent of citizens aged 18-24 do not have photo ID with current address and name; using 2004
census tallies, that amounts to almost 4.5 million American citizens.
Drivers Licenses are not a reliable form of photo I D, Fj
Weiser, Wendy and Gaskins, Keesha. Citizens Without Proof Stands Strong: A Response
to Von Spakovsky and Ingram Brennan Center for Justice. August 24, 2011.
A 2009 study in Indiana found that of the citizen adult population, 81.4% of all white eligible
adults had access to a drivers license, compared to only 55.2% of black eligible adults. It also
found that strict photo ID requirements have the greatest impact on the elderly, racial and ethnic
minorities, immigrants, those with less educational attainment and lower incomes.
A 2007 report based on exit polls from the 2006 elections in California, New Mexico, and Washington
State found that 12% of actual voters did not have a valid drivers license.
A prominent national survey conducted after the November 2008 election found that 95% of
respondents claimed to have a drivers license, but that 16% of those respondents lacked a license that
was both current and valid.
A noticeable percentage of citizens lack identification, Fj
The National Commission on Federal Election Reform Miller Center of Public Affairs
and The Century Foundation. August 2011.
Apercentage of adults, perhaps about 5 to 7%, do not possess a drivers license or other photo
identification. They are disproportionately poor and urban (since they may use public transit rather than
drive a car). Some Commissioners also object to requiring voters to produce a photo ID or some alternative
form to verify their identity because some members of minority groups believe such a process can be used to
intimidate voters or turn them away in a racially discriminatory fashion.


There is a correlation between having voter I Ds and voting, Fj
Barreto, Matt and Nuo, Stephen and Sanchez, Gabriel. The Disproportionate Impact of
Indiana Voter ID Requirements On The Electorate Washington Institute For The
Study Of Ethnicity And Race. November 8, 2007.
The data highlight many differences across subpopulation in Indiana. First, active voters are much more likely
to have proper ID. Looking at column 3, (those having a valid and up-to-date state ID with their full legal name)
86.1% of those who voted in 2006 reported proper credential compared to 78.1% of those who are registered
but did not vote, and only 75.4% of those who are not registered voters. The gap between voters and
registered non-voters may be evidence that the new voter ID standards in 2006 kept additional would-be
voters away from the polls.

Voter I D Laws Hurt Minorities AMS
Keith Bentele and Erin OBrien. States with Higher Black Turnout are More Likely to
Restrict Voting. December 17, 2013. Washington
Post.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/12/17/states-with-
higher-black-turnout-are-more-likely-to-restrict-voting/?clsrd
In a new article, we examined the dominant explanations (and accusations) advanced by both the right
and left, as well as the factors political scientists know are important for understanding state legislative
activity. We began with no assumptions about the veracity of any claim. What we found was that
restrictions on voting derived from both race and class. The more that minorities and lower-income
individuals in a state voted, the more likely such restrictions were to be proposed. Where minorities
turned out at the polls at higher rates the legislation was more likely enacted.
More specifically, restrictive proposals were more likely to be introduced in states with larger African-
American and non-citizen populations and with higher minority turnout in the previous presidential
election. These proposals were also more likely to be introduced in states where both minority and low-income
turnout had increased in recent elections. A similar picture emerged for the actual passage of these proposals.
States in which minority turnout had increased since the previous presidential election were more likely to pass
restrictive legislation.


Voting I nequality in America AMS
Charles Stewart. Waiting to Vote in 2012. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
- Department of Political Science. April 1, 2013.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2243630
A paper by MIT's Charles Stewart finds that inequality is evident in our political process, in particular,
through the waiting times for minorities.
Viewed nationally, African Americans waited an average of 23 minutes to vote, compared to 12 minutes
for whites; Hispanics waited 19 minutes. While there are other individual-level demographic difference
present in the responses, none stands out as much as race.
What's impressive is how comparatively little variation there was in other demographic categories:
The average wait time among those with household incomes less than $30,000 was 12 minutes versus 14
minutes for those with household incomes greater than $100,000.
Strong Democrats waited an average of 16 minutes versus 11 minutes for strong Republicans.
Respondents who said they paid close attention to the news waited 13.2 minutes; those who said they
had little interest waited 12.8 minutes.
Residents of the wealthiest ZIP codes (average household incomes of $50,000 and up) waited 13
minutes, versus 12 minutes for residents of the poorest ZIP codes ($30,000 and below).
Although it seems small, the average voting time statistics provided by Stewarts study shows that access
to the vote is not yet equal. States should be working to make the voting process easier for minorities, not
harder.


Voter I D laws institutionalize racial, geographic, and income discrimination DAT
[Ted Deutch] Racism is still here in this country. It just takes a different form. Jim Crow, I would suggest, has
been replaced with a far more subversive and far-reaching system of institutionalized racism. So as this
Congress works on a new preclearance formula, I humbly suggest that we look beyond the scope of laws passed
by states that directly impact minorities at the polls and begin looking at the racially biased application of state
laws more generally. For how healthy is the democratic process in any state if we see institutional racism
enshrined in our laws or the application of those laws that limit minority access to the polls, as well as their
basic equal protection under the law, laws that too often prevent minority communities from having a true and
full voice in local, state, and Federal elections?

We see institutional racism in the flood of new voter ID laws. Studies show that as many as 11 percent of
eligible voters do not have government-issued photo IDs. Why do many minority voters lack IDs? Often
they dont need them. Minorities are less likely to have a drivers license because they are more likely to
live in urban areas and often more likely to be poor. Shouldnt we recognize that voter ID laws seek to
disenfranchise certain eligible voters not blatantly based on race but based on requirements that have
significantly and intentionally racial ramifications? Isnt that evidence of institutionalized racism, and shouldnt
that merit extra Federal scrutiny and preclearance in those states that have passed those laws? Racism has
grown more insidious, more subversive, and more subtle in the 50 years since the Voting Rights Act, but it has
not gone away. We have too much yet to do. It is no wonder why African Americans in Florida and across
America so often feel like their voices, if not their lives, are being devalued by our laws.
Ted Deutch represents Floridas 21
st
argument. This card is useful not only linking together multiple
different groups targeted by any kind of discriminatory practices (minorities, the poor, the urban), but
also in providing statistical and logical backing to relate this coalescent group back to repression through
voter ID laws.


Voter I D Laws Discourage Voters AMS
Rick Lyman. Texas Stringent Voter ID Law Makes a Dent at Polls. New York Times.
November 6, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/us/politics/texas-stringent-
voter-id-law-makes-a-dent-at-polls.html?_r=0
The nonpartisan League of Women Voters of Texas, which opposed the new law, said that it was concerned
more about voters who do not have the proper documentation at all, and might stay away from the polls
altogether as a result.
We have always felt there was anywhere from 500,000 to 800,000 voters who would not be able to
present the proper identification, Linda Krefting, the groups president, said. The concern we have is
that all this flap in the news may have discouraged people from turning out at the polls.
Voter I D Laws in Kansas AMS
New York Times. The Dishonesty of Voter ID Laws. September 30, 2013.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/opinion/the-dishonesty-of-voter-id-laws.html
Last month, Kansas and Arizona seized on that point, and sued the federal government for refusing to add their
stricter requirements to the federal form. (While Kansas permits voters who use the federal form to vote in
federal elections, it stops them from voting in state and local elections if they dont provide proof of
citizenship.)
Why does Kansas believe it is necessary to require the additional proof? The state makes broad claims that
noncitizens have unlawfully registered and voted, but, as usual, there is no evidence that any significant voter
fraud exists.
The Kansas secretary of state, Kris Kobach, a longtime proponent and drafter of these laws, points to a
1997 vote on a county ballot measure, in which he claims a bus full of individuals believed to be aliens
voted illegally, and a 2010 election that he says was stolen by 50 votes illegally cast by citizens of
Somalia. But these claims dont stand up to scrutiny. The first case resulted in no prosecutions, and a state
judge found no evidence of voter fraud in the second. Mr. Kobach cites a total of seven convictions for voter
fraud since 1997.
Meanwhile, more than 17,000 Kansans nearly a third of all those who have registered to vote in 2013
currently sit on a suspense list, prevented from voting because the state says they did not provide
the required proof of citizenship. State officials have acknowledged that a majority of those on the list may be
there because of confusion over conflicting state requirements.
Instead of acknowledging the seriousness of these mix-ups, Mr. Kobach called those on the list mostly casual
registrants, many of whom do not intend to vote.

Kansass law, like those the Justice Department has challenged, reveals the underlying dishonesty of
voter ID laws. They have nothing to do with stopping the nonexistent threat of voter fraud and
everything to do with making it harder for more eligible voters to register and vote.
This piece points out several flaws with voter ID lawsfirst, it provides two examples of cases in Kansas
where cases investigating voter fraud showed that there was no voter fraud. Next it explains that some
17,000 citizens are on a suspense list as a result of new ID requirements, potentially preventing thousands
of eligible voters from voting and worse, deterring eligible voters from all the hoop-jumping necessary to
vote.
Women Disenfranchised with Voter I D laws AMS
Wade Goodwyn. Texas Voter ID Law Creates Problems for Some Women. NPR.
October 30, 2013. http://www.npr.org/2013/10/30/241891800/texas-voter-id-law-
creates-a-problem-for-some-women
Texas judges are accustomed to a certain level of respect, even deference as they go about their daily business
in the Lone Star State. So imagine Judge Sandra Watts' surprise when she went to cast her vote last week and
was told there was a problem.
"What I have used for voter registration and identification for the last 52 years was not sufficient yesterday
when I went to vote," Watts says.
Why? Because Watts' name on her driver's license lists her maiden name as her middle name. But on the state
voting rolls, her given middle name is there, and that's difference enough to cause a problem.
"This is the first time I have ever had a problem voting," she says. "And so why would I want to vote
provisional ballot when I've been voting regular ballot for the last 49 years?"
()
Soon after Watts went public, the Democratic candidate for governor, state Sen. Wendy Davis, also was
forced to sign an affidavit before she could vote. Married women, divorced women, anything that
involves changing or adjusting your name could be a problem.


I n Texas I D Laws Cause Political Conflict AMS
"What the law says is in two parts," says Toni Pippins-Poole, the elections administrator for the city of
Dallas. "You must have a photo ID and that photo ID has to be one of the listed categories."
For example, it is fine to use a concealed handgun carry permit to vote, but a student can't use his or her
university photo ID as he could before. Texas Democrats complain that's because those who carry
concealed tend to vote Republican while university students tend to vote Democratic.
While proponents of the supreme courts decision argue that it allows states to set up laws for more equal
access to voting, the implementation of the law in Texas shows how it can unequally disenfranchise
voters.
Voter I D Laws Disenfranchise Elderly Voters AMS
"The second part of the photo ID bill is that the name on the ID that you are presenting has to be identical;
exactly match what we have on the official list of registered voters," Pippins-Poole says. She knows the real test
is next year's congressional elections, and she's concerned about elderly voters.
"People come from the nursing homes, they come in buses, and they typically are the ones who bring just
their voter registration card," she says. "They don't drive anymore [so] there's no need for an ID, [and
some] don't have a birth certificate."
These voters will either be turned away or allowed to vote provisionally and their ballot set aside. They
have a week to return to the registrar's office with a passport or birth certificate. If not, their vote is cast
out.
This worries Mark McKenzie, a political science professor at Texas Tech who has been following voter ID
closely. McKenzie says there's not been much training of election officers.
"It's unclear to me that the election officers will even inform the voters who vote provisionally that in order for
their vote to count they have to go back and show more documents," McKenzie says.



Mississippis voter ID system puts those without preexisting ID in an inescapable bind DAT
Gaskina, Keesha, and Sundeep Iyer. The Challenge of Obtaining Voter Identification.
Brennan Center for Justice. New York University School of Law. 29 July 2012.
Web.
Although Mississippis restrictive law is not yet in force, citizens there without ID face a particularly perverse
set of rules. To secure government-issued photo ID, many voters will need a birth certificate. Yet the state
requires a government-issued photo ID to obtain a certified copy of a birth certificate. These rules make it
extremely difficult to get a birth certificate, the first step toward obtaining voter ID. They represent another
hurdle to voting placed in the path of those who have the least means to surmount them.
Political Bias in Voter I D Laws AMS
The turnout of blacks and the poor was not the only factor, of course. Restrictive laws passed more
frequently as the proportion of Republicans in the legislature increased or when a Republican governor
was elected. Most of the voter restrictions adopted in this period, 83 percent, were passed by Republican-
controlled state legislatures. Restrictive laws were especially likely to pass when states both had larger
Republican legislative majorities and had become increasingly competitive in the previous presidential
election. Meanwhile, states that had become increasingly competitive but had larger Democratic
majorities were less likely to pass restrictive laws.
This Washington Post study found that voter restrictions are passed predominantly by Republican-
controlled states. This demonstrates the inherent political bias of voter ID laws.


Voter I D Laws Hurt Minorities AMS
We also examined just the bills passed in 2011, when the vast majority of bills were adopted. The same
findings emerged. States that passed more restrictive legislation in 2011 were those in which:
Republicans controlled the governorship and both chambers of the legislative body.
Forecasters viewed them as potential swing states in the 2012 election.
Minority turnout was higher in the 2008 presidential election and those which have larger
proportions of African-American residents.
There were a larger number of allegations of voter fraud in the 2004 electionalthough this fact
had a much smaller substantive impact relative to partisan and racial factors.
All this is most immediately relevant to the Supreme Courts recent decision involving the Voting Rights
Act. At root, the Court ruled that there is no compelling evidence localities previously covered under Section 5
of the Act intend to discriminate. Federal preclearance for changes to electoral law in these areas is therefore
no longer warranted. Our findings call such assertions into question and, more broadly, suggest that challenges
to the implementation and passage of voter access legislation are indeed merited on the grounds of racial bias.
Ultimately, recently enacted restrictions on voter access have not only a predictable partisan pattern but
also an uncomfortable relationship to the political activism of blacks and the poor.


Voter ID Laws are unnecessary
Voter Fraud is extremely rare, Fj
Khan, Natasha and Carson, Corbin. Election Day impersonation, an impetus for voter
ID laws, a rarity, data show The Washington Post. August 11, 2012.
A new nationwide analysis of more than 2,000 cases of alleged election fraud over the past dozen years shows
that in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which has prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or
consider tougher voter ID laws, was virtually nonexistent.
The analysis of 2,068 reported fraud cases by News21, a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project, found
10 cases of alleged in-person voter impersonation since 2000. With 146 million registered voters in the
United States, those represent about one for every 15 million prospective voters.
The News21 report is based on a national public-records search in which reporters sent thousands of requests to
elections officers in all 50 states, asking for every case of alleged fraudulent activity including registration
fraud; absentee-ballot fraud; vote buying; false election counts; campaign fraud; the casting of ballots by
ineligible voters, such as felons and non-citizens; double voting; and voter impersonation.
Voter Fraud Not a Risk AMS
Hannah Moulton Belec. Why Voter ID Laws are Bad for Women, the Elderly, and
Everyone. American Association of University Women (AAUW). September 4,
2012.http://www.aauw.org/2012/09/04/voter-id-laws/
Voter-ID laws are written and passed on the premise that voter fraud is a widespread problem. But it isnt. A
recent study showed that youre more likely to get hit by lightning than to commit voter fraud. Even after
a five-year U.S. Justice Department survey and the slew of new laws, the number of prosecutions [for
voter fraud] have been practically nonexistent, says Elisabeth Genn, counsel for the Brennan Center for
Justices Democracy Program.
()
Genn says that women should be especially concerned about these laws in our current political climate. This
has been a difficult several months for women. Women have seen their rights be at risk in certain ways,
she says. Theres a connection to be made for womens right to make their voices heard. We should be
particularly wary to make sure any population can participate equally at a time when that group is
facing particular or unprecedented challenges.


Voter I D Laws will not prevent voter fraud, Fj
The analysis found that there is more alleged fraud in absentee ballots and voter registration than in any of the
other categories. The analysis shows 491 cases of alleged absentee ballot fraud and 400 cases involving
registration fraud. Requiring voters to show identification at the polls the crux of most of the new
legislation would not have prevented those cases.
The analysis also found that more than 46 percent of the reported election fraud allegations resulted in
acquittals, dropped charges or decisions not to bring charges.
In many cases, people simply made mistakes. Felons or non-citizens sometimes registered to vote or cast votes
because they were confused about their eligibility. Some voters accidentally cast their ballots twice or went to
the wrong precinct. And election officials made mistakes, such as clerical errors giving voters ballots when
they have already voted and errors due to confusion about eligibility.


Voter I D laws ignore the basic solution to fraud DAT
Voting Wrongs: Oversight of the Justice Departments Voting Rights Enforcement.
House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. 18 April 2012. Web.
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/112th/112-114_73859.PDF
[Wendy Weiser] These arent reasonable ID laws. They require IDs that 11 percent of eligible Americans
dont have, and those who participate in primaries are disproportionately among those who do have
those IDs. And these laws dont have a way for people without IDs to verify their identities and to vote, as
Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell just complained when he sent back a bill in that State last week.
I should add that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is not the only law that these new restrictions may run afoul
of. Just yesterday, for example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 9-2 that a law in Arizona that requires
proof of citizenship to register to vote violates the Federal Motor Voter Law.
Third, in contrast to these controversial new voting laws, there is a commonsense bipartisan solution that would
actually improve the integrity of our elections and public confidence: modernizing our ramshackle voter
registration system. As Mr. Adams noted in his written testimony, the voter rolls are a mess. A Pew Study
recently found that one in four eligible Americans are not registered to vote and that one in eight voter
registration records have serious errors.
Better enforcement of the NVRA, including Section 7 and Section 5, would certainly help, but the real problem
is that in most of the country we still rely on an antiquated, error-prone, paper-based voter registration system.
Congress can help the States bring our voting system into the 21st century by passing a law to modernize
voter registration across the country. This would add millions of eligible voters to the rolls, increase
accuracy, reduce opportunities for fraud and abuse, and cut costs. It is a solution everyone can get behind.
Weiser is director of the Democracy Program at New York University School of Law. While this card
specifically deals with voter ID laws, it more broadly serves as a compelling counter-advocacy to the pro
point that eliminating section 4 opens the door to fighting voter fraud. The con can make a more
thorough and evidence-supported claim that the best way to fight fraud is Weisers solution, which is
cleaner, universal (in the sense that it is by nature a federal program), and has far fewer side effects than
any other voter verification schemes (particularly voter ID laws).

February 2014 Con: Redistricting harmful

Redistricting is harmful
Gerrymandering distorts democracy on a federal level, Fj
Wang, Sam. The Great Gerrymander of 2012 New York Times. February 2, 2013.
Through artful drawing of district boundaries, it is possible to put large groups of voters on the losing side of
every election.
Gerrymandering is not hard. The core technique is to jam voters likely to favor your opponents into a few
throwaway districts where the other side will win lopsided victories, a strategy known as packing. Arrange
other boundaries to win close victories, cracking opposition groups into many districts. Professionals
use proprietary software to draw districts
Political scientists have identified other factors that have influenced the relationship between votes and seats in
the past. Concentration of voters in urban areas can, for example, limit how districts are drawn, creating a
natural packing effect. But in 2012 the net effect of intentional gerrymandering was far larger than any one
factor.
Normally we would expect more seats in Congress to go to the political party that receives more votes, but the
last election confounded expectations. Democrats received 1.4 million more votes for the House of
Representatives, yet Republicans won control of the House by a 234 to 201 margin. This is only the
second such reversal since World War II.

Texas redistricting maps are essentially gerrymandering. By striking down Section 4, the Supreme Court
has allowed these redistricting maps to go into effect, and distort the end result.

February 2014 Con: Bill doesnt go far enough

Bill Does not Go far Enough
J ustice Thomas argues majority opinion does not go far enough. AMS
Justice Thomas argues that the majority opinion does not go far enough. Not only would he have struck
down Section 4 of the act and its formula for determining which states deserve strong oversight, he would have
eliminated Section 5 entirely and its requirement that some state and local governments still get clearance
for any changes in voting law before putting them into practice:
While the Court claims to issue no holding on 5 itself, ante, at 24, its own opinion compellingly
demonstrates that Congress has failed to justify current burdens with a record demonstrating
current needs. See ante, at 9 (quoting Northwest Austin, supra, at 203). By leaving the inevitable
conclusion unstated, the Court needlessly prolongs the demise of that provision. For the reasons
stated in the Courts opinion, I would find 5 unconstitutional.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas argues that gutting the Voting Rights Act of section 4
effectively renders section 5 obsolete and leaving section 5 in tact needlessly prolongs the demise of that
provision. Con teams must be careful with this argument; you cannot argue both that the decision went
too far and did not go far enough. However, if con teams focus on the purposelessness of section 5, they
can successfully argue that the supreme court did not rightfully decidethereby negating the resolution.

February 2014 Con: Bill doesnt go far enough

Congress weakened the constitutionality of section 5 in its 2006 revision DAT
[J. Christian Adams] The Court in Shelby also concluded that Congress weakened the constitutionality of the
Voting Rights Act's preclearance requirements in 2006 when it altered the Section 5 standards. Beginning in
2006, submitting jurisdictions were forced to prove a negative. Congress required them to prove the
absence of "any" discriminatory effect by inserting "any" into Section 5. Any means any. The Justice
Department Civil Rights Division has taken the 2006 amendments literally when reviewing submissions
like Georgia's proof of citizenship requirement to register to vote, or South Carolina's voter identification
law. The DOJ adopted a de minimis trigger for interposing an objection despite mitigating facts and objected in
multiple instances - including in Georgia and South Carolina.
Stubbornly following the 2006 amendment to require an absence of "any" discriminatory effect also caused the
Department to object to voter identification laws. The objection in South Carolina cost state taxpayers $3.5
million and federal taxpayers untold millions, after South Carolina was forced to seek court approval of voter
identification laws. The Supreme Court plainly recognized that the extra hurdles Congress imposed in
2006 weakened the constitutionality of the preclearance regime.
Given the perceived weaknesses in section 5, the Courts logical decision would have been not only to call
for a reevaluation of section 4 but to strike down section 5.

February 2014 Con: Section 4 still necessary

Section 4 Still Necessary
J ustice Ginsburg Argues Section 4 Necessary AMS
The struggle for fairness in elections, she argues, is not over, though the tactics of those who would suppress
voting have changed. The court, she said, "errs egregiously by overriding Congress's decision."
The Court holds 4(b) invalid on the ground that it is irrational to base coverage on the use of
voting tests 40 years ago, when such tests have been illegal since that time. Ante, at 23. But the
Court disregards what Congress set about to do in enacting the VRA. That extraordinary legislation
scarcely stopped at the particular tests and devices that happened to exist in 1965. The grand aim of the
Act is to secure to all in our polity equal citizen ship stature, a voice in our democracy undiluted
by race. As the record for the 2006 reauthorization makes abundantly clear, second-generation
barriers to minority voting rights have emerged in the covered jurisdictions as
attempted substitutes for the first-generation barriers that originally triggered preclearance in
those jurisdictions. See supra, at 56, 8, 1517. The sad irony of todays decision lies in its utter failure
to grasp why the VRA has proven effective. The Court appears to believe that the VRAs success in
eliminating the specific devices extant in 1965 means that preclearance is no longer needed. Ante, at 21
22, 2324. With that belief, and the argument derived from it, history repeats itself.
Because of existing obstacles to voting rights, the court wrongly decided to overturn section 4 of the
Voting Rights Act.


Bill Will Have Immediate Negative Consequences AMS
Proponents of the law, which protects minority voting rights, called the ruling a death knell. It will be
almost impossible for a Congress bitterly divided along partisan lines to come up with such an
agreement, they said.
There could be immediate consequences from the courts ruling. Just hours after the ruling, Texas
Attorney General Greg Abbott said his state will move forward with a voter-identification law that had
been stopped by a panel of federal judges and will carry out redistricting changes that had been mired in
court battles.
Although the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts argues that the courts decision will not
destroy the Voting Rights Act, but will obligate congress to come up with a better suited coverage
formula, this piece notes that our bitterly divided congress would be hard-pressed to develop such a
solution. Instead, this decision will allow states to immediately instate discriminatory voting rights laws.
President Obama Goes Against Court Decision AMS
One sign of racial progress has been the election of the nations first African American president, who said
Tuesday that he was deeply disappointed in the decision.
For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act ... has helped secure the right to vote for millions of
Americans, President Obama said in a statement. Todays decision invalidating one of its core
provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in
places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent.
The supreme court validated their decision in striking downs section 4 of the VRA by noting the progress
made in electing Barack Obama to office. This is ironic because President Obama himself expressed
dissent with the decision.


Decision Renders VRA Useless AMS
As long as Republicans have a majority in the House and Democrats dont have 60 votes in the Senate,
there will be no pre-clearance, said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). It is confounding that after
decades of progress on voting rights, which have become part of the American fabric, the Supreme Court
would tear it asunder, Schumer added.
Expected Implications of Court Decision AMS
Myrna Prez, Vishal Agraharkar. If Section 5 Falls: New Voting Implications. Brennan
Center for Justice. June 12, 2013. http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/if-
section-5-falls-new-voting-implications
The decision in the Shelby County case could have significant consequences. Should the Court eliminate
or weaken Section 5, minority voting rights could be threatened on a number of fronts by jurisdictions
attempting to:
re-enact discriminatory voting changes that have been formally blocked by Section 5 (31 proposals
were blocked by DOJ alone since the VRA was reauthorized in 2006);
adopt discriminatory voting changes that previously were deterred by Section 5 (for example,
between 1999 and 2005, 153 changes were withdrawn when DOJ asked questions about them);
implement discriminatory voting changes that have lain dormant while awaiting Section 5 review;
adopt new restrictive changes; or
implement discriminatory voting changes that have been blocked from going into effect, but
technically still remain on the books.


Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro calls Decision Unconstitutional AMS
Rosa DeLauro, Congresswoman. Statement on the Supreme Courts Voting Rights Act
Decision.
http://delauro.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1324:de
lauro-statement-on-supreme-courts-voting-rights-act-decision&Itemid=21
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) released the following statement today on the Supreme Courts
decision ruling Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is unconstitutional. The decision struck down the
formula used to determine if covered state and local governments are in compliance with the VRA.
The Court has completely assaulted the Voting Rights Act with todays decision. Long waits at the polls last
November and new voter suppression laws underscore the continuing need for us to honor the values
contained in the Voting Rights Act and the Fifteenth Amendments promise of voting equality. I sincerely
hope Congress can defy expectations and strengthen the Voting Rights Act that protects the most
fundamental right of our democracy.
Con teams can strengthen their cases with strategically placed quotes demonstrating the disapproval of
the VRA often expressed by political leaders.


Modern implementation of section 5 shapes policy in the South DAT
Section 5 continues to play a critical role because it is routinely applied by the federal courts to prevent
retrogression and protect the equal right of minority voters to participate in the political process.
The three-judge court in Colleton County Council v. McConnell, the litigation filed after the South
Carolina governor and legislature deadlocked over redistricting in 2001, concluded that it was obligated
to comply with Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act and proceeded to draw plans that maintained
the state's existing majority black congressional district and actually increased the number of majority
black house and senate districts.
In Mississippi, which lost a congressional seat as a result of the 2000 census, both the state court and the federal
court became involved in the redistricting process and drew plans relying upon the non-retrogression standard
of Section 5 which maintained one of the districts as majority black.
The district court in South Dakota adopted a court ordered plan for the house and senate in 2005 to cure a
Section 2 violation in a vote dilution suit by Native Americans. In creating new majority Indian districts, the
court held it had adhered to the state's "redistricting principles," which included "protection of minority voting
rights consistent with the United States Constitution, the South Dakota constitution, and federal statutes." The
area in question included Todd and Shannon Counties, both of which are covered by Section 5.
While the Supreme Court only ruled on section 4, the reliance of section 5 on section 4, coupled with
Congress current state of deadlock, indicated that the Court was content with leaving sterilizing section
5 without an end in site; when Congress can get around to redrawing section 4 is an unknown. As such, it
signals complacency with the death of section 5s practical applications, of which anecdotal evidence from
across America is shown here.


Section 4 counties are still liabilities in a modern context DAT
[Wendy Weiser] First, as Chairman Conyers noted, the past 2 years have seen a massive wave of new State
laws making it harder for eligible American citizens to vote. Overall, 22 new State laws and two executive
actions have been put in place in 17 States restricting voting. These range from requiring certain forms of
photo identification to vote, to making it harder to register to vote, to cutting back on early voting, among
other things. This is the biggest setback in voting rights in decades and an abrupt reversal of the longstanding
trend in American history to expand access to the franchise. Millions will be affected, and some will be
especially hard hit: minorities, the poor, people with disabilities, students and older Americans.
Second, the Department of Justice has a critical role to play with respect to these new laws. Under the Voting
Rights Act, States with a history of discriminating in voting must get pre-clearance from the Department or a
Federal court before implementing changes to their voting laws. States have the burden to show that their new
laws will not discriminate against minorities, and the Department must review the evidence and make a
determination as to whether States have met that burden. And that is exactly what the Department has been
doing with respect to these new voting restrictions: applying the law, nothing more, nothing less.
It has appropriately found that Florida, Texas, and South Carolina have not met their burden of showing
that their new laws wont discriminate against minorities. And the Brennan Center is in fact involved in
those matters. The new law in Florida has made it so hard for civic groups to register fellow citizens to
vote that the League of Women Voters and groups across the State have shut down their voter
registration drives. And this especially hurts minorities, who register at voter registration drives at twice
the rate of White citizens. Florida also cut back on Sunday early voting, which was used especially by African
American and Hispanic churches.
Weiser is director of the Democracy Program at New York University School of Law. The Florida law to
which she refers is a 2011 election reform bill which required groups that registered voters to submit
their paperwork within 48 hours of registering voters. This card offers some of the most
contemporaneous, and thus relevant, evidence of the continued need for federal oversight in areas red-
flagged under section 4.


Section 2 litigation is a less viable alternative to preclearance than ever DAT
Katz, Ellen et al. Discrimination in Voting: Judicial FIndings Under Section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act Since 1982. University of California at Berkeley Law School.
2005. Web. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/kats_discrimination_in_voting.pdf
The nature of Section 2 litigation has changed during the past twenty-three years. Of the 142 lawsuits that ended
during the first decade after the 1982 Amendments, most involved challenges to at-large elections (81 or 57%).
Since 1993, 180 lawsuits have produced published opinions. Of these, 66 (36.7%) challenged at-large elections,
and 73 (40.5%) challenged reapportionment or redistricting plans.

The Supreme Courts implied message is that discriminatory voting practices are not nearly the problem
in the South and other section 4-covered districts they once were. However, they still are problems and
this card illustrates the shrinking likelihood of successful recourse through other VRA provisions,
namely section 2.


A mere six years ago the new coverage plan received little to no dissent. J CD
In this case, Ginsburg continued, Congress in 2006 held 21 hearings over a 20-month period and amassed
documentation totaling 15,000 pages before it reauthorized the Voting Rights Act and its coverage formula,
with almost no dissent.
Summing up, Ginsburg quoted Martin Luther King Jr.: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends
towards justice, if there is a steadfast commitment to see the task to completion." That commitment, she said,
has been "disserved by the majority's decision."
February 2014 Con: Revisions inadequate

Revisions are Inadequate
Voting Discrimination Falls through Cracks under Revised VRA AMS
The Supreme Courts June 2013 decision also effectively shifted the burden from states to citizens.
Before, a state subject to preclearance had to demonstrate that a new voting law was not discriminatory and let
voting law experts in the Justice Department evaluate it before it could be implemented. Now it is up to voters
to challenge voting laws by filing lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits
racial discrimination.
But most court cases involving Section 2 have been limited to redistricting, not other controversial voting
measures, says Yale University law professor Heather Gerken.
With redistricting, theres always one very wealthy political party or another who can hire some very good
lawyers and go into court and challenge it, Gerken said. But a lot of the types of things that were
challenged under Section 5 were smaller questions, like, Can you change a polling place? Can you shut
down early voting hours in ways that might affect the black community? There are things smaller than
redistricting that can fall through the cracks.


Counties recalcitrance against section 5 indicates things will be far worse without it DAT
Voting Rights Act: Evidence of Continued Need. Subcommittee on the Constitution.
House.gov. 8 March 2006. Web.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju26411.000/hju26411_0f.htm
Second, there is a continuing pattern of blocked voting and racial polarization in the covered jurisdictions.
While much progress has been made in minority registration and office holding, the persistence, the sad
persistence of racial block voting shows that race remains a dynamic and corrosive factor, particularly in the
covered jurisdictions. Our litigation report is replete with findings by courts and also by the Department
of Justice of racial block voting in 12 States where the ACLU has filed voting rights cases.

Third, the continuing hostility to minority political participation. Our litigation report also documents that
too many elected officials continue to manipulate the law in ways that disadvantage minority voters, just
as the record showed in 1982 when Congress last reauthorized section 5. I'd like to simply list a few of the
many types of discrimination of this type which are detailed in this extensive report: Discriminatory
annexations and deannexations; pairing Black incumbents in redistricting plans; refusing to draw majority
minority districts; refusing to appoint Blacks to public office; relocating polling places distant from the Black
community; refusing to hold elections following a section 5 objection; failure to provide bilingual ballots and
assistance in voting; packing Native American and African-American voters to dilute their influence; and
discriminatory voter identification requirements, as Congressman Scott alluded to.
The same problems plaguing section 4 counties continued two decades later. These are geographic
regions where reform has clearly not reached nearly the extent necessary to withdraw precautions.
Section 5 dragged discriminatory counties kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century, but it was
a slow process now hindered by the Supreme Courts ruling.


Southern states need more scrutiny than ever DAT
Wright, Gavin. Voting Rights Act Brought Major Economic Benefits. Bloomberg. 26
June 2013. Web.
More recently, however, this biracial political cooperation and economic progress in the South has lost steam.
The reason may be that two-party competition at the state level dwindled with the consolidation in the 1990s of
conservative Republican majorities, which make no serious effort to compete for the black vote.
In many southern states, the effect has been to isolate blacks politically and to stifle or reverse the programs
they support. After 1990, convergence toward the national average in per-pupil spending ceased or
reversed in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. Most
ominously, Republican control of the state legislature in places such as Georgia, South Carolina and North
Carolina ended the advance of black legislators to positions of leadership. Not only has black political influence
been diminished, but after the high black turnout for Barack Obama in the presidential elections of 2008 and
2012, southern states have taken the lead in enacting measures designed to discourage registration and
make voting more difficult.
This reversal has had economic consequences. In their 2011 book, Taxing the Poor, the
sociologists Katherine Newman and Rourke OBrien show that southern states depend on regressive sales
taxes as a source of revenue to a far greater extent than states in the rest of the country, and that these
differences widened dramatically after 1990.
These regressive trends can be turned around. But that will require the mobilization of an expansive political
movement, sufficiently inclusive to attract Hispanics, low-income white southerners and African-Americans.
The 2006 Congressional reauthorization of section 5 featured 15,000 pages of testimony on
discriminatory practices in mostly Southern states. This card demonstrates the impacts, economically, of
such a trend.

A new coverage act is unlikely to be passed. J CD
Voting-rights expert Richard Hasen of the University of California, Irvine, calls the pre-clearance section of the
law "effectively dead."
"It's hard for me to imagine that Congress is going to come up with any new kind of new coverage formula," he
says. Instead, Hasen says, states with records of discrimination are likely "to flex their muscles, putting more
controversial voting laws into place."

Pro Counters
February 2014 Pro Counters: Discrim voting still banned

Discriminatory Voting Rules Still Not Allowed
Court Decision Does not Overturn Voting Rights Acts Ban on Discriminatory Voting Rules
AMS
Chief Justice Roberts closes his opinion by explaining what the decision does not do. It does not overturn
the Voting Rights Act's ban on discriminatory voting rules. Furthermore, it does not directly affect the
preclearance requirement in Section 5, which leaves Congress the opportunity to draft new rules -- based on
current conditions -- to determine which states or local governments should be subject to preclearance. The
decision allows those affected by voting rule changes to sue under Section 2 of the act, but that is a longer and
more expensive process that places the burden of proof on those challenging the changes:
Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting
found in 2. We issue no holding on 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft
another formula based on current conditions. Such a formula is an initial prerequisite to a
determination that exceptional conditions still exist justifying such an extraordinary departure from the
traditional course of relations between the States and the Federal Government. Presley, 502 U. S., at
500501. Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress
must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.
Chief Justice Roberts explains that congress may create another more fitting coverage formula to enforce
the Voting Rights Act in a way more suited towards current circumstances.
Voting Rights will Still be Enforced AMS
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. . . . will continue to carefully monitor jurisdictions around the
country for voting changes that may hamper voting rights.
Let me be very clear, Holder said. We will not hesitate to take swift enforcement action, using every
legal tool that remains available to us, against any jurisdiction that seeks to take advantage of the
Supreme Courts ruling by hindering eligible citizens full and free exercise of the franchise.
While Congress develops a new coverage formula to allow the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act,
discriminatory voting rules will still be actively prevented.


Tepid enforcement of VRA section 2 has overblown the perceived need for section 4, DAT
[J. Christian Adams] The current Justice Department is woefully lacking in enforcing Section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act. Section 2 of the Act is the broad prohibition on racial discrimination in elections.
While the Bush administration vigorously enforced Section 2, enforcement under the Obama administration has
flatlined. In fact, the current Administration has failed to initiate a single Section 2 investigation which
resulted in an enforcement action since taking office.
Loud critics of the Bush administration claim that enforcement of Section 2 during that time was lacking, when
in truth it was vigorous. The Bush administration filed multiple Section 2 cases to protect national racial
minorities. In fact, if you include all Section 2 cases to protect national racial minorities, the Bush
administration filed 14 cases. Again, the Obama administration has filed exactly one, and that is a case
against Lake Park, Florida, a matter which I brought which was launched during the Bush
administration and filed in March of 2009.
In response to criticism for failing to enforce Section 2, this Justice Department has recently adopted a curious
new public policy position saying that they have initiated a record number of Section 2 investigations. This is in
fact a public relations sham, and I describe how in my written testimony.
These investigations do not even reach the preliminary point of whether it is possible to draw a minority-
majority district in most cases. Numbers cant lie. Not a single case has been filed by the Obama
administration since the Lake Park case in March of 2009, a case which I brought and the Bush
administration started.
Adams is an attorney with the Election Law Center. A key for pro teams throughout the round is to
reinforce the difference between section 4 of the VRA and the VRA as a whole, particularly with respect
to its applications to protecting voters rights. This card is helpful in illustrating that perceived lapses in
voter protections can be attributed not to a lack of protections but to a lackadaisical enforcement of the
VRA in the past five years.


Unlikely to cause a massive response in voting laws. J CD
"They're out of the penalty box, and it will be legal business as it's usually conducted," she says. "They can pass
whatever changes they think are desirable, and if there is an objection to these changes from, let's say the civil
rights community, they can go into court."
New York University's Richard Pildes agrees, at least in part, opining that "the fear of how drastic the
consequences will be for political participation are understandable, but much further out there than what is
likely to happen on the ground."

February 2014 Pro Counters: Voter ID laws not discrim

Voter ID laws are not discriminatory
Voter I D Laws are nothing new, Fj
Indiana's law has been in effect since the election of 2006 and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in
2008. Georgia's law went into effect in 2007 after court challenges and was first used statewide in the
presidential election of 2008.
Voters in both states are required to produce a government-issued photo ID such as a driver's license at the
polls. For those without one, both states offer free photo IDs with proof of identification, according to state
election authorities.
No evidence of voter suppression, FJ
A major Democratic criticism of the laws is that they suppress voter turnout among the young, minorities and
the elderly, who are less likely to have required photo identification and are more likely to vote Democratic. Yet
the opposite has occurred in Indiana and Georgia, where turnout and registration have mostly increased.
In Georgia, which keeps statistics by race, a record number of African Americans voted in the election of 2008,
when Obama was elected the first black president. Black turnout, which reached almost 76 percent of
registered voters, was four percentage points higher than 2004, before the ID law.
Critics of the laws see 2008 as an anomaly because many blacks were determined to vote for Obama.
Black turnout was up in the 2010 Georgia midterm elections as well, increasing seven percentage points
from the comparable 2006 midterm, when the ID law was not in effect.
Black voter registration in Georgia increased 30 percent in 2008 compared with two years earlier.
In all cases, the gains outstripped growth in Georgia's black population.
"I don't think it has hampered anybody from being able to let their voice be heard," Georgia's Republican
Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, said.
Indiana does not break down turnout by race. But in two counties with non-white populations of more than
40 percent, Lake and Marion, turnout rose in 2008. In Lake County, it increased 16 percentage points
compared with 2004, to 71 percent of registered voters.

In Marion County, which includes Indianapolis, turnout increased by one percentage point in the 2008
election, to 55 percent, compared with the 2004 presidential election, and voter registration there
increased 18 percent.
In the two midterm elections since the Indiana law has been in force, 2006 and 2010, turnout in Marion and
Lake counties also increased compared with the 2002 election before the law.
The Citizens Without Proof study is flawed, Fj
Spakovsky, Hans and Ingram, Alex. Without Proof: The Unpersuasive Case Against
Voter Identification Heritage Foundation. August 24, 2011.
The Brennan Center study suffers from sloppyor perhaps purposefully misrepresenteddata collection and
biased questions. Based entirely on one survey of only 987 voting age American citizens, the report contains
no information on how the survey determined whether a respondent was actually an American citizen. The
survey could have included illegal and legal aliens, two categories of individuals that are not allowed to
vote.
The survey then uses the responses of these 987 individuals to estimate the number of Americans without valid
documentation based on the 2000 Census calculations of citizen voting-age population. The Census figures,
however, contain millions of U.S. residents who are ineligible to vote, thus contributing to the studys
overestimation of voters without a government-issued identification.
By neglecting to ask whether respondents were actual or likely voters, registered voters, or even eligible to vote
at all, the study ignores the most relevant data on this issue: the numbers of eligible citizens who would have
voted but could not because of voter identification laws. All pollsters know that the only accurate surveys of
how candidates are going to perform in an election are polls of likely voters, not the voting-age population. The
Census counts many individuals in the voting-age population who are ineligible to vote, such as felons or
permanent residents who are not U.S. citizens.


The Citizens Without Proof study uses misleading survey questions, Fj
The survey questions used in the Brennan Centers report are also suspect and appear to be designed to bolster
the reports biased findings. For example, the survey did not ask respondents whether they had
government-issued IDs, but instead asked whether respondents had readily available identification.
This is a confusing term that could have different meanings to different individuals. The question on proof of
citizenship documentation then adds to this confusion by asking whether the respondent had access to
such documentation as a U.S. birth certificate or naturalization papers in a place where you can quickly
find it if you had to show it tomorrow.
By asking whether such ID could be found quickly or shown tomorrow, the study seems to be trying to
elicit a particular response: that those surveyed do not have ID. Consider, for example, citizens who keep
their naturalization papers in a safety deposit box (as the parents of one of this papers authors did).
Such citizens might not be able to access the documents tomorrow even though they certainly possess
ID.
The Brennan Centers decision to use a citizens ability to find his or her ID quickly or by tomorrow
is even stranger when considered in light of the fact that elections are generally scheduled far in advance;
it would only be under extraordinarily exotic circumstances that a citizen would have to find his or her ID
documentation quickly or have it readily available in order to vote.
The Citizens Without Proof studys respondents were confused, Fj
Next, according to footnote 3, 135 respondents indicated that they had both a U.S. birth certificate and U.S.
naturalization papers. This most likely indicates confusion on the part of the respondents. In other words,
almost 14 percent of the respondents provided contradictory answers. This discrepancyis never
addressed or explained in the paper outside of the footnote, thereby casting doubt on the reliability of the
reports statistics.


The Citizens Without Proof study does not have statistically significant results, Fj
Finally, footnote 4 states that [t]he survey did not yield statistically significant results for differential
rates of possession of citizenship documents by race, age, or other identified demographic factors. This
finding seriously undermines the oft-repeated and false accusation that supporters of these ID laws are seeking
either to disenfranchise minorities because they traditionally vote Democrat or to suppress the votes of certain
groups.
The Citizens Without Proof study does not explain its methodology, Fj
The study is further undermined by several footnotes buried in the report. Citizens Without Proof is most often
cited for its claim that 25 percent of AfricanAmericans of voting age (not registered voters, actual voters, or
even eligible voters) supposedly do not have a photo ID. Footnote 1 of the report states, the results of this
survey were ed to account for underrepresentation of race. However, the report does not provide the
methodology used to determine how this factor was weighted, making it impossible to judge the accuracy
of the footnotes claim.
The Citizens Without Proof study ignores how easy it is to obtain photo I D, Fj
The Brennan Center report also ignores several other important factors. In Georgia, for example, student ID
cards issued by the state college system are an acceptable form of identification for the states voter ID law, thus
making it even easier for students to vote. In Kansas, any student ID card issued by an accredited post
secondary institution of education in the state of Kansas is acceptable. Additionally, Rhode Island will accept
an ID card issued by any United States educational institution.
Yet the authors of the Brennan Center study did not ask any of its participants whether they had a
student ID card. They also did not ask whether those who were surveyed held a tribal ID card even
though, in some states such as Arizona and Georgia, tribal IDs containing a photograph are acceptable
for the purpose of voting.
Military ID cards can also be used to satisfy voter ID requirements under most state laws. Active duty military
personnel and reservists all possess a military ID with a photograph (Common Access Card, or CAC), and
veterans have a similar ID card. In states like Georgia and Indiana, there are over 130,000 active members

of the military who are eligible to vote using their CAC cards. The Veterans Administration reports that
there are about 22.7 million veterans age 17 and over in the U.S, each of whom would have an acceptable
ID card under the voter ID laws in Georgia and Indiana, as well as the bills recently passed in Rhode
Island and Kansas.
The findings in Citizens Without Proof are inconsistent with the findings of more objective and unbiased
research. For example, a recent article in The Columbus Dispatch reported that there are about 28,000 more
[photo IDs] than there are voting-age residents in the state. Nor are these findings unique to Ohio.
Statistics from the U.S. Department of Transportation show that there are currently 205,781,457 valid
drivers licenses issued by states across the country for individuals 18 years of age or older, while the U.S.
Election Assistance Commission cites 186,874,157 total registered voters. That means there are almost 19
million more drivers licenses than registered voters nationwide. This number does not even include the
additional 3 percent or 4 percent of individuals who, according to a Federal Election Commission study, have
an identification card issued by state motor vehicle agencies in lieu of a drivers license.
These statistics on drivers licenses and nondrivers license ID cards do not include the over 85 million
passports issued by the federal government as reported by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
These passports are acceptable forms of identification under state voter ID laws.
Furthermore, government employeeswhether federal, state, or local and whether full-time or part-timealso
have valid IDs. In Georgia, for example, the voter ID requirement can be met by a valid employee
identification card containing a photograph issued by any entity of federal, state, or local government. The
same is true in Indiana. Nationwide, there are another 22,632,381 people who work for public institutions,
most of whom may have this type of ID.

The Citizens Without Proof study is wrong, Fj
Bialik, Carl. Impact of States Voter Laws Can Be Difficult to Identify Wall Street
Journal. October 19 2012.
Robert A. Pastor, co-director of the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American
University in Washington, D.C., was lead author of a study summarizing surveys conducted in Indiana,
Maryland, and Mississippi that found just 1.2% of registered voters lack photo IDs. Prof. Pastor said the
Brennan Center study was "designed to frighten Democrats."


Access to I Ds is Equal AMS
Hans A. Von Spakovsky. Getting it Wrong on Voter ID. Heritage Foundation. August 3,
2012. http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2012/08/getting-it-wrong-on-
voter-id
Every state that has implemented a voter-ID law has also made free IDs available to voters who dont
have them. One might wonder how in the world 5 million people are going to be prevented from voting
and why so few people are receiving free IDs.
()
Furthermore, in lawsuits filed by liberal groups against both states, none of the plaintiffs, including
organizations such as the NAACP and the ACLU, could come up with a single witness who was unable to
vote because of the voter-ID laws. That is why their cases were eventually thrown out and the Supreme Court
upheld the Indiana statute.
The idea that large numbers of young people lack photo ID is just ridiculous. Teenagers cant wait to get their
drivers licenses, and college IDs are acceptable under the voter-ID laws of most states. One of the only
exceptions to this is Texas, but thats because Texas allows illegal aliens to attend its state universities: To
accept college IDs would be to allow noncitizens to vote. The only young person that the Department of
Justice could find for the recent trial over the Texas voter-ID law was an 18-year-old who claimed she didnt
have a car and her parents didnt have time to take her to get an ID. How she would get to the voting booth even
with a photo ID was left a mystery.


Voter ID Laws Have Been Determined Legal and Fair
The Supreme Court ruled on section 4 having already ruled voter I D laws constitutional DAT
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. Oyez Project. IIT Chicago-Kent College of
Law. 26 December 2013. Web. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-
2009/2007/2007_07_21/
In 2005, the Indiana Legislature passed a law requiring all voters who cast a ballot in person to present a photo
ID issued by the United States or the State of Indiana. Plaintiffs including the local Democratic Party and
interest groups representing minority and elderly citizens argued that the law constituted an undue burden on the
right to vote. At trial, the plaintiffs did not produce any witnesses who claimed they would be unable to meet
the laws requirements. The district court and the court of appeals both upheld the law. However, the three-
judge appellate panel was deeply divided. Dissenting Judge Terrence Evans claimed that the law was a thinly-
veiled attempt to dampen turnout by those likely to vote for Democratic candidates
By a vote of 6 to 3, the Court upheld the law, concluding that the photo I.D. requirement was closely related
to Indiana's legitimate state interests in preventing voter fraud. The slight burden the law imposed on
voters' rights did not outweigh these interests, which the Court characterized as "neutral and
nondiscriminatory." Although there was no majority opinion, the Court's decision included concurring
opinions written by Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia. Justices David Souter and Stephen Breyer
each wrote dissenting opinions. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Justice Souter's dissent.
This decision helps legitimize and establish a framework in which prevention of voter fraud is a genuine
interest, regardless of how prevalent it happens to be. It also helps counter the con point that the
Supreme Courts decision opens up the floodgates for voter ID lawsthese laws cannot be assumed to be
inherently harmful.


Voter I D laws (including photo I D) are already in wide use aside from section 4 regions DAT
Coleman, Kevin J. et al. Photo ID Requirements for Voting: Background and Legal
Issues. Congressional Research Service. 2 November 2012. Web.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42806.pdf
According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), 31 states require a voter to show ID before voting
at the polls on election day. Of these 31 states with an ID requirement, some require a voter to provide photo ID
in order to vote. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia do not require a voter to provide any
identification document in order to vote, and Oregon and Washington conduct elections entirely by mail. In
these two states, election officials mail ballots to all registered voters, who are not required to provide proof of
identity when submitting the ballot.
Since the 2008 presidential election, 23 states have enacted 33 laws relating to voter identification, with 16
of them enacted in 2012. For the 2012 election, 11 states will have a photo ID requirement in effect. An
additional seven states enacted photo ID laws that have not yet taken effect or have been delayed from taking
effect because of Justice Department or court action.
Some states accept a wide range of IDs, including ones that are issued by other states, while others limit the
type of ID more narrowly. In Louisiana, for example, voters can meet the photo ID requirement with a
drivers license or special ID issued by the state or other generally recognized picture identification card
with [your] name and signature. The Office of Motor Vehicles will provide a free special ID card to any
person who presents a voter information card. In comparison, Indiana voters must provide an ID issued by the
state of Indiana or the federal government that includes a photo and a name that conforms to the voter
registration record and is current or that expired after the date of the last general election.
At best, pro teams can deconstruct objections to voter ID laws by demonstrating their variability across
state linesparticulars of a policy can significantly alter their effect on turnoutwhile also advocating
for them on the grounds that they are acceptable in non-section 4 regions. At worst, an argument can be
made that voter ID laws are not topical to the debate, given that they exist around the country despite the
fact that Justice Departmentaction can (and ostensibly will) be brought against them without
sections 4 and 5.
February 2014 Pro Counters: New coverage formula TBD

New Coverage Formula will be Determined
Other Methods of Determining a Coverage Formula Exist AMS
The Supreme Court left it up to Congress to write new preclearance criteria. In a July hearing, House
Republicans showed little interest in rewriting Section 4. But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick
Leahy, D-Vt., says theres actually quiet Republican support for the issue. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-
Wis., made headlines when he publicly supported restoring the law.
There is at least one Republican, and youll find out in the future a lot more, that is committing to putting life
in this most important civil rights act that got a stab in the back from the Supreme Court, Sensenbrenner said.
Gerken, the law professor, isnt optimistic that Congress will come up with a new Section 4 formula. But
she said there are other actions Congress could take. For example, she has advocated that Congress adopt
an opt-in approach and allow civil rights groups to file simple complaints for the Justice Department to
investigate. Then the agency could halt the implementation of discriminatory laws as necessary.
Yale law professor Travis Crum has also suggested a bail-in measure, by which Congress could instead
strengthen Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act, letting courts put states under preclearance if their voting laws
violate the 14th or 15th amendments.
As part of the Justice Departments lawsuits against Texas and North Carolina, the federal agency has asked the
courts to put those states back under preclearance.
The Pro team will gain major points by enforcing the imminence of a new coverage formula. This piece
not only argues that Congress can agree on such a formula, but provides alternative routes to creating a
new coverage formula.


Congressional Support for Creating a New Formula AMS
Brentin Mock. Congress may Fix the Voting Rights Act this Year: Heres Why. Color
Lines. September 13, 2013.
http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/09/congress_may_fix_the_voting_rights_act_this
_year_heres_why.html
A few weeks ago Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Republican representing Wisconsin, pledged that Congress would
fix the preclearance coverage formula of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) that the U.S. Supreme Court declared
unconstitutional in June. This was news to most Americans, who havent seen their Congress so much as fix a
salad together.
In an interview with outgoing NAACP President Ben Jealous at the 50th anniversary ceremony of the March on
Washington, Jealous said he felt confident that Congress would fix it possibly by the end of this year.
But can Congress really pull this off, and so soon? According to congressional and civil rights leaders, a
2013 fix is well within reach.
This week, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released a statement in
commemoration of the four young black girls who were killed in the September 15, 1963 Ku Klux Klan
bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala., where he spelled out what a new Voting Rights
Act should look like:
We must restore the vital protections that were weakened by the Supreme Courts ruling. We must
provide additional remedies for states and counties anywhere in the nation that not only have a history of
discriminating against their voters but continue to do so. We must extend the reach of these protections to
states that commit serious voting rights violations in the future. We must amend the existing provisions of the
Act to make those protections more effective. And we must provide greater transparency for changes to voting
procedures so that voters are made aware of these changes.


Republican Support AMS
Brentin Mock. Congress may Fix the Voting Rights Act this Year: Heres Why. Color
Lines. September 13, 2013.
http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/09/congress_may_fix_the_voting_rights_act_this
_year_heres_why.html
In an interview with C-SPAN last month, Leahy suggested that there is broad but silent support among
Republicans.
Ive talked to [House judiciary committee chair Rep.] Bob Goodlatte, Ive talked to others, [and] there
are several who have said, OK, well help you on it, but dont put us in the lead, said Leahy.
After hearings Sen. Leahy staged on the Voting Rights Act in July for his judiciary committee, the
chairman said he was very encouraged that a bipartisan solution was possible, according to a judiciary
committee aide who didnt want to be identified. Since then, Sen. Leahy has been negotiating with many
members from both parties on new VRA language, said the aide, and he agrees with Sensenbrenner that
legislation should be passed before the end of the year.
In a statement Leahy released on August 27, the judiciary committee chairman said that he planned tointroduce
new VRA legislation in the coming weeks.
Ryan Haygood, director of LDFs Political Participation Group, said in an interview with Colorlines.com that
he is very hopeful about a VRA congressional fix this year.
The Voting Rights Act case is about protecting voters of color, but its also about Congresss powers to
legislate, said Haygood. [The U.S. Supreme Court]s decision limited Congresss constitutional authority in
the arena of voting, so thats why I think we can take Rep. Sensenbrenner at his word.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York recently said at a Brooklyn press conference that she is working on
a new voting rights bill with Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), the civil rights icon who helped make the original
VRA possible. At the National Action Networks Realize the Dream rally commemorating the 1963 March
on Washington, Rep. Lewis doubled down on his commitment to the VRA saying he was not going to stand by
and let the Supreme Court take away the voting rights legislation he fought and bled for.
Both Lewis and Gillibrand have said they are in talks with Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor
about the bill and believe a bipartisan solution is possible.


Likely Republican Support for VRA AMS
Gary May, a history professor at the University of Delaware and author of a new book, Bending Toward
Justice: The Voting Rights Act and the Transformation of American Democracy, said the courts decision
amounted to a step backward at a time when barriers had shifted from literacy tests to more subtle roadblocks
such as voter ID laws or eliminating Sunday early voting.
Mr. May said congressional Republicans must decide whether to update the formula or let it die, which would
doom much of the Voting Rights Act. He said the courts decision could spur a renewed civil rights movement.
This thing is not going to go away. It may be only a temporary setback, he said. I think youre going
to see a reorganization of the civil rights movement, youll see demonstration again, and with the country
evolving the way it is, are Republicans going to commit suicide?
The professor said Republicans had a long history of backing the Voting Rights Act indeed, it was
written in the office of Sen. Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader, and was renewed repeatedly under
Republican presidents.
The most recent renewal was in 2006, when both houses of Congress and the White House were
controlled by Republicans.

February 2014 Pro Counters: Other methods to prevent

Other Methods of Preventing Voter Discrimination
Transparency is Key AMS
Eyder Peralta, Scott Neuman, and Mark Memmott. Supreme Court Strikes Down Key
Provision of Rights Law. NPR. June 25, 2013. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-
way/2013/06/25/195506795/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-provision-of-voting-
rights-law
Spencer Overton, a professor of law at George Washington University who served in the Obama
administration's Justice Department, emphasized that from here on out transparency will be key. He said that
areas with significant minority populations should be required to disclose any election changes.
"Transparency deters bad activity," he said. "And the big plus of Section 5 was that these local officials knew
that their actions would be reviewed and as a result, there was deterrence of a lot of bad activity and disclosure
can help with a lot of that deterrence."
Spencer Overton explains that voter discrimination will be actively prevented until congress develops a
new coverage formula. Through careful transparency no discriminatory voter ID laws will be passed.

Section 2 of the VRA provides more than enough protection in this day and age. J CD
Spakovsky, Hans A. Von. "Voting Rights Act's 'Preclearance' Was Meant to Be
Temporary." US News. U.S. News & World Report, 27 Feb. 2013. Web. 06 Jan.
2014
The right to vote of black Americans is not at stake. The heart of the Voting Rights Act is Section 2, which
outlaws racial discrimination in voting. Section 2 is permanent and applies nationwide.
Section 5 was designed to stop discrimination by putting covered states into the equivalent of federal
receivership. It requires covered states to get pre-approval from the federal government before they can make
any changes in their voting laws. It was only a supplement to the main protection of Section 2

February 2014 Pro Counters: Laws abuses

Decision Rightly Responds to Laws Abuses
VRA was Abused in Arizona AMS
But Horace Cooper, co-chairman of Project 21, a network of conservative black leaders, said the courts
hand was forced by Mr. Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who he said turned the anti-
discrimination provisions into a cudgel to use against conservatives in Arizona, where the department
went after a law designed to prevent illegal immigrants from voting, or in states that enacted voter ID
laws after the Supreme Court said they were legal.
I would say to the NAACP and the Urban League, if they are upset with todays ruling they need to look
to Eric Holder. He is the one whos abusing the law, Mr. Cooper said. If they had singled out jurisdictions
where there were actual crimes occurring, no one would have sued. These are cases where those things werent
happening and the Justice Department said weve got the authority and you have to do what we say.
Con teams will try to paint the Supreme Courts decision as an assault on voters rights everywhere. Pro
teams must instead point out the flaws in the outdated coverage formula, focus on Congress ability to
change the formula, and give examples of the former VRAs abuses. This piece provides an example in
Arizonahow Attorney General Eric Holder tried to use the VRAs section 4 to prevent a law aimed at
stopping illegal immigrants from voting, a clear abuse of the VRAs intended purpose.

Section 2 of the VRA will continue to protect voter rights regardless of the preclearance
provision. J CD
Shapiro, Ilya. "The Voting Rights Act Doesn't Reflect Current Political Conditions." US
Moreover, it is Section 2the nationwide ban on racial discrimination in votingthat is the heart of the Voting
Rights Act. Section 5, meanwhile, was a temporary tool that supplemented Section 2 and overcame "widespread
and persistent discrimination in voting"thus eliminating the extraordinary circumstances that originally
justified it.

February 2014 Pro Counters: Laws abuses

The Department of J ustice corruptly and overzealously applied section 5 DAT
[J. Christian Adams] In Johnson v. Miller (864 F. Supp. 1354,1364 (S.D. Ga. 1994)), the United States District
Court sanctioned the Voting Section $594,000 for collusive misconduct by DOJ Voting Section lawyers. A
federal court noted that the ACLU was "in constant contact with the DOJ line attorneys." Pronouncing the
communications between the DOJ and the ACLU "disturbing," the court declared, "It is obvious from a
review of the materials that [the ACLU attorneys'] relationship with the DOJ] Voting Section was
informal and familiar; the dynamics were that of peers working together, not of an advocate submitting
proposals to higher authorities." After a Voting Section lawyer professed that she could not remember details
about the relationship, the court found her "professed amnesia" to be "less than credible."
Abuse of power in the Section 5 process is not confined to Johnson v. Miller. As recently as this May, the
Justice Department Voting Section used the Section 5 process to extract legally indefensible concessions from
states that a federal court would never impose. In places like Rock Hill, South Carolina, the Voting Section
permitted blatantly unconstitutional district lines to survive in order to prop up the electoral success of
multiple election officials based on their race.
A 2009 objection in Kinston, North Carolina, shows the outrageous, abusive and legally indefensible positions
the Voting Section will adopt using Section 5. Kinston, a majority black jurisdiction, in a referendum decided to
dump partisan elections for town office and move to nonpartisan elections. The Voting Section, exploiting the
burden shift and plain requirement that Kinston prove the absence of a negative, objected to the change.
The objection was explicitly based on the morally and legally indefensible position that black voters
would not know for whom to vote if the word "Democrat" was not next to a candidate's name.
The legally indefensible abuse of power in the Kinston and Georgia redistricting objections are just a couple of
many others. Congress actually relied on some of these abusive and meritless objections when Congress
reauthorized Section 5 in 2006. These abusive and meritless objections polluted the record in 2006, but no
plaintiff ever challenged them, and Congress took no testimony regarding their merits.
Adams is an attorney with the Election Law Center.

February 2014 Pro Counters: Congressional intent response

Response to Congressional Intent Argument
The 2006 VRA reauthorization had flawed criteria in section 4 of which Congress was aware
DAT
Senate Report 109-295. United States Congress. Library of Congress. 26 July 2006.
Web. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/cpquery/?&r_n=sr295.109&dbname=cp109&sel=DOC&
However, we do hold some significant reservations about a number of important issues. These concerns can
generally be categorized as follows: (1) the record of evidence does not appear to reasonably underscore
the decision to simply reauthorize the existing Section 5 coverage formula--a formula that is based on 33
to 41 year old data, and (2) the seemingly rushed, somewhat incomplete legislative process involved in
passing the legislation prevented the full consideration of numerous suggested improvements to the Act.
In short, while we support reauthorization generally, we reluctantly conclude that the final product is not the
best product we might have produced had we engaged in a more thorough debate about possible improvements.
We also conclude that it would have been beneficial if the Section 4 coverage formula had been updated in
order to adhere to constitutional requirements--an update that would have preserved, strengthened and expanded
the Act to ensure its future success.
Interestingly, while Florida has 5 counties that are subject to Section 5 coverage, none of these counties
were implicated by the accounts of discrimination. Yet there were 5 non-covered counties in Florida that
were pointed out in the list of accounts. If reauthorization of Section 5 coverage is based on the accounts in
the record, it does not seem that the coverage formula in Florida as re-authorized could possibly be
appropriate.
There is no question that if those accounts are accurate, that those 139 counties are deserving of coverage under
Section 5, and possibly numerous others upon review. That is precisely the reason we voted for this legislation.
But it would have been advisable for the committee or the Senate as a whole to consider an updated coverage
formula to ensure that the appropriate jurisdictions were covered according to constitutional requirements. That
kind of deliberative process simply was not allowed to occur.
If anything, this card, produced as analysis of the reauthorization of VRA provisions in 2006, is indicative
of the idea that the Supreme Court essentially cleaned up after Congress sloppily pushed a
reauthorization which neglected to use modern data. This was an issue of concern in Congress to begin
with. It would be disingenuous of teams on the con to argue that the Supreme Courts ruling undermines
Congressional rule.

February 2014 Pro Counters: Congressional intent response

Congress essentially has a decade to rewrite section 4 DAT
Opportunities Exist to Strengthen the Civil Rights Divisions Ability to Manage and
Report on its Enforcement Efforts. gao.gov. Government Accountability Office. 3
December 2009. Web. http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/123818.pdf
The Section also carried out its responsibilities under section 5 of VRA, which requires certain jurisdictions
covered under the act to preclear changes to voting practices and procedures with DOJ or the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia to determine that the change has neither the purpose nor the effect of
discriminating against protected minorities in exercising their voting rights. The Section reported that over
the 7-year period it made 42 objections to proposed changes, 34 of which almost 70 percent (29 of 42)
involved changes to redistricting plans. More than half (17) of the 29 objections were made in fiscal year
2002, following the 2000 census, and two were made from fiscal years 2005 through 2007.
Implied in the con argument that the Supreme Court improperly overruled Congress is that Congress no
recourse in the matter; The Supreme Courts rule overrides Congress. In this case, however, the Supreme
Court left a window open for Congress to reformulate section 4. Even if the Supreme Court made the
likely correct that a backlogged and gridlocked Congress would be making unsuccessful reformulation
attempts into near perpetuity, the reality remains that preclearance is, functionally, a measure to keep
redistricting practices in check. This gives Congress another 6 years to figure out a way to push a new
section 4 through to continue maximizing the effect of preclearance.

February 2014 Pro Counters: Impact shouldnt be considered

Impacts of the Decision Should Not Be Considered
The Court was correct in not taking into account effects on individuals DAT
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Supreme
Court of the United States. October 2007. Web.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf
Insofar as our election-regulation cases rest upon the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, see
Anderson, supra, at 786, n. 7, weighing the burden of a nondiscriminatory voting law upon each voter and
concomitantly requiring exceptions for vulnerable voters would effectively turn back decades of equal-
protection jurisprudence. A voter complaining about such a laws effect on him has no valid equal-protection
claim because, without proof of discriminatory intent, a generally applicable law with disparate impact is not
unconstitutional. See, e.g., Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 248 (1976). The Fourteenth Amendment
does not regard neutral laws as invidious ones, even when their burdens purportedly fall
disproportionately on a protected class.
Even if I thought that stare decisis did not foreclose adopting an individual-focused approach, I would reject it
as an original matter. This is an area where the dos and donts need to be known in advance of the election, and
voter-by-voter examination of the burdens of voting regulations would prove especially disruptive. A case-by-
case approach naturally encourages constant litigation. Very few new election regulations improve
everyones lot, so the potential allegations of severe burden are endless. A State reducing the number of
polling places would be open to the complaint it has violated the rights of disabled voters who live near the
closed stations. Indeed, it may even be the case that some laws already on the books are especially burdensome
for some voters, and one can predict lawsuits demanding that a State adopt voting over the Internet or expand
absentee balloting.
The above was written by Justice Antonin in concurrence with the majority opinion in Crawford v.
Marion County Election Board, in which the Supreme Court sided in favor of Indianas institution of a
voter ID law. This decision sets up the argument that the Supreme Court is not liable nor constitutionally
obliged to consider individual impacts and demonstrates strong evidence in support of that notion. This
card can be used at least two ways by pro teams: 1) further fodder in argument for voter ID laws as a
consequence of the Shelby County decision overturning section 4, or 2) creating a framework where
evaluating the Supreme Courts decision in the Shelby County case cannot be based on its outcomes. This
would preclude con arguments about the harms of voter ID laws because under such a framework (as
established by Scalias opinion), the Supreme Court can be making a right decision even if the
tangential impacts are negative because that is not the Supreme Courts responsibility. This card is thus
particularly helpful against teams for whom an anti-voter ID contention is either a centerpiece or a
strong component to the case. It might be helpful for pro teams to weigh (even hypothetically) the
litigation to which Scalia refers with the potential litigation required to enforce remaining VRA sections.


Con Counters

February 2014 Con Counters: Prosecute discrim laws

Ruling makes it harder to prosecute discriminatory laws
Burden of proof has shifted to the Attorney General, Fj
October 2, 2013.
Holder has repeatedly expressed his determination to fight these restrictions with the tools he still hasmost
notably Sections 2 and 3 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 outlaws any legislation that has either a
discriminatory intent or effect. Section 3 allows judges to require states with laws found to be intentionally
discriminatory to get preclearance But whereas in the old preclearance, the legal burden fell on the states
to prove that new laws didnt discriminate, under Section 2 and 3, its on the feds or other plaintiffs to
show that the law does discriminate. Thats a much heavier legal lift.

Discriminatory laws are left either unchallenged or to face challenges only after elections
DAT
Wrong Questions, Wrong Answers. The Economist. 23 May 2012. Web.
The Roberts court took a more sceptical view of the VRA in Northwest Austin Municipality Utility District 1 v
Holder in 2009. That case posed two questions: can a district apply for a waver from the VRA, and is
section 5 of the VRA constitutional. The court answered the first with a straightforward yes. They
sidestepped the second, though Justice Thomas held that section 5 was indeed unconstitutional, and Justice
Roberts all but pleaded for the chance to consider the question again. The country has changed, he wrote: racial
disparities in voting have vanished; minorities hold office in unprecedented numbers. And section 5 "authorises
federal intrusion into sensitive areas of state and local policymaking that imposes substantial federalism costs."
Couple this with Justice Roberts's avowed scepticism of affirmative-action-type laws"The way to stop
discrimination on the basis of race," he wrote in a decision striking down a district's race-conscious method of
assigning schools, "is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."and you can see why VRA opponents
believe the wind is at their backs.
If section 5 is indeed struck down, victims of voting discrimination will not be entirely without
resources: section 2 of the VRA bans discriminatory voting practices outright. The difference is that
affected citizens will have to go to the time and expense of bringing a lawsuit. Should a change be found
discriminatory, in practice that will mean an election, perhaps even two or three, will have been stolen
from them. That the country has changed since the VRA was passed is not in doubt. The better question is
whether it has changed since the VRA was reauthorisedfor cause, for good causein 2006.
The most likely-to-offend counties are potentially off the hook until after a new policy is meaningless.
February 2014 Con Counters: Congressional action unlikely

New Congressional action unlikely
Attorney General alienated Republicans, Fj
October 2, 2013.
Since the Supreme Court decision, Holders made it clear hes willing to play hardball. While Congress could
potentially pass an amendment to the Voting Rights Act that would implement a new set of standards for
preclearance, Holder has opted to start requesting states to be brought in under Section 3. According to Rick
Hasen, a law professor at the University of California-Irvine and author of The Voting Wars, that
decision alienated Republican lawmakers and closed the door on any potential Congressional actionnot
that one was likely to happen anyway.
Congress is gridlocked, Fj
Cillizza, Chris. The least productive Congress ever The Washington Post. July 17, 2013.
So, how does this House stack up against past years when it comes to productivity? Not so well, according to
the new Vital Statistics on Congress, which shows that the 112th Congress passed just 561 bills, the lowest
number since they began keeping these stats way back in 1947.
What's all the more remarkable about the relative dearth of bills passed through the House in the 112th
Congress is the incredibly high number of recorded votes that took place over that same time period. There
were 1,607 recorded votes in the 112th Congress, the fifth highest total since Vital Stats began collecting data.
(Also worth noting: Three of the five Congresses with the most recorded votes have been the last six
years.)
So, the House was voting more but passing less. Republicans will ascribe that seeming contradiction to
Democrats forcing pointless procedural votes to slow things down. Democrats will insist it's the result of a
hyper-ideological majority that has refused to even consider working across the partisan aisle.

February 2014 Con Counters: Voter fraud non-existent

Voter Fraud is virtually non-existent
Republican National Lawyers Association evidence is flawed, Fj
The case has been made repeatedly by the Republican National Lawyers Association. Part of the groups
mission is advancing open, fair and honest elections, and it has compiled a list of about 375 election fraud
cases, based mostly on news reports.
News21 examined those cases and found that 77 were alleged fraud by voters. Of those, News21 could
verify that 33 resulted in convictions or guilty pleas. The analysis shows no cases of voter impersonation
fraud.
The analysis of 2,068 reported fraud cases by News21, a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project is
based on a national public-records search in which reporters sent thousands of requests to elections officers in
all 50 states, asking for every case of alleged fraudulent activity including registration fraud; absentee-ballot
fraud; vote buying; false election counts; campaign fraud; the casting of ballots by ineligible voters, such as
felons and non-citizens; double voting; and voter impersonation.

February 2014 Con Counters: Voter fraud non-existent

Both public perception and legislative reaction to voter fraud is overbearing DAT
[Wendy Weiser] As I noted, the ID laws that we have seen passed this year are far more restrictive than the ones
we have seen in the past, and they ask for IDs that 11 percent of Americans, largely minorities, younger voters,
older voters, people with disabilities, the poor, do not have. The fact that 73 percent of Americans might
think this is a good idea is not surprising, when 89 percent of them actually have these forms of IDs, but
we do not allocatebut this kind of support is not a good enough reason to exclude the 11 percent of
people who do not have those IDs. That is not what constitutional rights or the Voting Rights Act are for.
And I should note that, despite what has been said, the reason, the justification put forward for these laws is one
that is actually nonexistent. The kind of voter fraud that these laws address, in-person impersonation fraud, has
been shown investigation after investigation, study after study to be virtually nonexistent. An American is
more likely to be hit by lightning than to commit this kind of voter fraud.
And it is not because people have not been looking or because the Department of Justice has not made this
enough of a priority. From 2002 through 2005, this was, in fact, a top priority of the Department of Justice
to investigate and prosecute voter fraud. And what they came up with is 38 possible cases and only one
that involved in-person impersonation fraud over hundreds of millions of votes cast. So this is really
something that we already have good laws in place that prevent this.
Weiser is director of the Democracy Program at New York University School of Law. This card is helpful
in shifting the debates framework away from prevention of fraud; this clearly isnt a big enough issue to
become the debates prerogative.

February 2014 Con Counters: Equal sovereignty

Equal Sovereignty not applicable to Section 4
Equal sovereignty only applies to when states enter the Union, Fj
The Court stops any application of 5 by holding that 4(b)s coverage formula is unconstitutional. It pins this
result, in large measure, to the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty. Ante, at 1011, 23. In
Katzenbach, however, the Court held, in no uncertain terms, that the principle applies only to the terms
upon which States are admitted to the Union, and not to the remedies for local evils which have
subsequently appeared. 383 U. S., at 328329 (emphasis added).

Katzenbach, the Court acknowledges, rejected the notion that the [equal sovereignty] principle
operate[s] as a bar on differential treatment outside [the] context [of the admission of new States]. Ante,
at 11 (citing 383 U. S., at 328329) (emphasis omitted). But the Court clouds that once clear understanding by
citing dictum from Northwest Austin to convey that the principle of equal sovereignty remains highly pertinent
in assessing subsequent disparate treatment of States. Ante, at 11 (citing 557 U. S., at 203). See also ante, at 23
(relying on Northwest Austins emphasis on [the] significance of the equal-sovereignty principle). If the
Court is suggesting that dictum in Northwest Austin silently overruled Katzenbachs limitation of the
equal sovereignty doctrine to the admission of new States, the suggestion is untenable. Northwest
Austin cited Katzenbachs holding in the course of decling to decide whether the VRA was constitutional or
even what standard of review applied to the question. 557 U. S., at 203204. In todays decision, the Court
ratchets up what was pure dictum in Northwest Austin, attributing breadth to the equal sovereignty
principle in flat contradiction of Katzenbach. The Court does so with nary an explanation of why it finds
Katzenbach wrong, let alone any discussion of whether stare decisis nonetheless counsels adherence to
Katzenbachs ruling on the limited significance of the equal sovereignty principle.

February 2014 Con Counters: State rights

Response to State Rights Defense
Argument that Section 4 Hurt States Rights is Invalid AMS
Andrew Cohen. John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Courts Voting-Rights Decision. The
Atlantic. July 20, 2013. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/john-
paul-stevens-on-the-supreme-courts-voting-rights-decision/277962/
In his NYRB essay, which every member of Congress ought to read before saying anything more about the
future of the federal statute, Justice Stevens first takes issue with the argument offered by the Chief Justice
that Section 4 (and Section 5) of the Voting Rights Act merited heightened judiciary scrutiny because
those provisions treat different states differently. Stevens writes:
The Court's heavy reliance on the importance of a "fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among
the States," while supported by language in an earlier opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, ignored the fact
that Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution created a serious inequality among the states. That clause
counted "three fifths" of a state's slaves for the purpose of measuring the size of its congressional
delegation and its representation in the Electoral College.
That provision was offensive because it treated African-Americans as though each of them was equal to only
three fifths of a white person, but it was even more offensive because it increased the power of the southern
states by counting three fifths of their slaves even though those slaves were not allowed to vote. The northern
states would have been politically better off if the slave population had been simply omitted from the number
used to measure the voting power of the slave states....
Both the underrepresentation of blacks and the overrepresentation of white supremacists in the South during
that period contradict the notion that the "fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the States" is a part
of our unwritten Constitution. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out in her largely unanswered dissent in the
Shelby County case, the Court in its opinion upholding the original 1965 Voting Rights Act:
held, in no uncertain terms, that the principle [of equal sovereignty] "applies only to the terms upon
which States are admitted to the Union, and not to the remedies for local evils which have subsequently
appeared."
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens was outraged at the Supreme Courts decision on
Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. He argues that the Courts defense of states rights is clearly invalid
given previous state inequalities allowed by former Court decisions. He backs up his arguments by citing
Justice Ginsburgs dissenting opinion, where Ginsburg points out that while all states should be equally
evaluated for admission to the Union, this equality does not apply to all laws by any means.


The Fifteenth Amendments intent discards states rights in discriminatory voting cases DAT
Gans, David H. and Elizabeth B. Wydra. The Voting RIghts Act Is In Jeopardy, But It
Shouldnt Be: A Close Look at Shelby County v. Holder. American Constitution
Society for Law and Policy. February 2013. Web.
These concerns over state sovereignty were flatly rejected by the Framers of the Fifteenth Amendment, who
explicitly conferred on Congress the power to secure the right to vote free from racial discrimination. During
the debates on the Fifteenth Amendment, Senator George Edmunds explained that it was necessary to
withdraw from the States of this Union who have hitherto exercised . . . the entire power over the
political question of the right of suffrage because in many of these States there are large classes of
citizens who are practically ostracized from the Government . . . . The time has arrived, Senator Joseph
Abbott declared, when the power of the General Government should be felt within every foot of its territory. . .
. [T]he time has come when it is the duty of the Government to assert its supremacy and protect life and
property everywhere in the United States. [T]his Government was founded on the idea that all political power
was vested in the peoplenot a third of a half or any fraction, but all the people. In giving Congress the power
to remedy voting discrimination by the states, the Fifteenth Amendment specifically limited state sovereignty.
In short, the Fifteenth Amendment radically altered the constitutional balance between the states and the
federal government on the issue of racial discrimination in voting. It vested Congress with broad power to
prevent and deter racial discrimination in voting and placed all citizens under the shield of national protection.

The reach of Section 5 was already adequately checked. J CD
Despite the early expansive interpretations, the Court still notably evidenced an inclination to limit the reach of
section 5 through interpretations of the purpose and effects prongs of the preclearance provision. In Beer v.
United States, for example, the Court interpreted the effects prong of section 5 in a New Orleans redistricting
case. The Court held that section 5s scope was limited to changes in voting law that resulted in
retrogressionputting protected minorities in a worse position than they had been in under the previously
existing law.87 Essentially, the Court held that section 5 only prevented backsliding, meaning that it was only
intended to prevent new discrimination caused by a cove red jurisdictions change in its voting practices, rather
than to combat already existing discriminatory voting practices.



Judicial precedence had already been established limiting Section 5s interpretation. JCD
Echoing the Courts ruling in Beer under the effects prong, the Court in City of Richmond v. United States
effectively applied a similar backsliding standard to the purpose prong in ruling that even proposed changes
with discriminatory purposes should not be denied preclearance unless they had a retrogressive effect. The
Court held that if verifiable reasons are now demonstrable in support of [the proposed change] . . . the city
need do no more to satisfy the requirements of 5. This case marked the first crack in the wall separating the
purpose and effects prongs, and subsequent cases broke down that wall almost entirely. Most notably, this
occurred in Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board (Bossier Parish II), in which the Court held that section 5s
purpose prong covered only retrogressive dilution, in analogous fashion to the effects prong standard set forth in
Beer. The Bossier Parish II Court reasoned that, while there were perhaps indications of a discriminatory
purpose in the proposed districting change, there was no retrogression because the new law put blacks in the
same position as they were in previously, thus warranting preclearance under section 5.

Section 5 of the VRA is directly supported by Section 5 of the 14
th
amendment itself. J CD
Amar, Akhil. "The Lawfulness of Section 5 and Thus of Section 5." Harvard Law
Review. N.p., 13 Feb. 2013. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
Those who oppose section 5 of the VRA claim that its regime of selective preclearance whereby certain
states with sorry electoral track records must get preapproval from federal officials in order to do things that
other states with cleaner electoral track records may do automatically is not appropriate, not proper, not
proportional.
1
But if section 5 of the VRA is unconstitutional, why wasnt section 5 of the Fourteenth
Amendment itself unconstitutional? For that section and indeed every section of the Fourteenth
Amendment was itself adopted by a process in which certain states were subject to a kind of selective
preclearance. In the very process by which section 5 and the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment were adopted,
certain states with sorry electoral track records were obliged to get preapproval from federal officials in order to
do things that other states with cleaner electoral track records were allowed to do automatically. But it would be
preposterous to say that section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment was itself illegal. And what is true of section 5
(of the amendment) is true of section 5 (of the VRA). Section 5 (of the VRA) is constitutionally proper,
appropriate, and proportional, under the very same constitutional principles that legitimated section 5 (of the
Fourteenth Amendment) itself.


Both the 14
th
Amendment and Section 5 of the VRA are supported by Article I V of the
Constitution itself. J CD
Although many critics of Congresss actions in the 1860s loudly objected, in the name of states rights and state
equality, to this highly visible system of selective preclearance, the Reconstruction Congress successfully
defended its actions as a proper federal enforcement of the Article IV Republican Government Clause
3
the
very clause that todays states rights critics of the VRA have tried to invoke, with unintended but astonishing
irony, against the VRA!
4
Whatever the clause may have meant to the Founding generation a question that
has generated a range of scholarly views it is uncontested that the Republican Government Clause was the
explicit and widely publicized legal basis for Reconstruction itself, and for the specific regime of selective
preclearance that was undeniably part of the very process by which the Fourteenth Amendment (and also the
Fifteenth Amendment) became part of the Constitution.

State rights do not supercede the rights of its citizens. J CD
At a certain point, states with abysmal track records could be deemed unrepublican within the meaning of
Article IV, and Congress had broad powers to enforce that Articles promise of republican government,
according to the Courts earlier ruling in Luther v. Borden.
11
Congressional Republicans openly admitted that
many Northern states also had imperfect track records, but these congressional leaders insisted that Article IV
authorized the federal government to draw sensible lines targeting the worst state offenders. In 1866, most
Northern states disfranchised blacks, but because free blacks constituted a significantly higher percentage of the
population of the former Confederacy, it was not unfair on the contrary, it was necessary and proper for
Congress to target these worst-offending states and to administer to these states specially strong medicine that
limited their previously unfettered and previously abused freedom over voting laws.
12
Similarly, the ex-
Confederacy had in the previous decades been far more repressive of free political expression than had other
states, so it was not unfair rather, it was necessary and proper to specially insist that these states, over and
above all other states, ratify the Fourteenth Amendments provisions protecting free expression (and other
rights, of course).



Unwritten state-equality principles should not stand in the way of justice. J CD
Second, courts should be cautious in deducing and applying unwritten state-equality principles to invalidate
congressional statutes. The equal-footing principle the idea that new states should enter the Union on
basically the same terms as the original states and with the same standing is an important element in the
American constitutional tradition, with deep roots in the Northwest Ordinance.
23
But this principle, properly
understood, has never prevented Congress from crafting special state-specific rules to deal with unique issues
presented when individual jurisdictions have sought to enter or in the case of the ex-gray Southern states, re-
enter the Union as full-fledged states in good standing.
24
Certain conditions have rightly been condemned as
incompatible with proper principles of federalism and state equality. Congress, for example, should not
condition a states admission on a binding state promise to never relocate its capital an issue properly to be
decided by each autonomous state as it sees fit.
25
But as we have seen, Congress can properly require and in
the very process of generating the Fourteenth Amendment did properly require states with especially sorry
democratic track records to meet proper standards tailor-made to address the unique historical lapses of these
specific jurisdictions.

Section 2 of the 15
th
amendment supports the continuation of Section 5 of the VRA. J CD
Which leads, finally, to section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment. Even if none of the foregoing arguments has
persuaded the reader, the VRA can and should be upheld simply and solely on the basis of section 2, giving
Congress sweeping power to enact laws aimed at preventing race discrimination in voting.


The 15
th
amendment already has limits built in to prevent Congressional abuses. J CD
But the Fifteenth Amendment has a much tighter, more specific concern: voting rights. Even if congressional
power in this one domain were virtually plenary, Congress could not, based on this section, claim plenary power
over most other areas of life. Precisely because section 2 has obvious built-in limits it is about voting, not
everything else in the world there is far less need for judges to invent or infer additional limits in order to
preserve a proper regulatory space for states.
30
And on the other side of the ledger, there is far more warrant for
judges to defer to Congress in the area of voting rights, for the simple reason that time and time and time again
the Constitutions text explicitly links voting rights to the idea of congressional enforcement power.

Support for the ratification for the 26
th
Amendment shows that American support for
Congressional oversight has now shifted over the past 150 years. J CD
The Twenty-Sixth Amendment, proposed by Congress in March 1971 and ratified by the states less than four
months later (!), is especially notable, enacted as it was in the immediate aftermath of the initial adoption (in
1965) and first renewal (in 1970) of the highly visible Voting Rights Act. Had the states and the American
people deemed the VRA constitutionally problematic, why did they so quickly and emphatically agree to an
amendment whose wording in section 1 (the right . . . to vote) and section 2 (Congress shall have the power
to enforce) so obviously tracked and thus blessed the language of the earlier Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments that had been the express constitutional basis for the VRA itself? In ratifying the Twenty-Sixth
Amendment, the states and the American people in effect re-ratified the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
as these amendments had been broadly and properly construed in the enactment of the Voting Rights Act
itself.
31
(And in the process of ratifying this most recent Right to Vote Amendment, the American people also
overruled a closely divided Supreme Court decision, Oregon v. Mitchell,
32
that had more narrowly construed
congressional power to promote democracy and voting rights for all.)

In sum: If sweeping congressional power to enforce voting rights is somehow unconstitutional, then the
Constitution itself is unconstitutional. So perhaps another title of this article might have been The
Constitutionality of the Constitution.
February 2014 Con Counters: No substitute for preclearance

There is No Adequate Substitute for Preclearance
The Department of J ustice lacks VRA enforcement power under section 2 DAT
[Robert A. Kengle] Section 2 of the VRA is not an adequate substitute for Section 5. One of the arguments
frequently made against Section 5 is the assertion that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act provides all of
the protections necessary to deal with today's voting discrimination. Congress considered this question in
2006 when it considered whether to reauthorize the preclearance remedy and disagreed. Based upon my
experience in having litigated and supervised a number of both Section 2 cases and Section 5 cases, I also
disagree with that contention both on theoretical and real-world grounds. I am confident that the Lawyers'
Committee and other voting rights practitioners can use Section 2 to eventually invalidate some discriminatory
voting changes that would have been blocked from ever taking effect under Section 5. That hardly shows that
Section 2 can accomplish all that Section 5 did. The fact is that Section 2 will not do so. (36)
Kengle is Co-Director, Voting Rights Project, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law


Section 2 cannot prevent abuses the way preclearance does DAT
[Robert A. Krengle] One cannot reasonably expect all voting changes to be adequately and timely publicized
under current laws. Even for changes that are known, the window between final adoption of a voting change
(when a case would become ripe to litigate) and the date on which the change is first to be used will often be
quite narrow. Jurisdictions are likely to make that window as narrow as possible if they have concerns
about potential litigation. Nor can it reasonably be expected that jurisdictions will make readily available
the relevant information to support a motion for a preliminary injunction under Section 2 so as to allow
for effective litigation within that window. To the contrary, jurisdictions with concerns about potential
litigation have a strong (if not good) motivation to be uncooperative in providing relevant information.
Furthermore, the governing legal standards for Section 2, and the equitable concerns involved in granting
preliminary injunctions, make preliminary relief unusual even for the most meritorious cases with well-
developed evidentiary records. For example, the Department of Justice was unsuccessful in obtaining a
preliminary injunction in its Section 2 vote dilution case against the at-large election system in
Charleston County, South Carolina, even though the district court granted summary judgment to the
United States with respect to the three preconditions that lie at the heart of a successful Section 2 vote
dilution case, and both the district court and the Fourth Circuit eventually found a Section 2 results
violation. Similarly, the Department of Justice was unsuccessful in obtaining a preliminary injunction in
1990 in its Section 2 vote dilution case against Los Angeles County's redistricting plan, even though both
the district court and the Ninth Circuit eventually found intentional discrimination. (38)
Even if section 4s criteria had flaws, the central purpose of the legislation, in a practical sense, was
theprevention of discriminatory practices. Kengle shows through both theory and practical application
that enforcement difficulties can render section 2 (and, by extension, the VRA) irrelevant.


The VRA is less speedy, cost-efficient, and effective without preclearance DAT
[Spencer Overton] Litigation Not Comprehensive: Preclearance was comprehensiveit deterred jurisdictions
from adopting many unfair election rules because officials knew every decision would be reviewed. In
contrast, litigation requires that plaintiffs have the information and resources to bring a claim, and
therefore litigation misses a lot of under-the-radar manipulation. Even states and localities that post new
bills online or are subject to freedom-or-information laws generally do not disclose the unfair aspects of their
voting changes.
Litigation More Expensive: Preclearance also put the burden to show a change was fair on jurisdictionswhich
enhanced efficiencies because jurisdictions generally have better access to information about the purpose and
effect of their proposed election law changes. Litigation shifts the burden to affected citizenswho must
employ experts and lawyers who fish for information during drawn-out discovery processes. This drives
up the cost of compliance to the Department of Justice, to affected citizens, and to jurisdictions.
Litigation Not Tailored to Non-Dilution Claims: Section 2 has well-developed standards to challenge unfair
minority vote dilution in the context of at-large elections and racially-gerrymandered election district
boundaries. The litigation standards, however, are not sufficiently developed to address non-dilution claims
such as challenges to voting locations and candidate qualification procedures. In contrast, the Section 5
retrogression standard was well-suited to address non-dilution claims.
Preclearance Protects Voting Rights in Local Elections: The preclearance process was particularly valuable in
local elections, which are often nonpartisan. While national media outlets and political pundits may focus on
voting rules that affect federal and state polices, the unfair manipulation of local election rules is a significant
problem. At least 86.4% of all unfair election changes blocked by preclearance since 2000 would not have
affected federal elections. That's because even when federal, state, and local elections are conducted at
the same time, many important changes are confined to the local level, including local redistricting,
annexations, and changes to candidate qualifications, the method of elections, and the structure of
government.
Spencer Overton is a Professor of Law at George Washington University School of Law. His analysis
offers an effective summary of the multiple angles from which the Supreme Courts modification of the
VRA also crippled its applicability by reducing its enforcement powers to section 2.


Section 3 bail-ins cannot match section 4s ease or comprehensiveness DAT
Persily, Nathaniel, and Thomas Mann. Shelby County v. Holder and the Future of the
Voting Rights Act. Brookings Institution. 9 August 2013. Web.
The specter of Section 3 bail in lawsuits, previously almost unheard of, has quickly become part of the legal
landscape in the post-Shelby world. Civil rights groups as well as the Department of Justice (DOJ) have now
moved to bail in Texas, and representatives of Native Alaskans have moved to bail in their state. Bail-in is a
complicated procedure that has only happened to two states (Arkansas and New Mexico), six counties
(Los Angeles County, California; Escambia County, Florida; Thurston County, Nebraska; Bernalillo
County, New Mexico; Buffalo County, South Dakota; Charles Mix County, South Dakota), and one city
(Chattanooga, Tennessee) throughout the entire history of the VRA. Victorious plaintiffs in voting
discrimination lawsuits can ask that a court order the jurisdiction to submit to a preclearance-style regime with
that court or the Department of Justice for a period of time. The scope of preclearance could be akin to the
extant Section 5 of the VRA, but it is more frequently limited to particular types of voting regulations
and particular types of governmental bodies (e.g., a city council redistricting).
Since the Supreme Court did not strike down section 5, the Department of Justice is still free to pursue
preclearance , using section 3 instead of section 4 as essentially an arbiter of who can be precleared. As
demonstrated above, however, this is neither the same nor as consistent.

Litigation is an inadequate preventative measure to discriminatory measures. J CD
Because of the Courts decision, discriminatory voting laws can only be challenged under the act through
litigation. In her Shelby County dissent, Justice Ginsburg says the Congress that passed the Voting Rights Act
learned from experience that laws targeting particular electoral practices or enabling case-by-case litigation
were inadequate to protecting voters of color. Litigation occurs only after the illegal voting scheme has
already been put in place and individuals have been elected pursuant to it, thereby gaining the advantages of
incumbency. This means that our courts will assume an even more critical role in protecting voting rights.
Republican legislators in several states are seeking to pass laws that would disenfranchise minorities, and now
that the Department of Justice is no longer preclearing voting laws, the courts could become most important
institution in protecting voting rights. This means that the composition of state and federal courts matters a great
deal for voting-rights advocates.


State courts in Michigan are insufficient to protect voters rights at the local level. J CD
If those voters, however, looked to the Michigan Supreme Court for help, it would find a court shaped by
millions of dollars from the state Republican Party. According to the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, the
party spent $6.7 millionmore than any other groupto elect Republicans to the high court in 2012, and only
a tiny fraction of this sum was reported under state campaign finance laws. During the 2010 highcourt race, the
Michigan Republican Party spent $4.7 million, twice as much as the state Democratic Party.
In 2007 civil rights groups urged the Michigan Supreme Court to rule unconstitutional the states voter ID law.
But the five Republicans on the court upheld the statute. The majority stated, For the overwhelming majority
of registered voters in Michigan, the statute merely requires the presentation of photo identification that the
voter already possesses. The majority argued that the identification requirement applies evenhandedly to
every registered voter, but the dissent chastised the majority for ignoring the rights of hundreds of thousands of
voters who lack a photo ID. Presenting compelling evidence that in-person voter fraud is a nonexistent
problem in Michigan, the dissent argued that the burden on these voters was not outweighed by the states
interest in regulating elections. The majority responded, The state is not required to provide any proof of in-
person voter fraud before it may permissibly take steps to prevent it.



State courts in North Carolina are insufficient to protect voters rights at the local level. JCD
A public-financing system in place since 2004 had largely succeeded in keeping special interest money out of
North Carolina Supreme Court elections, but independent spending overwhelmed the system last year. The
2012 election was dominated by independent-group spending that ran ads for Justice Paul Newby, the
conservative incumbent. Several organizations spent around $2.5 million to help the incumbent keep his seat,
and nearly half of this money came from just one source: the Republican State Leadership Committee.
Why did the committee feel so compelled to keep Justice Newby on the bench? The committee had helped the
Republican-led North Carolina legislature draft its recent redistricting map, and during the 2012 election, those
maps were being challenged in a lawsuit by civil rights groups alleging that the drafters disenfranchised black
voters by using race as a proxy for political party. While this case was pending before the North Carolina
Supreme Court, the same Republican group that allegedly discriminated against black voters contributed around
$1.2 million to keep a 43 conservative majority on the court.

State courts in Florida are insufficient to protect voters rights at the local level. JCD
In 2012, at the same time Florida Republicans were purging voter rolls and making it harder to register voters,
the state Republican Party engaged in an unprecedented campaign to unseat the three justices on the Florida
Supreme Court who were appointed by Democratic governors. As The New York Times noted, Floridas merit
selection and retention election system was widely praised and largely free of politicking, until the opposition
campaign in 2012. Republicans decried the courts judicial activism, but a study by the conservative
Federalist Society concluded that there does not appear to be a pattern of unprincipled decision-making by any
of the justices. The justices true crime was frustrating some of the most extreme goals of Floridas Republican
governor and legislature.



State courts in Ohio are insufficient to protect voters rights at the local level. JCD
The Ohio Supreme Court in 2004 faced a lawsuit challenging a plan by Republicans to deploy challengers to
certain voting precincts to challenge the qualifications of voters under state law. The plaintiffs claimed that the
challengers would target black voters, who would be intimidated and blocked from exercising their right to
vote. Days before the election, two federal district court judges had ordered that all challengers stay away from
the polls (though this decision was later overturned by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals).
On November 1, 2004, the same day as the two federal district court opinions, the five Republicans on the Ohio
Supreme Court ordered the secretary of state to allow the challengers to proceed with their plan. In dissent, the
two Democratic justices argued that issuing the order on the eve of the election robbed the plaintiffs of the
opportunity to challenge the state law that permitted challengers at the polls. The dissent warned that the
presence of challengers could result in chaos and a level of voter frustration that could cause qualified voters
to turn away from the polls.
As the Ohio Supreme Court was considering this lawsuit, the campaigns of three Republican justices were
raking in big money from the political party that would benefit from challenging black voters. The Ohio
Republican Party was the largest donor in the 2004 high-court election, giving more than six times the amount
donated by the second largest contributor, the state Democratic Party. State and local Republican groups
donated more than half a million dollars, compared to nearly $70,000 from Democrats. One Republican justice
received more than $200,000 from the state party, including one donation on the day before the courts decision
allowing challengers at polling places.

February 2014 Con Counters: Voter ID discrim

Voter IDs Laws are discriminatory
Many debates about this topic risk coming down to evaluating the practical repercussions of the Supreme
Courts decision. The most prominent of these (though not necessarily rightfully so. Redistricting is also
definitely a big one) is the induction of voter ID laws across the nation, including in states where
preclearance would ordinarily combat such measures. Con teams need to prove that voter ID laws are
uniformly discriminatory. The notion that a voter ID is free and theoretically readily available to anyone
to the same extent is potentially difficult to unstick from a lay judge, so each card in this section seeks
to summarily flesh out more evidence directly linking the implementation of a voter ID law to categorical
voter discrimination based on race or income. Evidence in support of this can also be found early in Con
Evidence section Voter ID Laws are unfair. The Brennan Centers analysis, cited here, is particularly
thorough. While it has been cut to illustrate various points, its supplemental data and charts flesh the
picture out more thoroughly. Several of the states cited with inadequate resources also were formerly
covered by section 4. When assessing the evidence, keep in mind the 9 states fully covered by section 4
are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.
The following evidence also links back to the Supreme Court decision more directly. The states with the
worst access to resources also were both covered by preclearance (until the Supreme Court ruled on
section 4) and have some form of a voter ID law. If con teams wish to prove there is still both a practical
and theoretical/legislative difference between section 4 states and the country as a whole, this evidence is
thus helpful. This all links back to a central thesis that the rejection of section 4 is fundamentally a
pointedly discriminatory decision.
Access to I D offices is severely limited for minorities, the elderly, and the poor DAT
Web.
http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Democracy/VRE/Challenge_
of_Obtaining_Voter_ID.pdf
Many American citizens lack the documentation these laws require. In fact, more than 1 in 10 voting-age
citizens do not have current, government-issued photo ID. Some populations lack these documents at even
higher rates: 25 percent of African-Americans, 16 percent of Hispanics, and 18 percent of Americans
over age 65 do not have such ID. Data supplied by Texas and South Carolina also show that poor and minority
voters are substantially less likely to have the kind of photo ID these states require. Voter ID laws are especially
burdensome for citizens in high-poverty areas. Not only are these eligible voters among the least likely to
have photo ID, they are also among the least likely to have access to government services, such as public
transportation. In the 10 states with restrictive laws, 1.2 million eligible voters whose incomes fall below
the federal poverty line live more than 10 miles from their nearest state ID-issuing office open more than
two days a week. Voter ID laws also place a particular burden on black and Hispanic eligible voters, who are
less likely to have ID than the general population. In these 10 states, 1.2 million black and 500,000 Hispanic

eligible voters live more than 10 miles from their nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a
week.
In the 10 states with restrictive voter ID laws, more than 450,000 eligible voters do not have vehicle access
and live more than 10 miles from their nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week.
Almost all of these citizens live in rural areas. Not only are they among the most likely not to have photo ID,
they are also the most likely to have difficulty traveling to an ID-issuing office to obtain one.
Citizens with limited vehicle access will be highly dependent on public transportation to obtain the ID necessary
for voting. However, the states that passed the most restrictive voter ID laws are among the nations worst
investors in public transportation.

I nadequate operational hours disproportionately occur in minority-heavy regions DAT
Web.
Offices without Regular Business Hours: In Wisconsin, Alabama, and Mississippi, less than half of all ID-
issuing offices in the state are open five days a week.
Limited Weekend Hours: In South Carolina, only six of the states 68 ID offices are open on Saturday. No
state ID-issuing offices are open on Saturdays in Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Wisconsin. All ID-
issuing offices in restrictive voter ID states are closed on Sunday.
Reduced Business Hours in Areas with High Concentrations of People of Color: Many of the offices with
limited hours are in areas with high concentrations of minority voters. In Texas, 40 ID-issuing offices are open
three days per week or less; the majority of these are in the rural border region, home to a heavy
concentration of eligible Hispanic voters. In Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama, many of the ID offices
with limited hours are located in the areas with the highest concentrations of black voters.
Idiosyncratic Hours: Some ID offices maintain hours so bizarre that it is necessary to consult a calendar to
determine when the office is open. The office in Sauk City, Wisconsin is open only on the fifth Wednesday of
any month. But only four months in 2012 have five Wednesdays. Other offices in Wisconsin are open only once
every two months: For example, the office in Phillips is open only on the first Wednesday of February, April,
June, August, October, and December. In Alabama, the Rockford office is open only on the third Thursday
of the month. In Mississippi, the Woodville office is open only on the second Thursday of each month.


Access is hampered by distance, hours, and misinformation across section 4 states DAT
Web.
The large rural concentrations of black voters in Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia form a geographically
distinct black belt. Large portions of the black belt in each of these states are located a significant distance
from state drivers license offices. For instance, in 11 contiguous counties in Alabama, all of which are
squarely located in the black belt, all state drivers license offices are part-time and are open only one or
two days per week. More than 135,000 eligible voters live in these 11 counties. Nearly half of them are
black, and the black poverty rate is 41 percent.
Second, even when contacted directly, county offices in Georgia frequently gave incorrect information about
free IDs. In 12 of the 21 county offices in the Georgia black belt, election officials could not correctly
describe what forms of identification would be required to obtain a free photo ID.
Two areas along the U.S.-Mexico border one in west Texas and the other in south Texas are home to
sizable rural Hispanic populations but few or no ID-issuing offices. Across the 32 counties in these regions,
there are approximately 134,000 voting-age citizens. About 61 percent of them are Hispanic, which is
almost twice the relative concentration of Hispanics in the rest of the state. The poverty rate is 22.4 percent,
about 30 percent higher than the rest of the state. Thus, there is a disproportionately high concentration of
people who will need free ID in the Texas border region.
But 9 of the 11 offices in these 32 counties are open part-time (only once or twice per week). Some voters,
like those in Cotulla, a small rural town in south Texas, live an hours drive from the nearest part-time
ID-issuing office, and that location is often open only one day per week. Accessing photo ID could be
especially hard for the nearly 10,000 eligible voters in these 32 counties who do not have vehicle access.


Fewer than 1 in 7 Have I Ds in Pennsylvania AMS
Dan Froomkin. Pennsylvania Voter ID Laws Hits Philadelphia Blacks, Latinos Harder.
Huffington Post. August 8, 2012.
A Pennsylvania law that would turn away voters who don't have a valid photo ID would disproportionately
suppress voting in Philadelphia's minority neighborhoods, according to a new study.
The study compared lists of people in the state's ID database with its voter rolls. Officials found that a
staggering 1.3 million of Pennsylvania's 8.2 million voters -- more than 1 in 7 -- didn't appear to have
valid state IDs. In Philadelphia alone, the figure was 362,000 voters, or about 1 in 3.

Free voter I Ds have hidden financial costs which impact women and the poor DAT
Web.
But in all restrictive ID states except South Carolina, even if an eligible voter does not have to pay for the ID
itself, he or she must provide supporting documentation such as a birth certificate or a naturalization
certificate to obtain a state-issued photo ID suitable for voting.
An official copy of a birth certificate can cost anywhere from $15 to $30, depending on the state. The fees
for a new passport or to renew a passport are $135 and $110, respectively. The price of a replacement
naturalization certificate or certificate of citizenship is $345.
Married women who have changed their surname face an additional burden: They may need to present a
marriage license with their current name to obtain a photo ID. Only 48 percent of voting-age American women
who have ready access to their birth certificate have their current name on it. Fees for official copies of marriage
licenses range from $5 to $40. Thus, a married woman who does not have a certified copy of her birth
certificate and marriage license could easily spend $30 to $70 acquiring the documents necessary to
obtain a photo ID....
For individuals who wish to order copies of their documentation online, all restrictive voter ID states except
Texas use VitalChek, a private express document delivery service. VitalChek imposes an additional charge of
$5 to $16 per records request, based on the state or county holding the records. This is in addition to the cost of
the document or any charge by the state for expedited processing. For example, if a state charges $10 for a
birth certificate, an additional $10 for expedited processing, and the VitalChek fee is $10, then an online
request will cost $30. Moreover, this transaction must be completed with a credit card.


Many Minorities Lack I Ds AMS
Dan Froomkin. Pennsylvania Voter ID Laws Hits Philadelphia Blacks, Latinos Harder.
Huffington Post. August 8, 2012.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/pennsylvania-voter-id-philadelphia-
blacks-latinos_n_1752480.html
Tamara Manik-Perlman, an analyst at Azavea, a Philadelphia geospatial software firm, plotted the
addresses of people the state says are registered to vote but don't have valid ID, and found that voters
who live in the the citys most heavily African American census tracts are 85 percent more likely to lack a
valid ID than a voter who lives in a predominantly white area.
Voters who live in heavily Hispanic areas, meanwhile, were 108 percent more likely to lack the right ID than
those in white neighborhoods, Manik-Perlman said.
The Citizens Without Proof study is unbiased and statistically significant, Fj
Citizens Without Proof reports the results of a national survey conducted by the well-respected independent
research firm, Opinion Research Corporation (ORC), in November 2006. The Citizens Without
Proof survey was part of a broader telephone survey conducted by ORC that month, for which ORC
followed standard industry practice in terms of survey design, selecting the appropriate number of
survey participants for statistically significant results, random selection of survey participants, and
method of questioning survey participants. ORC used its standard demographic screensi.e., questions
to determine demographic characteristics of survey participants, such as race, citizenship, and agefor
the entire survey. In other words, the survey methodology used for Citizens Without Proof was the same
widely respected methodology typically used by ORC and similar survey research entities. With respect to the
survey questions relating to photo ID and citizenship documentation, before conducting the survey ORC
analyzed and revised the proposed survey questions and corrected for any potential bias.


The Citizens Without Proof study is mostly limited to U.S. citizens, Fj
Notwithstanding these facts, von Spakovsky and Ingram criticize the survey because it could have included
illegal and legal aliens. This is baseless. As Citizens Without Proof clearly reports, ORC specifically
questioned survey participants as to whether they were U.S. citizens, using questions generally accepted
in the industry. The survey results were limited to U.S. citizens of voting age and did not include illegal or
legal aliens.
Second, contrary to von Spakovsky and Ingrams assertion, the survey was, in fact, essentially limited to
eligible voters, since it focused exclusively on U.S. citizens over the age of eighteen, the main determinants of
voter eligibility across the country. (While it is theoretically possible that the survey could have captured a
small number of individuals rendered ineligible to vote because of disqualifying criminal convictions,
based on the national rate of those disqualifications, that number would be miniscule and would have a
statistically insignificant effect on the studys results.)
The Citizens Without Proof study is not flawed, Fj
Third, von Spakovsky and Ingram are wrong that a more appropriate survey pool for assessing the
fairness of photo ID or proof of citizenship requirements for voting would have been actual, likely, or
registered voters. While it is true that citizens in those groups are more likely to vote in any given
election, they are not the only citizens who have the right to vote. It is certainly relevant to assess how many
people of those entitled to vote would be prevented from doing so if they tried because of a photo ID or proof of
citizenship requirement. The fairness of photo ID and proof of citizenship requirements is not solely a
factor of their effect on overall turnout in run-of-the-mill elections; it is also a factor of their effect on the
ability of every eligible Americanwhether or not she has voted recentlyto participate in future
elections. Indeed, it is often people who do not frequently participate in elections who periodically
become excited by a new candidate, mobilize to vote, and change the outcomes of elections.


The Citizens Without Proof study correctly uses Census data
Finally, von Spakovsky and Ingram raise the baseless criticism that the report improperly relies on 2000 Census
data. Again, this is highly misleading. Nothing in the survey findings depends on Census data. For example,
the finding that 11% of all voting-age citizen survey respondents said they did not have government-issued
photo ID has nothing to do with Census data. Rather, the Census data was used only narratively, to provide
readers with an understanding of the total number of people who are 11% of all voting-age
citizens. According to 2000 Census data, that number was around 21 million people; the number is
almost certainly higher in 2011. (Although it is completely irrelevant, von Spakovsky and Ingram are
also wrong that the Census uses non-citizen population numbers to estimate the number of voting-age
citizens.)
The Citizens Without Proof study uses unbiased survey questions, Fj
As noted above, the survey questions used in Citizens Without Proof were analyzed and revised by the
independent Opinion Research Corporation to ensure that they did not reflect any bias. And indeed they did
not. To enable peer-reviewers and other readers to assess the questions for themselves, Citizens Without Proof
reprinted them in full. But von Spakovsky and Ingram apparently neglected to read them.
The question that led to the bulk of the reports findings was the following question: Do you have a current,
unexpired government-issued ID with your picture on it, like a drivers license or a military ID? It is
hard to imagine how such a straight-forward question can be interpreted as biased in any way.
Nonetheless, von Spakovsky and Ingram try to claim that the question was indeed biased. They do so by
completely misquoting the question, claiming that the survey did not ask respondents whether they had
government-issued IDs but rather asked whether respondents had readily available
identification. That is completely untrue. Although the term readily available identification might
indeed be confusing if used in a survey, it was not used in this survey at all.
In addition to their failed attempt to discredit the photo ID question, von Spakovsky and Ingram criticize the
studys question relating to documentary proof of citizenship. That question was: Do you have any of the
following citizenship documents (U.S. birth certificate/U.S. passport/U.S. naturalization papers) in a place
where you can quickly find it if you had to show it tomorrow? Von Spakovsky and Ingram claim that the
inclusion of the clause, in a place where you can quickly find it if you had to show it tomorrow biased
the results. That clause was included to differentiate between people who actually had possession of their

birth certificates and those who believed that at some point in their lives their parents obtained a birth
certificate for them and thus that the document must exist somewhere. Absent that clause, test survey
participants who did not have birth certificates but who assumed they should have access to their birth
certificates were likely to erroneously answer yes. What is more, Citizens Without Proof accurately reported
its results. Specifically, it reported that 7% of respondents do not have ready access to citizenship
documents. In other words, unlike with the photo ID question, it did not purport to reflect findings of how
many people have citizenship documents somewhere, but rather only those who have those documents readily
accessible to them. Even if the survey could have accurately determined how many people have
citizenship documents somewhereand we concluded that it could not because of the confusion relating
to birth certificatesthe number of people with ready access to those documents is arguably more
relevant to the question of the fairness of proof of citizenship requirements for voting.
The Citizens Without Proof studys respondents confusion is unbiased, Fj
Von Spakovsky and Ingram also find it ominous that 135 survey respondents indicated that they have both a
U.S. birth certificate and U.S. naturalization papers, suggesting that this means that results were not fully
reported. While this does indicate some misunderstanding among respondents about the nature of the
documents described in the question, the misunderstanding in no way biased the surveys results in favor
of lack of documentation. All 135 of those respondents were included in the reported results as
individuals who have citizenship documents. Had they been excluded from the results, the study would
have found an even higher percentage of Americans without citizenship documents.
The Citizens Without Proof study does not explain its methodology, Fj
Von Spakovsky and Ingram try to cast aspersions on the accuracy of the surveys reporting by criticizing the
studys weighting of survey responses to account for the underrepresentation of minority respondents. This
again displays their ignorance of proper survey methodologies. In fact, this type of weighting of survey
responses is standard practice in the field. Weighting removes sample bias from a survey sample so that
the results better reflect the target population. For example, imagine a random survey of 100 Americans
ages 15 to 64, where respondents include 60 males and 40 females. In that age range, the general
population is 50% male and 50% female. To correct for the demographic discrepancy between the
random sample and the population, a researcher would weight each male respondent as 0.83 and each
female respondent as 1.25. Consistent with accurate, ethical and responsible survey practices, ORC weighted
the survey results to accurately reflect the rate of photo ID possession among all American citizens.

The Citizens Without Proof study does not ignore how easy it is to obtain photo I D, Fj
The question that led to the bulk of the reports findings was the following question: Do you have a current,
unexpired government-issued ID with your picture on it, like a drivers license or a military ID? It is
hard to imagine how such a straight-forward question can be interpreted as biased in any way.
Von Spakovsky and Ingram further criticize this question because it does not include a more
comprehensive list of all government-issued photo IDs, including military IDs and student IDs, as
examples. Again, they misread the question, which expressly includes military ID as an example. And
while the question does not list state-issued student photo IDs as an example, those IDs are clearly
covered as a form of government-issued ID with your picture on it. Moreover, possession of student
photo IDs is not especially relevant to the question of the fairness of voter ID laws; only some states that require
photo ID to vote accept student photo IDs.
Contrary to Von Spakovsky, Photo IDs are not plentiful in Ohio, Fj
Finally, von Spakovksy and Ingram erroneously rely upon reports from state and federal agencies that more
photo IDs are issued than there are registered voters. Specifically, they point to a July 2011 article from the
Columbus Dispatch reporting that Ohio has 28,000 more drivers licenses than voting-age residents. But a
simple comparison of the total number of state-issued photo IDs to the number of registered voters is inadequate
to determine whether how many registered or eligible voters there lack current, valid photo ID required by some
states to vote. A closer review of Ohios drivers license list management practices shows clear reasons
why the number of IDs may exceed the number of voting-age citizens without changing the fact that there
are many citizens who lack photo ID. First, the Ohio motor vehicle agency (BMV) only removes people
who have moved out of state from the BMV rolls if they apply for a license in another state and that state
notifies Ohio. If the BMV does not receive notification, the license is marked as expired but remains on
the rolls. The holder of that license, however, is not an eligible voter in the state. Second, Ohio only removes
deceased people from the BMV rolls after a family member sends the BMV a copy of the death certificate. A
BMV Drivers License attendant estimated that many of the 105,000 individuals over 18 who die in
Ohio every year remain in the BMV driver database, as local counties do not automatically send death
certificates to BMV. Family members tend to do so only if they receive a renewal notice for the deceased,
which may occur several years after death. And third, Ohios drivers license list includes significant numbers
of permanent residents and other non-citizens who cannot vote. According to the American Community
Survey, there were 191,439 residents of Ohio of voting-age who were not citizens in 2009. This is equal to
2.17% of Ohios voting-age population. (There are no statistics available on how many people with drivers
licenses were not citizens.) In other words, the total number of entries on bloated drivers license lists does not
at all reflect the number of voting-age citizens who have or do not have state-issued photo ID.

The studies cited by Von Spakovsky and I ngram are flawed, Fj
The 2006 survey they cite for the proposition that only 23 people out of 36,000 nationwide were unable to
vote because of an ID requirement is both irrelevant and misleading. First, in 2006, only one state
(Indiana) required voters to present government-issued photo ID to vote. Thus, the lack of photo ID
would not have prevented voters in other states from voting. Second, and more importantly, the 2006
survey did not ask whether people voted by regular ballot or by provisional ballot; it merely asked whether they
voted. But under federal law, anyone whose vote will not count because they cannot meet a photo ID
requirement is still entitled to vote a provisional ballot. In other words, it is possible that thousands of people
who voted a provisional ballot in 2006 and thus told survey questioners that they voted in fact did not have their
ballots count because they did not present photo IDs.
Similarly, the American University survey they cite, in addition to being an outlier, has serious methodological
problems. Although the study concluded that few registered voters in Maryland, Indiana and Mississippi lacked
photo ID, the way the survey sampling was done assured that the results would dramatically underestimate the
number of voters without ID. Specifically, contrary to common practice, the study did not adjust for
underrepresentation of minority and poorer populations, which are less likely to be included in a random
sample. These populations have been shown in virtually every other study on the topic to disproportionately
lack photo ID. In fact, the authors of the survey noted, [s]ome of the limitations of the study stem from
the unanticipated results. We expected that a much larger number of registered voters would lack a
photo ID, and so we did not over-sample any specific population. Moreover, even if the results were not
skewed, unlike Citizens Without Proof, the American University survey focused only on registered voters
as opposed to eligible voters.
February 2014 Con Counters: Preclear states not reformed

Preclearance States Have Not Reformed
Systematic continued attempts at discrimination abound in states covered by section 4 DAT
Gans, David H. and Elizabeth B. Wydra. The Voting RIghts Act Is In Jeopardy, But It
Shouldnt Be: A Close Look at Shelby County v. Holder. American Constitution
Society for Law and Policy. February 2013. Web.
Mississippi: In the early 1990s, state legislators opposed a redistricting plan that would have increased the
number of majority-minority districts in which African-Americans would have the opportunity to elect
representatives of their choice, privately disparaging the plan as the nigger plan. Several years later, in 1995,
Mississippi sought, without ever seeking pre-clearance, to institute a dual registration system requiring
individuals to register separately for federal and state elections, a system nearly identical to the one the state had
enacted in 1892 to flout the Fifteenth Amendment. Congress also found evidence of discrimination by political
subdivisions in Mississippi. For example, in 2001, the all-white Board of Aldermen for the town of
Kilmichael, Mississippi, made a sudden decision to cancel a general election three weeks before it was
supposed to occur after the town had become majority African-American and an unprecedented
number of African-Americans ran for office.
Texas: Congress also found systematic racial discrimination in jurisdictions that were covered beginning in
1975, when the Acts coverage formula was expanded. Congress heard evidence that, since 1975, every
redistricting plan for the Texas House of Representatives has received a preclearance objection. Congress
also found numerous acts of racial discrimination in voting on the local level. For example, in 2004, in Waller
County, Texas, election officials sought to reduce early voting at polling places near a historically black
college and prosecute students for illegal voting, after two black students announced their intent to run for
office. As a result of successful litigation to enforce the Acts preclearance provision, five times as many . . .
students were able to vote in the primary, in which the African-American student seeking election . . . won a
narrow victory.
The Supreme Courts decision was based at least partially on the assumption that conditions were
different in 2013 than in 1965. While this card is not quite up to date, it offers compelling proof
otherwise. Pro teams will be inclined to point to other workable alternatives to prevent discrimination,
but con teams can now link the ease and effectiveness of implementing preclearance with modern
instances of its applicability.
February 2014 Con Counters: Preclear states not reformed

Contentions

February 2014 Pro Contentions

Pro Case
Introduction:
The 2013 edition of the United States was not the 2020 utopian dream of every idealistic science fiction writer,
but neither was it the racially-charged discriminatory abyss of 1965far from it, in fact. So goes the logic of
the Supreme Court in striking down section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In doing so, the Supreme Court
also limited the powers of section 5, which made 9 historically discriminatory states (along with counties in
several other states) as designated by section 4 preclear any changes to their voting procedures with the
Department of Justice prior to instituting them.
When assessing Resolved: The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violated
the Constitution, we must look at the VRA in not just a constitutional context (which the Supreme Court already
did), but in its applications: was the Supreme Courts decision good for the American voting system and the
American people? As we will demonstrate, the Supreme Courts decision was. For this reason, we affirm the
resolution.
Contention One: The ruling does not weaken the VRA
Before we can competently evaluate what the Supreme Court has done right, we need to establish an absence of
wrong. A common charge levied against the ruling is that it effectively guts the VRA. In order to have a clear
debate on the matter, one central tenet needs to be established: the VRA is practically the same strength now as
as it ever was. The 1965 VRA was one of the strongest and most effective anti-discrimination laws this nation
has ever passed, and there is little reason to believe this cannot continue in the wake of the Supreme Courts
ruling. As Jeffrey Toobin of The New Yorker explains, only 5 of every 1000 cases submitted to the Department
of Justice from 1998 to 2002 were denied under preclearance. This indicates that discrimination cases are rare
enough that the Justice Department and independent advocacy groups can combat discrimination on a case-by-
case basis using section 2 of the VRA, which bans discriminatory voting practices and is still in full effect.
Given the drastically diminished volume of offending legislation, litigation is an option with surprising
tenability in the 21
st
century.
Contention Two: The ruling puts states on rightfully even ground.
Much of the kerfuffle over the Supreme Courts ruling has been states response; namely, states formerly
covered by the VRAs preclearance sections found themselves willing and now able to pass voter identification
legislation in an ostensible attempt to combat voter fraud. Another common gripe with the Supreme Courts
decision is that it opens the doorway to voter ID laws, which some consider discriminatory. We are not
necessarily here to argue for the viability or particular positive assets of voter ID laws; however, the notion that
section 4-covered states could not vote to pass such measures is absolutely ludicrous. Take the case of Crawford
February 2014 Pro Contentions

v. Marion County Election Board. In this case, the Supreme Court validated Indianas own voter ID law, ruling
it constitutional based on Indianas vested interest in combatting voter fraud. While voter ID laws may not be
inherently good, it is nonetheless ludicrous that Indiana circa 2007 was fully able to implement a voter ID law
while states like Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina could not. For the Supreme Court to continue holding such
states under preclearance, preventing them from passing equivalent legislation, would essentially violate its own
precedent. The Supreme Court also put an end to incongruous financial punishment; the Miami Herald in June
2013 noted that Florida had spent over $700,000 in legal fees to gain preclearance for voting legislation, fees
that would have been nonexistent had counties in Florida not been covered by section 4. For the Supreme Court
to embrace such ludicrous (indirect) penalties on select districts for infractions committed four decades ago
would be unconscionable.
Contention Three: The ruling upholds a central tenet of Western
justice
While a common complaint of the ruling is that it went too far, the Supreme Court actually went just far enough
in not striking down section 5 of the VRA. Section 5 did the actual grunt work; it continues to be the active
preclearance clause, as section 4 just stipulated which states automatically fell into the clutches of section 5.
This original model worked well in 1965, when Southern states were rampantly trying to discriminate against
minority voters. In 2013, however, the scene was different. As explained by Hans A. Spakovsky of the Heritage
Foundation, sections 4 and 5 essentially took a guilty until proven innocent approach to justice. As further
elucidated by J. Christian Adams, an attorney with the Election Law Center, Congress 2006 revision of section
5 required states covered by section 4 of the VRA to prove the absence of a negative. The American court
systemthe American justice system, reallyis built on the idea of proving a positive: innocent until proven
guilty. Section 4 wound up arbitrarily putting states into a legally indefensible bind. The beauty of the Supreme
Courts ruling is that it still frees the Department of Justice to prosecute discriminatory actions in a way that
upholds this central tenet of justice. As noted by The Economist, Attorney General Eric Holder has been
pursuing the tack that under VRA section 3, judges can order that jurisdictions with egregiously burdensome
rules can be forcibly enrolled in the preclearance club. So no, preclearance is not dead. In fact, it is alive in a
more just form than ever. An ancillary point of accolades for the Supreme Courts ruling is that the Shelby
County case originally brought the far more defensible section 3 of the VRA out of legal obscurity.
The Supreme Court ruling upholds everything a Supreme Court ruling ought to: a central tenet of the U.S.
justice system, previous court precedent, and continuing equality for Americans. The Supreme Court could have
been harsher with the Voting Rights Act, and it certainly could have been more lenient. But given the
convalescence of legal and practical outcomes from the ruling, we must affirm the resolution. The Supreme
Court got it right.
February 2014 Con Contentions

Con Case
Introduction:
In her dissent to the Supreme Court decision on Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Justice Ginsberg
noted that [t]hrowing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory
changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet. The racial
progress this country has made in the last few decades has been painstakingly assembled through feverous
protests, grassroots political work, and numerous legal challenges. The bedrock of this progress are the laws
which this country is based on. Ultimately, all the persuasion in the world is useless if it is not codified by the
law. Section 4 has been a bulwark against regression, and because of this, we must negate that Resolved: The
Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violated the Constitution.
Contention One: History shows that the need for a preclearance
Without a preclearance, the United States returns to a failed method of prosecuting discriminatory racial laws.
In the previous Civil Rights Acts, Congress granted the Attorney General the power to prosecute discriminatory
racial laws. He proved unable. Voting suits are very hard to prepare for and are also ineffective. The Supreme
Court case Katzenbach, details how voting suits sometimes require as many as 6,000 hours preparing for one
trial. Even if there is a victory, states can switch to a different discriminatory law and force the Attorney
General to repeat the process once again. Thus, Congress instituted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to create a
preclearance. A preclearance is where the State has to have its voting laws precleared. This means the burden of
proof switches to the state. This made it much harder for discriminatory laws to be put into effect. While having
the Attorney General prosecute these laws may seem acceptable, it has been proven to be an extremely
ineffective approach. Thus, history shows that a preclearance is the only thing standing between us and a
regression in racial politics.
Contention Two: There is a current need for a preclearance
Southern states have not stopped their attempts at diluting the power of the minority vote. Over the past 25
years, Section 4 has prevented over 1,000 discriminatory changes. This is where Justice Ginsburgs quote
becomes even more relevant. While the Civil War may have been over a century ago, we are still in the middle
of a rainstorm. Those who would attempt to infringe on the right to vote, will not cease unless they are legally
restrained. Clearly, the preclearance provides protection from ongoing discriminatory efforts.
February 2014 Con Contentions

Contention Three: This was not the Supreme Courts decision to
make
The Supreme Courts decision to strike down Section 4, in the face of repeated reauthorization by Congress, is
unconstitutional. It's not just that the decision that was reached was wrong; it is also that it was the wrong body
to decide this matter. The Fifteenth Amendment specifically states that Congress shall have power to enforce
this article by appropriate legislation. In other words, it gives the power to Congress and not to the Supreme
Court. This amounts to judicial activism. Judicial activism is where the Supreme Court, a panel of nine
unelected justices, strikes down a law created by Congress, a body of politicians that have been elected by the
people. Because Congress is answerable to the people and the Supreme Court is not, the Supreme Court should
only strike down a law if it is not constitutional. In this case the law was struck down because the Supreme
Court simply preferred a different coverage formula. That was not their decision to make. Thus, the Supreme
Court wrongfully exercised its power in striking down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.

Advanced Level February 2014 PF Brief

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Advanced Level February 2014 PF Brief

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Foundation Briefs

Advanced Level February Brief

Potrebbero piacerti anche