An Anniversary

Fifty years ago on this day, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This morning I read, with a sinking heart, the New York Times Magazine article from this past Sunday, "A Dream Undone," which chronicles, as correspondent Jim Rutenberg puts it, the "countermovement of ideologues and partisan operatives who, from the moment the Voting Rights Act became law, methodically set out to undercut or dismantle its most important requirements."In recent weeks, in connection with my research for the picture book biography of Ruth Bader Ginsburg I'm working on, I've been studying the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder, where Chief Justice Roberts led a majority to strike down the muscular heart of the Voting Rights Act, which applied to states with the worst histories of disenfranchising African Americans.Roberts' opinion drew a strong--dare I say, gorgeous, if something temperate and understated can be called gorgeous--dissent from RBG. You can hear her read it from the bench here. (Click on "Opinion Announcement, Part 2.") And here is the last paragraph:

GINSBURG, J., dissentingAfter exhaustive evidence-gathering and deliberative process, Congress reauthorized the VRA, including the coverage provision, with overwhelming bipartisan support. It was the judgment of Congress that “40 years has not been a sufficient amount of time to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination following nearly 100 years of disregard for the dictates of the 15th amendment and to ensure that the right of all citizens to vote is protected as guaranteed by the Constitution.” 2006 Reauthorization §2(b)(7), 120 Stat. 577. That determination of the body empowered to enforce the Civil War Amendments “by appropriate legislation” merits this Court’s utmost respect. In my judgment, the Court errs egregiously by overriding Congress’ decision.

I know, it's a legal opinion. Justice Scalia, who of course joined the Roberts opinion, would have been fiery and probably sarcastic, which makes for fun blogging but I prefer Justice Ginsburg's plainer style. Is it too much to hope that our country can address these problems with more light rather than heat?