You are on page 1of 2

“You don't have the blatant discrimination. But you still have intimidation.

You still have
racism. As long as the potential for discrimination is still there, the act is still needed.”
Because we agree with Kenneth Dukes, a minister from Shelby County Alabama,
represented by the NAACP in the Supreme Court Case, we negate the resolved: The
Supreme Court Rightly decided that section 4 of the voting rights act violated the

We make the following observations:

First, Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act determined which states and districts were required
to seek “preclearance” from the federal government in order to pass election-related laws.

Second, Merriam Webster defines “rightly” as “in the correct manner.” Therefore, this
debate should focus on the specific manner and rationale used by the Court. Specifically,
we will show why the court was wrong in two ways… 1- that the act is still needed and 2-
the way the Supreme Court made their decision was wrong.

Our third observation is that it is imperative to protect the right to vote when weighing
competing constitutional issues. The Legal Defense & Educational Fund explains that the
right to vote is the cornerstone of American democracy. Our votes affirm the legitimacy of
our democracy. The right to vote is so [the most] essential [right] because we use it to
preserve and protect all other Constitutional rights. It serves as a check on our political
leaders and as a source of power for their constituents.

Contention 1: Voter Disenfranchisement
Unfortunately, the ruling that the VRA was no longer necessary is a vast
mischaracterization of our current voting system. In fact, there is a new surge to suppress
minority voters that reflects the same schemes that were used in the 1960’s to stop African
American voters. However, instead of poll taxes and literacy tests, legislatures around the
country have turned to a more subtle form of voter suppression: Voter ID laws. The Legal
Defense and Educational Fund explains that the push for laws requiring voters to present
valid government-issued photo [ID] identification at the polls amounts to an effort to create a
modern day poll tax and represents the heart of the modern block the vote campaign. With
the striking down of section 4b of the voting rights act, former jurisdiction states are free to
enact restrictions such as voter id laws. As of June 2013, six states that were previously
covered, have approved discriminatory laws, that would have failed under pre-clearance.
The ids disproportionately affect minorities. Studies show that nearly 25% of blacks do not
have photo ID compared to 8% of whites. NYU Law states that a form of proof should not
include restrictive documentation requirements like overly burdensome photo ID or
redundant proof of citizenship requirements that serve to block millions of eligible American
citizens from voting. Redistricting and Voter ID laws are only two strategies opened up for
discrimination, other small moves can also be anticipated: poll place consolidations, at large
voting schemes, and misleading voting information. Some have argued that the formula is
much too outdated. However, according to Matt Barreto, an associate professor of Political
Science at the University of Washington, research found “clear and statistically significant
evidence” that discrimination is still widespread today, though often in different forms, and
even remains more widespread in Section 5-covered jurisdictions than elsewhere. So, the
formula has remained accurate since the start in 1965.
The Brennan Center reports on the potential voter discrimination after the court's ruling which includes:1. Changing polling locations.
2. Changing polling hours or eliminating early voting days. 3. Reducing the number of polling places. 4. At-large elections. 5.
Packing majority-minority districts. 6. Dividing minority districts. 7. Rigorous candidate qualifications 8. Changing multi-lingual voter
assistance. 9. Changing election dates.10 Creating new elections. 11. Canceling elections.

Contention 2: The Facial Challenge

Ian Millhiser from Think Progress writes a facial challenge is a broad lawsuit claiming that a
law must utterly cease to exist and can never be applied to anyone. However, the Voting
Rights Act is simply protecting the very right of citizens, specifically minorities, to vote.
Essentially, In order to prove Section 4 was unconstitutional, they would have to show in
every district that there was no discrimination. According to the US Supreme Court
previously established in Us v Salerno a facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course,
the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that
no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid. Even if there is no
discrimination in Shelby County, the act is still constitutional because the pro has to show
there is no discrimination in every county of the 9 states. Therefore the Con should win
today’s round, since Cornell University finds after 40 years and thousands of discriminatory
changes blocked by preclearance, conditions in the covered jurisdictions demonstrated that
the formula was still justified by current needs.

For these reasons, we stroingly urge a Con ballot. Thank you.