The Supreme Court Rightly Decided That Section 4 of the VRA Violated the Constitution

"The sad irony of today"s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA has proven effective, The Court appears to believe that the VRA"s success in elimination the specific devices extant in 1965 means preclearance is no longer needed," says Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg upon the decision to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, or VRA. Like Ginsburg, I stand in firm disbelief of the resolved which states- The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violated the Constitution. According to Webster"s Dictionary Rightly- in a way that is proper or appropriate or with certainty Violate- To do something that is not allowed by (a law, rule, ect.), to take away, interfere with, or ignore (something, such as a person"s right"s or privacy) in an unfair or illegal way. My opponent has taken the pro position in this debate and I believe this opinion to be invalid due to my three contentions; 1. There was no certainty in the judges" decision 2. The racism prevented by Section 4 is still present 3. Multiple other amendments and laws are in favor of Section 4 of the VRA. My first contention states that there was no certainty in the judges" decision, proving the resolved wrong as this goes against the definition of rightly. According to Huffington Post the Shelby County vs. Holder case ended with a 5-4 ruling against Section 4. This in itself states that the Supreme Court was not certain of their decision, with only a 10% difference in votes tearing down the Act. Not only were more than 44% of the Justices against this ruling, but multiple of them spoke out. Reasons pertaining to the influence of racism and the VRA"s success were defended by the 44%, reasons for which I remain against the resolved. My second contention states that the racism prevented by Section 4 is still present. To use another quote by Ginsburg, "Throwing 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." In the past, minorities have been rendered unable to vote due to circumstances Section 4 of the VRA prevented. An example of this would be the Florida recount during the 2000 Al Gore Bush election. According to New York Times, "Black precincts had more than three times as many rejected ballots as white precincts." A similar pattern to this was found in other minority precincts and many believe this changed the entire election. With the Supreme Court throwing away this umbrella, I believe that these patterns will become more prominent and common with nothing keeping Congress in control of these instances. My third contention states that multiple other amendments and laws are in favor of Section 4 of the VRA. One of these would be Amendment 14, which is based on equal protection. Section 1 of Amendment 14 states "No states shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". This prevents the states specified by Section 4 from creating tests or devices reducing or taking away a citizen"s right to vote. Not only Amendment 14 but 15 protects a citizen"s privileges stating, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Also, Section 12 of the VRA focuses entirely on defending the rest of the Act. Section 12 states "Whoever ["] interferes with any right secured by section 2,3,4,5,7,10, or 11 (a) or (b) shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." This entirely prevents the Supreme Courts legal ability to break down Section 4, as by their own country"s laws, the 55% that voted against this law will spend 5 years in prison. I have come to the conclusion that resolved: The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violated the Constitution to be false, due to our three contentions.