Resolved: The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violated the Con

Round 1: Present Case Round 2: Rebuttal/Crossfire (For the CON; The CON can ask questions that the PRO must answer in Round 3.) (CON must answer PRO's questions in Round 2) Round 3: Summary Round 4: Final Focus I affirm, Resolved: The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violated the Constitution. First a few observations: The proactive burden of this debate falls upon the negative to overturn, or disprove, the Supreme Court"s ruling. This is because the decision has already been rendered and thus there is a greater burden of proof to show that the decision was rendered incorrectly. If at the end of the round, the negative team has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Section 4 is constitutional, you should vote affirmative and default to the status quo ruling. Moreover, in order to prove the ruling in the status quo, the Con must prove that it passes the tests of strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws, including section 4 of the VRA. In order to pass strict scrutiny, my opponents have the burden of proving that section 4 is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and must demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result. If my opponents cannot prove strict scrutiny, then the round should default to us. Contention 1: Section 4 is obsolete. Subpoint A: It is no longer necessary to take away the sovereignty of the states in order to stop voter discrimination. According to Adam Liptak of the New York Times "The majority that held the coverage formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965, most recently updated by Congress in 1975, was unconstitutional. In the decision made by Chief Justice John Roberts, "Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices. The formula captures States by reference to literacy tests and low voter registration and turnout in the 1960s and early 1970s. But such tests have been banned nationwide for over 40 years, and have not occurred in 40 years. And voter registration and turnout numbers in the covered States have risen dramatically in the years since. Racial disparity in those numbers was compelling evidence justifying the preclearance remedy and the coverage formula. There is no longer such a disparity. 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. 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. Thus, the sovereignty among states no longer has any sufficient reason to be violated. Subpoint B: The court ruling protects section 5 and allows section 4 to be renewed. Section 5 is left in place so Congress can pass a new formula so long as it is responsive to current instances of voting discrimination. This means that Congress can pass a law that"s actually accurate and looks at instances of voter fraud that are occurring in the modern United States, and not instances that occurred 40 years ago. Because the formula was relevant in 1965, its continued use is permissible so long as any discrimination remains in the States identified in 1965. But this does not look to "current political condition, instead relying on a comparison between the states in 1965. But history did not end in 1965. In assessing the "current need" for a preclearance system treating States differently from one another today, history since 1965 cannot be ignored. The Fifteenth Amendment is not designed to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future. To serve that purpose, 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. Contention 2: The VRA violated the 10th amendment, and the PRECLEARANCE REQUIREMENT. In NAMUDNO, the Court fired unmistakable warnings at Congress that "past success alone" was no longer "adequate justification to retain the preclearance requirements." This too deprives the states of self governance. The 10th amendment states that all powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the states. The VRA went against this. Chief Justice John Roberts states "The Voting Rights Act sharply departs from these basic principles. It suspends "all changes to state election law" however innocuous"until they have been precleared by federal authorities in Washington, D. C. The Attorney General has 60 days to object to a preclearance request, longer if he requests more information. If a State seeks preclearance from a three-judge court, the process can take years." He continues by saying "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 non-covered 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." Thus, this proves that the Voting Rights act, namly section 4 violated the constitution, through the 10th amendment. Therefore the supreme court rightly decided that section 4 was unconstitutional. Thus, I Affirm.