WASHINGTON \u2014 A central provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 may be in peril, judging from tough questioning on Wednesday from the Supreme Court\u2019s more conservative members.<\/p>\n
Justice Antonin Scalia called the provision, which requires nine states, mostly in the South, to get federal permission before changing voting procedures, a \u201cperpetuation of racial entitlement.\u201d Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked a skeptical question about whether people in the South are more racist than those in the North. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked how much longer Alabama must live \u201cunder the trusteeship of the United States government.\u201d<\/p>\n
The court\u2019s more liberal members, citing data and history, said Congress remained entitled to make the judgment that the provision was still needed in the covered jurisdictions.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s an old disease,\u201d Justice Stephen G. Breyer said of efforts to thwart minority voting. \u201cIt\u2019s gotten a lot better. A lot better. But it\u2019s still there.\u201d<\/p>\n
Four of the nine-member court\u2019s five more conservative members asked largely skeptical questions about the law. The fifth, Justice Clarence Thomas, did not ask a question, as is typical.<\/p>\n
The law, a landmark achievement of the civil rights era was challenged by Shelby County, Ala., which said that the requirement had outlived its usefulness and that it imposed an unwarranted badge of shame on the affected jurisdictions.<\/p>\n
The county\u2019s lawyer, Bert W. Rein, said that the \u201cproblem to which the Voting Rights Act was addressed is solved.\u201d<\/p>\n
In reauthorizing the provision for 25 years in 2006, Congress did nothing to change the criteria for inclusion under the provision, relying instead on a formula based on historic practices and voting data from elections held decades ago. Much of the argument concerned that coverage formula.<\/p>\n
Should the court strike down the coverage formula, Congress would be free to take a fresh look at what jurisdictions should be covered. But making distinctions among the states based on new criteria may not be politically feasible. <\/p>\n