Covering politics in North Carolina and beyond, VoterRadio.com is streaming 24 hours a day. Listen live or on-demand.
Printer Friendly
Franklin’s Voice Missed in Debate About Race and Voting Rights
By Damon Circosta
Published: Jun. 29, 2009
RALEIGH - This spring has been a time of transition for the civil rights movement in North Carolina.
In March, one of the towering figures of the movement, historian John Hope Franklin, passed away. Born at a time when most blacks weren’t able to eat at the same restaurants as whites, Franklin lived to see this nation inaugurate its first black president.
While the people who knew him have been mourning the passing of John Hope Franklin all spring, it is in the wake of this most recent Supreme Court decision that the wider world will feel the sting of his absence.
As a historian, Dr. Franklin had a keen awareness of the policies and court decisions that carried us out of segregation. From the 1940s to the 1960s, when the battle to desegregate public institutions was being waged in the courts, it was John Hope Franklin who provided expert testimony and intellectual rigor to the cause.
Towards the middle of the 1960s the front lines of the civil rights movement shifted to Congress, where the debate swirled around legislation designed to ensure access to the ballot. One of the signature accomplishments of that era came in 1965 when Congress passed the Voting Rights Act.
Last week the Supreme Court reviewed a challenge to the Voting Rights Act in the case of Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder (NAMUDNO). A key enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act requires some jurisdictions to “pre-clear” any changes to election law with the U.S. Department of Justice.
This pre-clearance provision was put in place to thwart Jim Crow era disenfranchisement efforts that people like Franklin confronted regularly. The provision covers all or parts of 16 states -- mainly in the South -- including 40 of North Carolina’s 100 counties.
The high court noted that “the historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable.” And while the court left the pre-clearance provision intact for now, they openly questioned whether or not such measures are still necessary.
“Things have changed in the South,” said Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority of the court. “Voter turnout and registration rates now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.”
Roberts is right. Things have changed in the South. But the question remains: have they changed enough?
Some argue that in a post-Obama world, the protections of the Voting Rights Act are no longer needed. Others say that legislation like the Voting Rights Act is a key reason we have made such strides towards racial equality and to abandon it now would jeopardize all that has been accomplished.
In light of last week’s Supreme Court ruling, it is possible that Congress will revisit the Voting Rights Act. If it doesn’t see some significant revision, then the constitutionality and utility of such a law will be questioned. Already, another Voting Rights Act case is working its way through the courts. There are some ways that Congress could improve the Voting Rights Act and the court’s rhetoric in NAMUDNO signals that improvements are needed.
While the people who knew him have been mourning the passing of John Hope Franklin all spring, it is in the wake of this most recent Supreme Court decision that the wider world will feel the sting of his absence.
What would the nation’s preeminent African-American historian say about such proclamations? Would he agree that we have indeed changed? Have we moved into an era where voting irregularities and disenfranchisement are no longer a concern? He most certainly would have had an opinion and it would have been informed and eloquently delivered.
As the conversation around voting rights continues, the voice of John Hope Franklin will sorely be missed.
