Supreme Court decision targets minority voters

According to Justin Levitt, author and counsel for the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, “it is more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.” In spite of numerous reports, including Levitt's paper, that have debunked the presence of widespread of voter fraud, yesterday the Supreme Court decided to reverse the lower courts’ decision in Ohio and uphold an early voting period that was reduced to 28 days from 35 days.

Shortening the time period for early voting most impacts minority voters and students, as voting hours were expanded in Ohio in 2004 primarily in areas with African-American and student concentrations. Additionally, 28 other states are currently circulating bills for further legal restrictions on voting. In Wisconsin, the state is considering implementing voter ID laws that would require each voter to present a state-issued ID before casting his or her ballot. The decision in Ohio supports long-term conservative efforts to enact restrictive voting measures and curtail minority voting. Perhaps these efforts are in reaction to current projections that by 2020 under 60 percent of voters will be white.

Although voting restrictions have been an issue for a long time -- some consider the new voter ID laws to be a new manifestation of poll taxes required of African-American voters in the early 20th century to restrict minority voting -- Ohio did create early voting hours in 2004 to combat the long lines that prevented three percent of its voters, mostly minority voters, from casting their ballot.

Situations like the conflict in Ferguson, with their polarizing and intense violence, can momentarily overshadow chronic issues like voting restrictions. Nonetheless, ramping up voting restrictions equally perpetuates systemic racial discrimination. The decision in Ohio to reduce the early voting period reflects a continued ambivalence from the Supreme Court on lessening racially oppressive legal procedures.

Additionally, the decision in Ohio could galvanize other states to pass restrictive bills. There may be expansive bills introduced in 42 states, but only 10 states have passed these bills. Because Ohio is a swing state, each vote is important. In the 2004 election, the inability of 357,000 people to vote cast doubt on Republican George Bush’s victory, as many of these voters were Democrats.

As our nation's judicial body, the Supreme Court is obligated to uphold racial justice, but its reversal of the Ohio courts' decision is precisely the opposite. The Court, as well as the substantial number of states with voter-restrictions laws, should seriously reconsider the direction in which they are headed.