Meet the Press   |  June 30, 2013

2: Voting Rights ruling: What comes next?

A Meet the Press roundtable discusses the Supreme Court's decision on the Voting Rights Act and the implications it has for the future.

Share This:

This content comes from Closed Captioning that was broadcast along with this program.

>>> president johnson speaking about the voting rights act in 1965 referred to the crown jewel of civil rights legislation and the supreme court struck down key elements of it effectively killing most of it. we are back with our roundtable. michael eric dyson , "time" magazine wrote this. we have liberals rejoicing about the gay marriage ruling, a lot of conservatives rejoicing about the voting rights ruling. here's what was written. "the thread running through all these cases is the possibility of change in american society . justice anthony kennedy was only stating the obvious when he wrote the changes in thinking about same-sex marriage have come clowe sloely at first and then in rapid course. if such change is possible in this area, is it also possible in the realm of race relations ? the court thinks so, writing that the ghost of the 1960s can no longer be held against those states, particularly in the south." wi where does this go now?

>> it's not the ghosts. it's the real living problems that are prenltsed. think about attorney general holder's response to this, talking about the corrosion of the foundations of american democracy. he pointed out that texas ' redistricting plan and south carolina 's i.d. plan were both rejected by lower courts, federal courts in texas and south carolina today, not 50 years ago, not 40 years ago. you know, what's interesting here is that in 2006 congress and george bush signing the legislation reviewed this and in a bipartisan way found that it was compelling evidence to suggest that we need to be --

>> right. senator demint, you voted to reauthorize the voting rights act . is there not a bipartisan basis, then, to find some remedy along the lines of what the president wa wants, which was striking? he said there ought on rules and everybody ought to be subject to them.

>> the courts didn't throw out the voting rights act . there's just one section that used 50-year-old voting participation records. and the fact is today in those nine states the participation of african-americans voting is as high or higher than whites. all the court said, if there's a compelling case based on data today, they need to look at it. but i think it was a good judgment and it's not going to hinder voting rights .

>> but in 2006 , that formula wasn't on 50-year-old data. what you voted for in 2006 included the formula. if you thought it was 50-year-old data and a bad formula, why vote for it?

>> i didn't want to throw out the whole bill. at the time we decided to continue it because a lot of it is good.

>> but the point is -- to get back to the point, it's not 50-year-old data. we're talking about what goes on now. the voting i.d. laws, manifestly unjust, and the way racial jerry gerrymandering as occurred in texas and florida and south carolina . we're not talking about having the ghost of mississippi or alabama or georgia assert themselves. we're talking about practices that are being used now deployed against vulnerable populations, latinos, african-americans in particular. i can't even get a credit card without three credit bureaus saying i'm good enough. now you're saying the supreme court says let's give you the card now and if you mess up, let's take your credit back, where we have the executive, judicial, and legislative weighing in and the judicial have now said that it's all good. i'm telling you a bipartisan congress and president said in 2006 that it wasn't.

>> i live in georgia, which is a section 5 state, okay? every single redistricting plan drawn by my state from the time the voting rights act was passed in 1965 until 2011 was overturned by either doj or a federal court for being discriminatory against minorities. so i take this very seriously. my view is that discrimination against anyone at the ballot box is wrong and should have the full enforcement of the federal government . but the issue here was not, as jim said, they didn't throw out the law, they just simply said you're using an old formula that doesn't apply. if the department of justice today believes that any state has passed a redistricting plan that violates the minority voting rights of anybody in that state, they can go into federal court today and --

>> let me just -- quickly here, before i run out of time before we go to a break, is there a bipartisan basis to do something that ensures that voters are enfranchised around the country?

>> yes, but it may be such a small number of bipartisan people. the question is -- here's the problem. every time congress has in modern times reauthorized the voting rights act , it's log rolling . i'll keep your state and your county out if you'll keep my county out. and that's the problem they're going to face the next time. that's why they're trying to come up with something they don't fully have their arms around yet, which is is there some way of say, okay, we're not going to cover entire states, we're just going to say there's this nationwide rule.

>> let me get to a break. we'll auk act abortion rights . my live interview with one of the most talked-about women of the week, texas state senator wendy davis taking on texas governor rick perry . she joins me live.

>>> plus, the president in south africa yet meeting with the children and grandchildren of the ailing nelson mandela . he and the first lady swoek with his wife over the phone conveying their solidarity and prayers for the leader. [ female