Watch live:

Town Hall debate: McConnell and Rosen on the Voting Rights Act

National Constitution Center

Michael McConnell and Jeffrey Rosen are back again after their debate about the Fisher affirmative action case–this time, taking on the Supreme Court’s landmark decision about the Voting Rights Act.

View photo


Rosen and McConnell

Rosen and McConnell

The Supreme Court on Tuesday voted in a 5-4 decision to strike down a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, sending the section that determines which states need extra attention about discrimination back to Congress to be re-written.

McConnell is the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, as well as Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Click here for more on McConnell.

Rosen is the president and CEO of the National Constitution Center and the legal affairs editor of The New Republic, and a law professor at George Washington University. Click here for more about Rosen.

We asked each expert to send us an opening statement that sums up their position on the long-term impact of the decision. You can read these statements below. Both McConnell and Rosen will respond in detail to the points raised in the opening arguments.

We’d also like your comments below, in the area that allows you to comment using a Facebook account.

Note: You can also follow this discussion on The New Republic’s website at:

Opening statement from Michael McConnell:

I do not think I would have joined this morning’s decision striking down Section 4  (and effectively Section 5) of the Voting Rights Act, Shelby County v. Holder, even though I substantially agree with Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, that the statutory coverage criteria are outdated. I also think that requiring state laws on the subject of voting to be pre-cleared under open-ended criteria by an ideologized bureaucracy in Washington is a dangerous idea, susceptible to partisan abuse.

Why, then, would I not have joined? Two reasons.

First, the 14th and 15th Amendments assign the responsibility to enforce their provisions to Congress, not to the courts. Nothing in the text or history of those provisions suggests that the courts are entitled to second-guess Congress about when remedial measures are needed, and when they are not.

It is a bit ironic to see Justice Ginsburg trumpeting this point, when she joined the first-ever opinion of the Supreme Court engaging in this sort of second-guessing, City of Boerne v. Flores, in 1997. Justice Ginsburg does not explain why congressional statutes enforcing religious freedom are subject to judicial reexamination for “congruence and proportionality,” but a congressional statute enforcing voting rights is not. Justice Breyer dissented in Boerne – a tribute to his consistency. (Justices Scalia and Kennedy also were consistent, on the other side of the divide.)

Second, the majority relies on a supposed “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” among the states, interpreting this to mean that Congress cannot treat states differently without rational criteria for doing so. This is a nice idea; it might be on my list of desirable constitutional amendments. But it is not in the Constitution we have.

Katzenbach v. Morgan explicitly held that the equal sovereignty principle “applies only to the terms upon which States are admitted to the Union.”  That was a clear holding, in an iconic case. I do not believe the Court is rigidly required to comply with all precedent, but I do believe we are entitled to explanation when it does not.

More importantly, this “fundamental principle” is not to be found in the constitutional text. There are specific provisions requiring equal treatment of states, such as the one prohibiting any “Preference . . . by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another,” or the one stating that bankruptcy laws must be “uniform” – or even the neglected requirement of the Spending Clause that money may be expended only for the “general” welfare, as opposed to the sort of local projects Congress now feels free to fund. But there is no generalized equal protection clause for the states. It would be remarkable to read one into the Reconstruction Amendments, which after all were primarily designed to reform the dozen or more states that engaged in the rebellion.

Conservatives should be wary of reading specific prohibitions into generalized structural principles, just as liberals should be (but are not) wary of reading specific prohibitions into generalized notions of “liberty.

That said, I am braced for hysterical and demagogic attacks on the decision, as if Bull Connor still roams the voting registration booths. The Court was right to find Section Four outdated. It is a pity this conclusion was reached in a constitutional decision where it did not belong, instead of by Congress.

Opening statement from Jeffrey Rosen:

I’m mightily impressed, but not at all surprised, to read your principled, and intellectually consistent response to the Shelby decision. Not all of our readers will know that among your many accomplishments, you have written the most influential historical scholarship in the country arguing that the Framers of the 14th and 15th Amendments intended violations to be enforced by Congress, not the courts. In fact, although you’re too modest to note this, Justice Ginsburg cited your scholarship in her dissenting opinion [] today. Here is what she said:

“It cannot tenably be maintained that the VRA, an Act of Congress adopted to shield the right to vote from racial discrimination, is inconsistent with the letter or spirit of the 15th Amendment, or any provision of the Constitution read in light of the Civil War Amendments … See also McConnell, Institutions and Interpretation: A Critique of City of Boerne v. Flores, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 153, 182 (1997) (quoting Civil War-era framer that “the remedy for the violation of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments was expressly not left to the courts.  The remedy was legislative.”).”

It’s true, as you say, that Justice Ginsburg was less deferential to Congress in the Boerne case involving federal protection for religious freedom, and it’s also true that other dissenters today were less deferential to Congress in other cases, such as Gonzalez and Carhart [], another 5-4 decision where the liberals in dissent would have struck down the federal ban on partial birth abortions. I agree with you that these cases show that neither liberals nor conservatives today are consistent advocates of judicial deference to Congress. That should make critics of today’s decision less self-righteous about Chief Justice Robert’s penultimate paragraph quoting Justice Holmes on behalf of the proposition that “Striking down an Act of Congress “is the gravest and most delicate duty that this Court is called on to perform.” The Court had “no choice” in this case, he continued, because Congress failed to take the hint and revise the coverage formula when first warned by the Court in 2009. “No choice” may be too strong, but it’s certainly true that neither side has a monopoly on Holmesian deference.

Still, I can’t resist one last point on the deference question. In the spirit of his concurring opinion in the Fisher case yesterday, Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion today stressing that he would have gone even further than his conservative colleagues. He would have struck down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires federal pre-clearance for voting changes, not only Section 4, which defines the covered jurisdictions that need to seek pre-clearance. And that’s not the only part of the Voting Rights Act Thomas would strike down. He has signaled that he believes parts of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act are also unconstitutional, to the degree that they are construed to allow lawsuits against voting arrangements involving “vote dilution” that has a racially disparate impact, rather than a racially disparate purpose. []

In this sense, some defenders of today’s decision who insist that Section 2 is a perfectly adequate protection for voting rights – in other words, that it’s fine to challenge voting discrimination after the fact rather than stopping it from occurring in advance – are not being entirely candid. Given the right opportunity, they may join Justice Thomas in trying to challenge section 2 of the Voting Rights act as well. And if the Court accepts the invitation, it would be completely inconsistent, as you suggest, with the original understanding of the Framers of the 14th Amendment who believed that it didn’t apply to political rights at all. Suddenly Justice Felix Frankfurter’s warnings in Baker v. Carr about the judicial activism that would result from the Court’s decision to enter what he called “the political thicket” [] are seeming more prescient by the day.

As a principled conservative defender of judicial restraint, you recognize all this, and for that please accept my admiration and gratitude.

Recent Stories On Affirmative Action

Town Hall: McConnell and Rosen debate Affirmative Action

Constitution Check: Is “affirmative action” in constitutional trouble?

The long wait is over: The Supreme Court decides Fisher

Town Hall: Chemerinsky and Clegg on Affirmative Action

Updated: Our Supreme Court scorecard

View Comments (3)

Recommended for You

  • Photo of Chicago police officers posing over black man as hunted animal released: newspaper

    (Reuters) - A photo of two white Chicago police officers holding rifles and posing over a black man wearing antlers like an animal killed on a hunt was released by an Illinois court, the Chicago Tribune reported on Wednesday. The news comes amid a national outcry against police treatment of…

  • Racist trolling casts pall over US spelling bee

    Racist trolling on social media is casting an ugly pall over, of all things, the world's foremost spelling bee. For seven years in a row, and for 11 of the past 15 years, the $30,000 Scripps National Spelling Bee championship has been won by American youngsters of Indian heritage. One of them,…

  • California man drowns swimming across pond with rock: newspaper

    A man drowned on his 21st birthday after attempting to swim across a pond in northern California while carrying a 10-pound (4.5 kg) rock, the Los Angeles Times reported on Wednesday. The California Highway Patrol told the newspaper that Austin Harr was with friends at a pond in the Oroville…

  • View

    Balloon animals (15 photos)

    A series of balloon animals have become super-realistic thanks to an artists amazing photoshop talents. Sarah DeRemer, 25, from Los Angeles, uses actual photos of animals faces and coats to give pictures of balloons an animal kingdom twist. She has managed to turn a balloon dog and a butterfly -…

    Yahoo News32 mins ago
  • Wounded woman testifies in Nevada about trespass killing

    RENO, Nev. (AP) — A female trespasser who survived a shooting in a vacant Nevada duplex testified Wednesday that the property owner entered the unit and opened fire without provocation, wounding her three times and killing a man on the floor next to her.

    Associated Press
  • US threatening 'chaos' in Asia-Pacific: China

    China accused the United States on Thursday of threatening to sow "chaos" in the Asia-Pacific region by inciting countries whose territorial claims in the South China Sea clash with those of Beijing. China is rapidly building artificial islands in the disputed waters, and US Defense Secretary…

  • Putin classifies information on deaths of Russian troops on special missions

    President Vladimir Putin on Thursday declared all deaths of Russian soldiers during special operations to be classified as a state secret, a move that comes as Moscow stands accused of sending soldiers to fight in eastern Ukraine. Putin, who has repeatedly denied any involvement of Russian troops…

  • No exit: For female jihadis, Syria is one-way journey

    PARIS (AP) — When three British schoolgirls trundled across the Syrian border; when a pregnant 14-year-old ran away from her Alpine home for the second time; when a sheltered girl from the south of France booked her first trip abroad — they were going to a place of no return.

    Associated Press
  • Baltimore residents fearful amid rash of homicides

    BALTIMORE (AP) — Antoinette Perrine has barricaded her front door since her brother was killed three weeks ago on a basketball court near her home in the Harlem Park neighborhood of West Baltimore. She already has iron bars outside her windows and added metal slabs on the inside to deflect the…

    Associated Press
  • The Statin Dilemma: a Primer for Patients

    Statins have redefined the treatment of heart disease. Statins work by halting or reducing the buildup of fatty plaque inside blood vessels, a condition known as atherosclerosis, chiefly fueled by abnormally high cholesterol and the leading cause of heart attacks and strokes. A true game changer in…

    U.S.News & World Report
  • Kansas man missing for 23 years found submerged in car

    By Kevin Murphy KANSAS CITY, Kan. (Reuters) - The body of a man missing since 1992 has been recovered from the driver's seat of a car submerged in a Kansas lake, authorities said on Tuesday. Fremont O'Berg, who was 57 when he disappeared, was found alone in his 1981 Chevrolet Citation automobile in…

  • A closer look at those killed in Texas, Oklahoma weather

    At least 21 people have died in flooding and tornadoes in Oklahoma and Texas since the start of the Memorial Day weekend. A look at the lives of some of the victims:

    Associated Press
  • Mystery of holes in Swiss cheese cracked after a century

    Eureka! After about a century of research, Swiss scientists have finally cracked the mystery of the holes in Swiss cheese. Experts from Agroscope, a state centre for agricultural research, said the phenomenon -- which marks famous Swiss cheeses such as Emmental and Appenzell -- was caused by tiny…

  • View

    Photos of the day - May 27, 2015 (32 photos)

    A view of the booth of investment and construction company Morton during the ARCH Moscow 2015 International Exhibition of Architecture and Design, the military cap worn by Prince Philip (obscured) adds an unexpected dimension to the crown worn by Britain's Queen Elizabeth II as she travels in a…

    Yahoo News
  • To see why Amtrak's losses mount, hop on the Empire Builder train

    By Ernest Scheyder ABOARD THE EMPIRE BUILDER (Reuters) - Its passengers are mostly silver-haired retirees, oil-field workers and a few young families gazing out the windows of Amtrak's least-profitable and third-longest line, rumbling from Chicago through eight states and on to the American West…

  • Six reasons so many Republicans are running for president

    When all the announcements are in, the Republican presidential field could have close to 20 candidates – and that’s not counting the fringe. It’s shaping up to be the largest GOP field in modern history. The Republicans have a habit of nominating the “next in line” – that is, someone who ran before…

    Christian Science Monitor
  • The Latest: Williams vs. Azarenka next at French Open

    PARIS (AP) — The Latest from the French Open:

    Associated Press24 mins ago