Let's Move on

“Is Anyone Watching?” is a commentary piece written by Linda Greenhouse on Feb 23 for New York Times. Linda Greenhouse is a Law professor at Yale University. She is the winner of 1998 Pulitzer Prize. The commentary explores the question whether section 5 of Voting Right Act of 1965 is constitutional or not. The section 5 requires nine Southern states and part of North Carolina to obtain "preclearance" for any changes in voting procedure such as redistricting their state by the Department of Justice. Greenhouse believes this act is like “the heavy hands of the federal government weighing” on regions of the country where there has been undeniable improvement in “race relations and black political participation.” She emphasizes that those who defend this act are more concerned about how much power is given to congress and federal government. I agree with her on the fact that those who support this fact are more concerned about their own agendas than undermining minorities' voice. 
Section 5 of Voting Right Act is an unusual piece of legislation in place that divides the nation between those states that have the authority in changing the voting procedure and those who don't. If there is any concern or fear of manipulation of minority groups' votes, shouldn’t the Voting Act be in place in all the states? Back in 1965 this Voting Act came into place because of the Southern attempts to neglect the black voters, but America has changed. Nowadays, not only we have to protect the minorities votes, but also we have to be aware of those altering voting procedures for their own partisanship benefits.

There was an amendment to this act in 1991 enforcing liability on employers that were disadvantaging minorities through their practices like educational requirement higher than necessary. Greenhouse argues that this amendment violates the “racial neutrality,” and it only has “disparate impact” since the employers have to be “racially conscious.” I disagree with her on this point. I believe that the results are more important than the intentions. Whether employers undermine a minority group intentionally or due to lack of knowledge about that specific group they cause the same damage. In spite of what they intended, such harms could be prevented if the employers are “racially conscious.”