In the United States, the redistricting process affects political representation, while voting rights and other civil protections face growing challenges. The root of these issues lies in decisions made during the 1960s. In 1964, a critical choice was made: to pursue rights through legislative, rather than constitutional, means. This decision has left many rights vulnerable to shifts in political and judicial landscapes.
The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s achieved significant victories with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These achievements were monumental but based on statutes, not constitutional amendments. As a result, Congress can limit, repeal, or let these statutes lapse. The movement’s lack of constitutional grounding contrasts with efforts in the women’s rights movement, which pushed for the Equal Rights Amendment in 1923 and again in 1972, seeking constitutional protection. However, that amendment has never been ratified.
The difference between statutory and constitutional rights becomes crucial when considering their vulnerability.
In the 21st century, significant events continue to demonstrate this vulnerability. The 2013 Supreme Court case, Shelby County v. Holder, weakened the Voting Rights Act by removing its enforcement mechanism. Meanwhile, political majorities redraw district maps to consolidate power while demographics shift. Rights categorized as protected classes through statutes face threats if legislative priorities shift.
The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to formerly enslaved individuals but omitted their right to vote or access public accommodations freely. Congress intervened to provide these rights, supported by the Warren Court in the 1960s. However, subsequent courts have withdrawn support, with the Roberts Court accelerating this trend.
Many of today’s rights rely on statutes instead of constitutional support. Legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, and judicial interpretations regarding marriage equality, reproductive rights, and workplace protections, are subject to changes in political will. Both political parties have exploited these statutory vulnerabilities instead of pursuing constitutional amendments to secure rights permanently.
Despite challenges, both parties have refrained from constitutionalizing protections. This inaction leaves rights at constant risk, manipulated for political gain. Elections emphasize protection of rights, yet fail to address the structural fragility of statutory reliance.
An essential question remains: why have neither party acted to secure rights constitutionally? The Framers, through Article Five, provided for constitutional amendments as a defense against the repeal of transformative legislations. Such amendments require supermajority consensus and state ratification, ensuring stability.
As Americans confront these issues, they must rethink past decisions. A constitutional amendment offers permanence, free from partisan manipulation. But it requires public demand. The Framers left the mechanism, but its execution depends on the will of the people.
Yvonne Renée Davis, founder and CEO of DAVISIntelligence, emphasizes the urgent need for constitutional action. Her extensive experience in global communications underscores the importance of addressing these vulnerabilities.