Voting Rights Act repeal would have serious consequences in Monterey County.

Our nation’s only safeguard against discriminatory voting practices may be in serious jeopardy.


That safeguard, better known as Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, ensures that state and local election practices are just and fair by requiring affected jurisdictions to have changes to their electoral laws and procedures “precleared” by the United States Attorney General. This law came about after decades of struggling to enforce the 15th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which provides that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on the basis of race or color. 


Monterey, Yuba and Kings County are the only counties in California that are subject to Section 5 due to past discriminatory practices.


On Feb. 27, the U.S. Supreme Court debated the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Act after Alabama’s Shelby County sued to challenge the law. Shelby County argued that the law was no longer needed and unfairly singles out Southern states.


Contrary to Shelby County’s claims, recent incidents illustrate that voter disenfranchisement based on race is not just a thing of the past, but a reality that persists today. In fact, discriminatory voting practices both subtle and blatant have taken place throughout the south and even within our own community in recent years.


In 2002, Monterey County’s Chualar Union Elementary School District – which was over 78 percent Latino – attempted to change their school board trustee elections from district elections to at-large elections. In at-large elections, one comprehensive election takes place to elect five trustees. In contrast, district elections allow for five areas that can elect candidates from their own community through individual districts. One of the district subdivisions, Trustee Area 3, was determined to have a Latino population of over 90 percent.


It was later found that over 90 percent of the signatures on the petition to change the school district’s election method were from persons residing outside of Area 3. In the end, the Attorney General objected to the school district’s plans on the grounds that a change from district to at-large elections would unfairly dilute the Latino population’s vote.


In a similar instance, the Monterey County Elections Department decided to close the sole polling place in the majority Latino community of Pajaro just before the 2004 election. The closure of the polling place created an artificial barrier by requiring Pajaro residents, many of who were low-income, senior or lacking transportation, to travel nearly 10 miles to vote in Aromas – a place difficult to reach through any public transit system. The elections office immediately reopened the polling place and notices were sent to all voters after a complaint was filed with the U.S. Department of Justice.


In the recent examples, voter disenfranchisement in Monterey was prevented by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Moreover, these examples demonstrate that the Voting Rights Act remains an important tool to ensure voter equality.


Should the Supreme Court decide to strike down Section 5, it would render communities in places like Chualar and Pajaro defenseless. That is why I introduced Assembly Joint Resolution 15, which urges the Supreme Court to affirm the constitutionality of Section 5. We must defend the merits of Section 5. AJR 15 has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Elections and Redistricting and is currently awaiting a hearing date.


For more information on AJR 15, please visit www.asmdc.org/alejo 


Assemblyman LUIS ALEJO, D-Watsonville, represents the 30th Assembly District and chairs the Assembly Environmental Safety & Toxic Materials Committee.