The summer of 2013 will be used as a rallying call for civil rights.(Debra Sweet, Wikimedia Commons)

Lord, during my darkest hour I lean on you.” -Sybrina Fulton, Mother of Trayvon Martin

Sybrina Fulton, like many folks, could not come to terms with the reality of George Zimmerman’s acquittal in the alleged shooting of her son, Trayvon Martin. Though no one will ever know for sure what took place that night in Sanford, many, including Mrs. Fulton, view the incident as another instance of racial profiling and excessive use of force. The jury’s decision in State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman seized national attention and spurred peaceful protests on a grand scale from Los Angeles to Tampa.

But the summer of 2013 may also be remembered in the annals of racial studies for a far more broad, yet equally painful blow to the movement for equal protection under the laws. On June 25, 2013, U.S. Representative John Lewis (D-GA) listened to a decision that would determine the fate of the backbone of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Representative Lewis, an original Freedom Rider who also marched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and was injured by Alabama State Troopers on Bloody Sunday, had testified to Congress in 1965 as the bill was being written. When he heard the decision, he was devastated.

“It made we want to cry,” Lewis said. “I felt like saying come, come and walk in the shoes of people who tried to register, tried to vote, but did not live to see the passage of the Voting Rights Act.”

The majority, a suspiciously familiar five-justice make-up of Citizens United v. FEC fame, ruled over the Court’s four liberal justices in a decision that told minorities and the impoverished that voting discrimination has ceased to exist in the United States.

The decision had its fifteen minutes of media attention, but even the Paula Deen fiasco managed to steal more headlines and newspaper covers. While this will not be the last reference to the racist tendencies of America’s fried food mascot, the reality is that the Supreme Court’s decision went far further in eviscerating equality under the laws and perpetuating discrimination than Deen’s comments will ever go. Moreover, the majority opinion penned by Chief Justice Roberts and the subsequent actions by Republican-controlled legislatures revealed a deeply disturbing lack of awareness in the Republican Party of the state of racism in America.

The High Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder nullified Section 4 of the landmark law, which lists states and municipalities that must receive advance federal approval from either the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington prior to modifying their election laws. Without Section 4, the majority of the Voting Rights Act is rendered meaningless by the decision. Section 5, the preclearance requirement most recently renewed by Congress in 2006, means nothing without a list of jurisdictions that it applies to.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, described how “Our country has changed. While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.” Several current conditions come to mind. The Voting Rights Act listed nine states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, and other counties and municipalities in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx.

Following the decision, Texas announced it would resume implementation of voter identification laws that disproportionately affect minorities A spokes person for Virginia Governor Bob McDonnel said a law requiring voter identification to be shown at a polling station would no longer be delayed. The laws have been called new poll taxes that unfairly burden the elderly, the impoverished, and minorities, because of the expense required to obtain documents like a passport or birth certificate in order to apply for a voting identification card. Irony should not be lost: the fact that the Voting Rights Act is still used today to block laws like those previously mentioned demonstrates that the law still speaks to current conditions. The fact that the Supreme Court of the United States is hearing a dispute over the Constitutionality of such discriminatory laws certainly demonstrates that the law still speaks to current conditions.

Additionally, New York City suburbs previously covered by the act will even use old lever voting machines to count votes in a mayoral primary, which have been repeatedly opposed by advocates for minorities and the disabled, and had been previously blocked under the act. The old lever voting machine is 124 years old and was patented in 1889. In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts took wrote that the criteria in Section 4 Voting Rights Act was “based on 40-year old facts with no logical relationship to the present day.” Unlike lightening, irony strikes twice.

Put simply, Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion is illogical, given the myriad of things happening every day that contradict it. Let us forget for a moment that voter discrimination exists in this country in the form of laws that would be previously blocked by the Voting Rights Act. The Chief Justice’s argument still fails to garner a shred of credence on the “current conditions” end. Paula Deen, a nationally known chef from Georgia known for her diabetes-inducing fried chicken admitted in a deposition recently that she routinely uses the n-word, and allegations surfaced that Deen discussed planning a plantation-themed wedding with an all-black staff for her brother, Bubba.

In fact, let’s forget about examples from popular culture. How about some numbers? As of 2008, roughly 2.3 million people were incarcerated in America. Of those, African Americans accounted for almost half. In fact, if African Americans were incarcerated at the same rates as Caucasians, the prison population would decline by 50%.

A nationally known Southern chef dropped a horrific racial slur and planned a plantation-themed wedding with black servers. States moved forward on initiatives to restrict the rights of minorities to vote. A Mexican-American singer couldn’t even sing the national anthem during the NBA finals without provoking a racist backlash on social media. A neighborhood watchman profiled an unarmed black teenager, and we may never know for certain the disputed outcome of the profiling. But Trayvon Martin was profiled. It may not be a crime to profile in the legal sense, but if Zimmerman lied, his conscience will never respect his fifth amendment right against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court,however, should respect the rights of minorities to be treated equally under the laws. As time goes on, the summer of 2013 will be used as a rallying call for the progression of civil rights, and one day, equal protection will exist in entirety. It will not be easy.

It will require constant vigilance and awareness of current conditions, not a refusal to confront them.

In the words of Winston Churchill, “Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most times he will pick himself up and carry on.”

Reach Contributor Nathaniel Haas here; follow him here.