SCOTUS strikes down Sec 4 of Voting Rights Act

[ASUMountaineer]

Can I ask you what specifically you found wrong with this ruling and not conclusions on how you think things will result from the ruling?

The only part that was ruled unconstitutional is the part that said a formula of how things were in the early 1970s must be used to determine which jurisdictions need DOJ approval.

Remember that the Constitution reserves the right to regulate an election to the States so for the Federal government to discriminate against only certain limited states, there is a high burden it needs to prove.

See further post with examples of why it is still needed. Does it need updating? Probably. But the burden should be on the offending jurisdictions to prove that they have reformed. Which many will fail

You haven't answered my question yet, so I will pose it again. Why shouldn't all districts be required for preclearance? Wouldn't that assure the there is no voter discrimination, and be fair and equitable?

I'm guessing that you feel this should only be broadly applied to red states, because no Democrat can be a racist.

[DSUrocks07]

So, The Jim Crow states can now be as evil in their elections as Chicago? We can now have the voter intimidation seen in Pennsylvania?

Throw your support behind the party in power and you can get away with anything. That's how politics in America have worked since its inception. The entire world as well.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

[death dealer]

Separate but equal was wrong. Separate and unequal is too. All this decision says is that they need to reevaluate the standards. I don't see the need for the wringing of hands that is going on over this. I'd like to think that my region has made some progress over the last 40 years. Maybe, maybe not. But it's still wrong to subject one region of the country to a higher standard than the rest based on information that is for decades old.

[Ibanez]

Separate but equal was wrong. Separate and unequal is too. All this decision says is that they need to reevaluate the standards. I don't see the need for the wringing of hands that is going on over this. I'd like to think that my region has made some progress over the last 40 years. Maybe, maybe not. But it's still wrong to subject one region of the country to a higher standard than the rest based on information that is for decades old.

Yep. I relate Sec. 4 to Plessy v. Ferguson. They separated the Jim Crow states to try and make things equal for everyone. I don't understand why everyone on TV and radio is saying this was thrown away when it's really a call for a reevaluation and amendment of the formula. Shoot, will people be angry when all is said and done and Illinois, Oregon, New Hampshire or some other states are now under the microscope?

[death dealer]

Separate but equal was wrong. Separate and unequal is too. All this decision says is that they need to reevaluate the standards. I don't see the need for the wringing of hands that is going on over this. I'd like to think that my region has made some progress over the last 40 years. Maybe, maybe not. But it's still wrong to subject one region of the country to a higher standard than the rest based on information that is for decades old.

Yep. I relate Sec. 4 to Plessy v. Ferguson. They separated the Jim Crow states to try and make things equal for everyone. I don't understand why everyone on TV and radio is saying this was thrown away when it's really a call for a reevaluation and amendment of the formula. Shoot, will people be angry when all is said and done and Illinois, Oregon, New Hampshire or some other states are now under the microscope?

The only people crying foul are the ones that stand to profit from not leveling the playing field, and trying up the system. Coincidence? Of course not. It's just good old politics. Progressives and Conservatives and everyone in between do it all the time. It's how the game is played. That makes it OK, right DBack?