SCOTUS strikes down Sec 4 of Voting Rights Act

[GannonFan]

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 can find lists like that in many states, not just the ones that were racists back in the 1960's when this came up. With all the other things that are still on the books to prevent people in power from blocking people to vote, especially based on race or gender or identification, this was one thing that was archaic and not justifiable given the current circumstances. Like some have said, this is just a victim of its own success - the Voting Rights Act worked and has changed the landscape of America - the temporary parts of it can probably go by the wayside now. Pretending that the South is just as they were 50 years ago is silly, and there are plenty of laws on the books to prevent the South, or other racist parts of the country, from doing the things they did that led to this Act being created in the firstplace.

[Ivytalk]

Exactly. Any list that doesn't include Chicago AND Philadelphia loses all credibility. DBack's list goes back nearly 20 years to cherry pick a few examples out of thousands of small jurisdictions in the South. It should be applied equally to ALL jurisdictions and states, or none at all.

The South, historically, has a bad rap. But the South isn't alone in it's racial problems. Some of the most racist people i've ever met were from Upstate New York.

Here's the difference between racial attitudes in the North and the South. In the South, whites dislike blacks as a race but love them as individuals. In the North, it's the other way around! Old joke, but seems true.

[tribe_pride]

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

I think you have Sections 4 and 5 confused. The SC wants Congress to fix Section 5.

Re-read the Opinion. The Supreme Court specifically stated that it did not rule on Section 5. It ruled that Section 4(b) was unconstitutional. This is the formula Section and this is the Section that Congress can rewrite if it chooses.

[tribe_pride]

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

Those all fail under Section 2 of the Voters Rights Act which contains a general prohibition on voting discrimination and prohibits any voting practice or procedure that has a discriminatory result. You don't need to prove intentional discrimination for those practices to fail under Section 2. That part of the Voters Rights Act was not ruled unconstitutional (nor was anyone trying to make that part ruled unconstitutional)

Section 4(b) draws up a formula identifying which jurisdictions by the early 1970s had certain offending policies so that the DOJ must approve any changes. Times have changed. Many of those jurisdictions are not offending anymore and haven't for years. Other jurisdictions not captured by Section 4(b) maybe should be included.

The reason that the burden cannot be on the "offending" jurisdictions is that the Constitution reserves regulating elections to the States. Therefore, the burden will always be on the Federal Government to prove that the other way is necessary. It would be like if Person A murdered Person B 40 years ago, the burden should not be on Person A that he did not murder Person C this week. That is for the government to prove.

By the way, the majority of the Supreme Court agrees with you that it needs updating and that is what it ruled. From the majority opinion "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions. Such a formula is an initial prerequisite to a determination that exceptional circumstances still exist justifying such an 'extraordinary departure from the traditional course of relations between the States and the Federal Government.' Presley, 502 U.S., at 500-501.

[Ibanez]

The South, historically, has a bad rap. But the South isn't alone in it's racial problems. Some of the most racist people i've ever met were from Upstate New York.

Here's the difference between racial attitudes in the North and the South. In the South, whites dislike blacks as a race but love them as individuals. In the North, it's the other way around! Old joke, but seems true.

I laughed out loud.

[Bronco]

-
Received my 1st fundraiser from the DNC on the Supreme's decision. Usually Pelosi Galore is the first

Sometimes they send an email saying our records show that you haven't given any money to our causes
I always email them back with reasons but I never get a response...almost like they don't read my emails

Bronco,

The Supreme Court just gutted the most important civil rights law in our country — the Voting Rights Act.
As of today, the landmark civil rights legislation NO LONGER fully protects minority voters from state-enacted voter suppression laws — especially in the South — as it has effectively done for nearly 4 decades. Today’s decision is a serious blow to democracy.

Look, we may not agree with the conservative majority’s ruling, but what’s done is done. Now it’s up to Congress to enact new legislation to protect the rights of voters, and it’s up to us to make them act:
Chip in $3 immediately to help us pressure Republicans in Congress to take action to protect voting rights >>

Too many have fought too hard for too long to give up now. Do your part today.

Thanks,
Democrats 2014
DCCC

[∞∞∞]

...Look, we may not agree with the conservative majority’s ruling, but what’s done is done...

Thanks,
Democrats 2014
DCCC

Funny, these judges have devoted their lives to the interpretation of law and are basically the Constitutional experts; the SCOTUS has nothing to gain or lose from their decisions. Unlike the legislative and executive branches, and regardless of the court being conservative or liberal, I honestly trust the Supreme Court to do what's best according to the Constitution.

IMO, disagreeing with their rulings is basically disagreeing with the law of the land. The whole point of the judiciary is to literally keep people like the writers of that email in check.

[Grizalltheway]

...Look, we may not agree with the conservative majority’s ruling, but what’s done is done...

Thanks,
Democrats 2014
DCCC

Funny, these judges have devoted their lives to the interpretation of law and are basically the Constitutional experts; the SCOTUS has nothing to gain or lose from their decisions. Unlike the legislative and executive branches, and regardless of the court being conservative or liberal, I honestly trust the Supreme Court to do what's best according to the Constitution.

IMO, disagreeing with their rulings is basically disagreeing with the law of the land. The whole point of the judiciary is to literally keep people like the writers of that email in check.

As did I, until Citizens United.

[kalm]

...Look, we may not agree with the conservative majority’s ruling, but what’s done is done...

Thanks,
Democrats 2014
DCCC

Funny, these judges have devoted their lives to the interpretation of law and are basically the Constitutional experts; the SCOTUS has nothing to gain or lose from their decisions. Unlike the legislative and executive branches, and regardless of the court being conservative or liberal, I honestly trust the Supreme Court to do what's best according to the Constitution.

IMO, disagreeing with their rulings is basically disagreeing with the law of the land. The whole point of the judiciary is to literally keep people like the writers of that email in check.

Sure. They are 9 highly educated and experienced people with opinions, but they have been and will continue to be wrong on certain things. The law...sometimes...is an ass.

[∞∞∞]

The law...sometimes...is an ass.

Indeed it is (and I'm a firm believer of common sense over written law), but their purpose is to uphold the laws regardless of how dumb they are. It's our duty as a nation, through the other two branches, to change any laws we don't like...including Constitution amendments.

[kalm]

The law...sometimes...is an ass.

Indeed it is (and I'm a firm believer of common sense over written law), but their purpose is to uphold the laws regardless of how dumb they are. It's our duty as a nation, through the other two branches, to change any laws we don't like...including Constitution amendments.

Fat chance. Jefferson foresaw the need for a constitutional convention about every 20 years.

[∞∞∞]

Indeed it is (and I'm a firm believer of common sense over written law), but their purpose is to uphold the laws regardless of how dumb they are. It's our duty as a nation, through the other two branches, to change any laws we don't like...including Constitution amendments.

Fat chance. Jefferson foresaw the need for a constitutional convention about every 20 years.

Well, we are a nation built to be as inefficient as possible in order for the government not to have too much power (and as unbelievable as it sounds, I actually think it works well compared to other developed nations). But of course if society decides it wants a more efficient government, that's possible...but we have to go through the inefficient process first to become efficient 'cause the inefficient process is currently law...

...my head hurts.

[GannonFan]

Indeed it is (and I'm a firm believer of common sense over written law), but their purpose is to uphold the laws regardless of how dumb they are. It's our duty as a nation, through the other two branches, to change any laws we don't like...including Constitution amendments.

Fat chance. Jefferson foresaw the need for a constitutional convention about every 20 years.

Well, that's what he thought before he was President - once he got the power he came around on plenty of things he railed against before becoming President. He was a quintissential politician. Not saying that's a bad thing, though.

[JohnStOnge]

"Following the 2000 Census, the City of Albany, Georgia, proposed a redistricting plan that DOJ found to be 'designed with the purpose to limit and retrogress the increased black voting strength…in the city as a whole.'"

Oh yeah. The Department of Justice said that so we KNOW it's true.

[JohnStOnge]

And of course nobody EVER gerrymandered districts in order to INCREASE Black voting strength. Oh no...THAT never happened.

[Baldy]

"Following the 2000 Census, the City of Albany, Georgia, proposed a redistricting plan that DOJ found to be 'designed with the purpose to limit and retrogress the increased black voting strength…in the city as a whole.'"

Oh yeah. The Department of Justice said that so we KNOW it's true.

With all the scandals going on now with the NSA, the IRS, the DOJ, etc., some of these people put way too much trust in their government to do the "right thing".

[Baldy]

Indeed it is (and I'm a firm believer of common sense over written law), but their purpose is to uphold the laws regardless of how dumb they are. It's our duty as a nation, through the other two branches, to change any laws we don't like...including Constitution amendments.

Fat chance. Jefferson foresaw the need for a constitutional convention about every 20 years.

...and that is why Jefferson wanted the populace to be armed to the teeth.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
--Thomas Jefferson

[Ivytalk]

Indeed it is (and I'm a firm believer of common sense over written law), but their purpose is to uphold the laws regardless of how dumb they are. It's our duty as a nation, through the other two branches, to change any laws we don't like...including Constitution amendments.

Fat chance. Jefferson foresaw the need for a constitutional convention about every 20 years.

In Article V of the Constitution, the framers saw to it that constitutional conventions would be difficult to call or convene. No constitutional convention has ever happened, and legal scholars disagree about whether the scope of a convention -- if it ever happened -- could be confined to discrete issues. The text of Article V suggests that a convention could be "open season" on a document that has worked pretty well for over 225 years.

[ASUMountaineer]

Exactly. Any list that doesn't include Chicago AND Philadelphia loses all credibility. DBack's list goes back nearly 20 years to cherry pick a few examples out of thousands of small jurisdictions in the South. It should be applied equally to ALL jurisdictions and states, or none at all.

The South, historically, has a bad rap. But the South isn't alone in it's racial problems. Some of the most racist people i've ever met were from Upstate New York.

South Boston...just saying.

[ASUMountaineer]

This is good. It's removing the discrimination towards counties and states that were forced (and rightfully so) to end discrimination at the polls. It isn't needed any more, especially since the data is 40+ years old.

It is still needed.

If anything, it should have been more broadly applied.

For a so-called progressive, you sure do hate progress.

Let me guess, it should have been more broadly applied in red states? Why not simply require all districts to obtain pre-clearance? Wouldn't that be fair and equitable? And, wouldn't that ensure no voter discrimination throughout the country?

[Ibanez]

I think you have Sections 4 and 5 confused. The SC wants Congress to fix Section 5.

Re-read the Opinion. The Supreme Court specifically stated that it did not rule on Section 5. It ruled that Section 4(b) was unconstitutional. This is the formula Section and this is the Section that Congress can rewrite if it chooses.

Does the ruling on Section 4 impact pre-clearance?

[kalm]

The South, historically, has a bad rap. But the South isn't alone in it's racial problems. Some of the most racist people i've ever met were from Upstate New York.

South Boston...just saying.

Throw in South Hayden Lake and 3/4's of E. WA

[tribe_pride]

Re-read the Opinion. The Supreme Court specifically stated that it did not rule on Section 5. It ruled that Section 4(b) was unconstitutional. This is the formula Section and this is the Section that Congress can rewrite if it chooses.

Does the ruling on Section 4 impact pre-clearance?

Section 4 defines which jurisdictions are subject to pre-clearance (Section 5). The Court ruled that if Section 4 is revised so that it is Constitutional (properly defines what jurisdiction may be subject to preclearance), that that Section will be Constitutional. I assume any new Section 4 will go through the courts if it ever passes to determine the constitutionality.

What the Court did not rule on was whether Section 5 is Constitutional. Congress could change Section 4 to make it Constitutional and the Court could declare Section 5 (pre-clearance) to be unconstitutional but that has not been ruled on by the Court in this Case and that would be overturning precedent which previously has allowed pre-clearance under the right conditions, I believe.

[Ibanez]

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?

[death dealer]

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

if you had an eighth of a brain you'd know how to spell know.