SCOTUS strikes down Sect. 4 of Voting Rights Act

[orestes]

I'm speechless and quite enraged by this decision.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/25/2210121/breaking-supreme-court-kills-key-prong-of-voting-rights-act/?mobile=wp

[mfte]

I'm speechless and quite enraged by this decision.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/25/2210121/breaking-supreme-court-kills-key-prong-of-voting-rights-act/?mobile=wp

Damn. Talk about reversing progress.

[ambergris]

You guys have to drive movement conservatism into the ground, once and for all...even if it means voting for Andrew Cuomo.

[Tea]

Disgusting. Things like this need to be revised sometimes, but not taken down without a replacement.

[Baphomette]

I need to move the fuck out of the US. Cannot take it anymore.

[allegro]

This is the same SCOTUS that just ruled that you can't require people to provide proof of citizenship to vote.

And, yesterday, it upheld affirmative action.

Be careful making judgments base on the stuff you're reading online; a lot of those sites don't have the faintest idea how to interpret a SCOTUS ruling.

edit: see below.

[allegro]

In plain English (http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/we-gave-you-a-chance-todays-shelby-county-decision-in-plain-english).

[Baphomette]

be careful making judgments base on the stuff you're reading online; a lot of those sites don't have the faintest idea how to interpret a scotus ruling.

Edit: See below.


By contrast, today’s decision was pretty much as bad as voting rights groups had feared: Although the court did not strike down the preclearance requirement, it rendered it essentially ineffective until congress can decide who should be covered by the requirement going forward. And no one expects that to happen anytime soon.

I don't see how this ruling can be misinterpreted.

[allegro]

But, the remaining provisions still exist and the Act is still valid. So, if anybody is denied voting, another case will be before the SCOTUS. But, CONGRESS needs to get its shit together to update the formula. As the real English summary stated, Congress was warned several years ago that this was bound to happen.

See this (http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=165913):

"Section 4 was created in 1965 as a short-term measure for five years; in initially upholding that system, the Court called it “an uncommon exercise of congressional power” justified by the “exceptional circumstances” of the massive disfranchisement of black voters (and many poor whites) that existed when the VRA was enacted. In 1970, Congress extended this system for another five years; in 1975, for another eight; and in 1982, for twenty-five more years. Then, in 2006, in the provision the Court struck down, Congress re-authorized this system for another twenty-five years, until 2031. Thus we moved from a five-year regime in 1965 for exceptional circumstances to a sixty-six-year regime that continues to single out nine states (and fifty-three other counties) for unique federal control."

HERE IS THE SCOTUS SLIP OPINION (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf).

HERE IS THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 (http://www.ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php?page=transcript&doc=100&title=Transcript+of+Voting+Rights+Act+%281965%29)

[DigitalChaos]

I really don't see the issue here. They only yanked a section because the formula is outdated. It's on congress to provide a new one. The fact that Congess can't get anything done isn't a problem that SCOTUS needs to consider. Hell, Congress knew this was coming. Congress is the problem of the dumbshit voters who put them in office.

Congress didn't have the guts to do this because their uninformed voters would call it racist. The people have the Congress they deserve.

[DigitalChaos]

I wish SCOTUS would look at more things and ask "does this make sense TODAY?" with all the cruft we have on the books. Hell, isn't that one of the major points people make when pushing for gun control?

[DigitalChaos]

allegro - Do you know of another time when SCOTUS ruled something unconstitutional due to time passing? It seems new to me but I'm probably wrong.

[allegro]

It's not because of the passage of time, it's because the Act deliberately included an expiration because a permanent provision wasn't considered beneficial and was possibly too restrictive and therefore unconstitutional (state's rights vs. federal). So, it really shouldn't have extended completely unrevised for this long when it was supposed to be revised 40 years ago. The remainder of the Act, however, is relevant and protected. In all, the Act reinforces the Fifteenth Amendment., which is also still fully intact.

Again, remember, we are NOT going back to 1965 anytime soon. Sure, I'm also dubious that some areas of the South are really all that "changed" (especially in light of the recent Paula Deen harassment case), but we can't enact permanent laws this restrictive, which prevent those areas of the south from doing something so simple as moving a polling place across the street without first obtaining Federal approval. And we all know how long Federal approval of anything takes.

[DigitalChaos]

I guess I worded my question poorly, but I meant that something was considered constitution at one point in time but after time passed it became unconstitutional. It's just something new to me.

[DigitalChaos]

TX enacted it's voter ID law (that was previously blocked) 2 hours after the SCOTUS ruling. Also a redistricting.. not sure if that was previously blocked as well.
http://projects.nytimes.com/live-dashboard/2013-06-25-supreme-court#sha=88a62b0c2

[allegro]

I guess I worded my question poorly, but I meant that something was considered constitution at one point in time but after time passed it became unconstitutional. It's just something new to me.
At the time of its passage, relative to the climate at the time, it wasn't overly restrictive; but it was meant to be temporary because it was meant to be remedial, knowing that eventually it would become overly restrictive and its use would be overshadowed by those restrictions.

Redistricting based on political parties (and not by race) is not protected by the Act. Unfortunately. Which is why we (legally) have gerrymandering.

The ID requirements are being challenged all the time; ID requirements is a conservative Republican ploy to thwart Democratic votes (minorities are largely thought to vote Democrat). During the last two Obama elections, that ploy was found to be largely useless. The SCOTUS already addressed voter IDs in 2008 (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/07-21.pdf). See SCOTUS blog (http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=7067). See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board).

[ambergris]

TX enacted it's voter ID law (that was previously blocked) 2 hours after the SCOTUS ruling. Also a redistricting.. not sure if that was previously blocked as well.
http://projects.nytimes.com/live-dashboard/2013-06-25-supreme-court#sha=88a62b0c2

I think it was blocked. Texas' redistricting has been in conflict with the law for a while now. These actions refute the argument of the Supreme Court. They basically say that the Voting Rights Act was successful and succeeded to prevent the discrimination against certain groups of the population. And this success is why the legitimacy of the current formula has expired. However, now that the formula is gone, one of the states under section 5 immediately passes a new law that violates the Voting Rights Act. You almost couldn't have better proof that the VRA is still needed. There'll be definitve proof once the first election under the new law shows that the vote of a Latino counts far less than the vote of a white person.

[allegro]

re redistricting see this
see 2006 SCOTUS decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Texas_redistricting)

[Baphomette]

There'll be definitive proof once the first election under the new law shows that the vote of a Latino counts far less than the vote of a white person."Pick our fruit not our government officials!"

[allegro]

New development re Texas:
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/27/supreme-court-vacates-texas-voter-id-and-redistricting-rulings/

[ambergris]

"Within 24 hours of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the law (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/supreme-court-strikes-blow-to-voting-rights-act-whats-next/) requiring nine states to submit voting law changes to the federal government for pre-clearance, five* are already moving ahead with voter ID laws, some of which had already been rejected as discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/with-voting-rights-act-out-states-push-voter-id-laws/

[DigitalChaos]

What has Congress done to replace Sec4 since tuesday?

[ambergris]

The Supreme Court "forgot" that the party of White Supremacy in the South also happens to be the majority party in the House of Representatives and that there is a connection between federal legislation and discrimination in the states. Democrats will try (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/congressional-democrats-set-voting-rights-act-wheels-in-motion.php) something (to attract the votes of minorities), but nothing will happen.

[allegro]

Something will happen when there are more minority voters than white voters. Which is, like, now.

The 5 Justices who voted to strike down Section 4 looked at the fact that there's a black dude in the white house. Which surely is indicative of change. But, there is a LOT more change coming. For sure. People better get ready.

GAY PEOPLE ARE GONNA GET SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS AND TAX WRITEOFFS FOR SPOUSES, PEOPLE. A NEW DAY HAS COME!

[DigitalChaos]

Seriously. That sort of discrimination is nearing it's deathbed. Allowing that stuff to actually happen in twenty-fucking-thirteen will enrage a ton of people and damage GOP reputation even more. This should really damage their efforts to get more of the "minority vote" that they have been desperately talking about.

[Elke]

But they've still been doing it every election again: rearranging districts, organizing voting enlistment so that working class people are at a disatvantage to be there, the voter-ID thing... It's not because it's not outright Blacks can't vote that it's gone. On the contrary.

[allegro]

That is happening around the entire country, though, and it's 100% party motivated. Some states have enacted legislation where only a non-partisan committee can redistrict so there isn't obvious gerrymandering.