SCOTUS rules part of Voting Rights Act unconstitutional

I agree with this decision. I'm of the mindset either have every state require preclearance or none. Now Congress will have to pass legislation to determine that criteria once again. Shall be interesting to see how that pans out.

missesdash said:

I think I agree with this in that I'd like to see every state require it. I recall recently, I think, that Texas attempted to pass a law that the fedgov wouldn't clear but I can't recall what type of consequences there were.

But the fact that it was an issue so recently makes me think oversight is still necessary.

Click to expand...

Both Voter ID and redistricting have been denied by DOJ via Voting Rights Act for several states covered under Section 4. Those states that were not covered by Section 4 were able to enact the same changes the ones requiring preclearance were not. Basically, it's not equal. Either have it for all or for none I say.

All states should be under pre-clearance requirements, without exception. They should have done it that way from the start. However, the need for the pre-clearance in the states in which it originally applied was obvious and overwhelming. It is both telling and disgusting, in my opinion, that this case was brought by the states and the specific county that were both the most egregious offenders originally and the most obvious violators in the 2012 elections with new voter suppression laws.

It is time to crack down on this bullshit. They don't want to be singled out? Fine. Now they and all their corrupt friends in the other states that jumped on their bandwagon can feel the short leash together. Make it the national standard.

PS: This is just the latest note in the Pissing Off Mura symphony in the news of late. I am probably going to have to take a breather from all human contact for a while before I can even discuss issues in a civilized manner, because I really just want to smack people in the head at this point. Like, with a blunt instrument. I've effing had it.

RichardGarfinkle said:

His ruling is base on data of all things. He's saying that the formula no longer fits the facts. He's saying that if Congress makes a formula that fits the current facts of voting patterns that the law would be constitutional.

Click to expand...

Not unexpected, but this is brilliant.

Certain areas which have in the past suppressed minority voting through enacting discriminatory laws saw a significant increase in minority voting once the VRA prevented them from implementing them.

But that increase in minority voting shows that there's no longer a problem -- because everyone gets to vote. Perfect circular logic -- the very success of the act in addressing discrimination becomes the reason it cannot be retained.

Big celebrations in conservative circles, and you can expect a slew of new voting ID laws, changes in polling places, and redistricting across the south.

In Texas, where the influx of Hispanics had been seen as a serious future threat to republican control, you can hear a huge sigh of relief.

Yes, yes, the South is evil. Same old arguments I've heard time and again. /sarcasm
If Congress wants pre-clearance, make everyone get it, Problem solved.

But why not treat them equally? What possible argument is there against doing so?

southbel said:

Yes, yes, the South is evil. Same old arguments I've heard time and again. /sarcasm
If Congress wants pre-clearance, make everyone get it, Problem solved.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that this involves expecting Congress to do anything, let alone anything in which they've been handed a golden opportunity to keep their fat thumbs on the election scales for another few decades.

The South is not evil, no. But sadly, still a bastion for this kind of thing.

Good analysis on Scotusblog Here about why the notion of 'politician, heal thyself' indicated in today's decision is so fraught.

This is where I get so frustrated. The South is not the same South of old. There are pockets of racism in all corners of this country. However, the systemic racism that existed with the Voting Rights Act was passed is long past. I'm not talking about the stereotypes of the South (which I have seen again and again even from people who have never been here). The systemic racism employed via Jim Crow laws is long gone. We should all celebrate that.

I have seen the argument that being largely conservative = racist and I reject that hypothesis. So, if that's the argument, I will simply discount it.

southbel said:

I have seen the argument that being largely conservative = racist and I reject that hypothesis. So, if that's the argument, I will simply discount it.

Click to expand...

As many conservative southerners do.

Everyone has an opinion on the South but I can tell you the only place I ever saw overt racism was when I went to boarding school up North. Personally, I disagree with Roberts and believe even in 1990, it did not meet criteria to support the Voting Rights Act reassertion. However, I am willing to concede that point since at the end of the day, the right decision was made.

Again, this is progress. This is good. If there is serious concern that states should get pre-clearance, then Congress can simply apply it to all states. Equally applied at that point.

missesdash said:

The idea that systematic racism is gone because Jim Crowe no longer exists sounds rather naive to me. Things are much better in the south, of course. But I'd disagree that every state on the list is now better to the point of not needing oversight.

I also don't know your definition of "long gone." Jim Crowe isn't even "long gone" when one considers how old the US is.

Click to expand...

Comparative to much older nations, yes, long gone would be the wrong terminology. However, the South is such a different place from the days of Jim Crow.

I genuinely believe the Voting Rights Act was the right thing to do at the time. However, I also believe that the South has made the necessary progress to move beyond those days.

Again, this is a matter of pre-clearance being applied. The solution, if Congress genuinely believe it is still needed, is to simply apply it to all the states.

southbel said:

Comparative to much older nations, yes, long gone would be the wrong terminology. However, the South is such a different place from the days of Jim Crow.

I genuinely believe the Voting Rights Act was the right thing to do at the time. However, I also believe that the South has made the necessary progress to move beyond those days.

Again, this is a matter of pre-clearance being applied. The solution, if Congress genuinely believe it is still needed, is to simply apply it to all the states.

Click to expand...

Long gone, I believe, in a geopolitical sense means that a new regime has set in. For example, let us take England. Danelaw became long gone when Henry II created his whole new regime of law. Even after William the Conqueror took over England, Danelaw was not long history. They had to wait a century before Common Law took over.

In general I agree with this change. The states are no longer behaving in a way that makes it necessary.

southbel said:

But why not treat them equally? What possible argument is there against doing so?

Click to expand...

The Justice Department doesn't have the manpower. Preclearing all states' voting laws would swamp the system and grind it to a halt. They have to screen laws that are investigated, and that screening was by flagging regions that had racist voting laws in the past.

I agree that it would be best to apply the law to the entire country, but then Congress needs to double the budget of the Justice Department.

RemusShepherd said:

The Justice Department doesn't have the manpower. Preclearing all states' voting laws would swamp the system and grind it to a halt. They have to screen laws that are investigated, and that screening was by flagging regions that had racist voting laws in the past.

I agree that it would be best to apply the law to the entire country, but then Congress needs to double the budget of the Justice Department.

Click to expand...

This change doesn't preclude the DOJ from challenging voting law changes. Just on which states require pre-clearance.