Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance | TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
FalseProphet
LSU Fan
Funroe
Member since Dec 2011
6227 posts
 Online 

Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance


Just announced. Opinion by Chief Justice, vote of 5-4.

Section 4 of the VRA is unconstitutional. Its formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.

Means that more than a dozen states no longer have to ask the federal government for permission to make any voting changes, including moving a polling place across the street.

quote:

Today’s holding in Shelby County v. Holder, in Plain English: Today the Court issued its decision in Shelby County v. Holder, the challenge to the constitutionality of the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. That portion of the Act was designed to prevent discrimination in voting by requiring all state and local governments with a history of voting discrimination to get approval from the federal government before making any changes to their voting laws or procedures, no matter how small. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts that was joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, the Court did not invalidate the principle that preclearance can be required. But much more importantly, it held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which sets out the formula that is used to determine which state and local governments must comply with Section 5’s preapproval requirement, is unconstitutional and can no longer be used. Thus, although Section 5 survives, it will have no actual effect unless and until Congress can enact a new statute to determine who should be covered by it.



This post was edited on 6/25 at 10:29 am



Back to top
Share:
udtiger
LSU Fan
Louisiana
Member since Nov 2006
24899 posts
 Online 

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance


Well that was unexpected.

It is correct, but unexpected.






Back to top
Asgard Device
The Daedalus
Member since Apr 2011
4084 posts
 Online 

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance


.


This post was edited on 7/7 at 2:55 am


Back to top
  Replies (0)
CajunAngele
LSU Fan
Member since Oct 2012
11168 posts

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance


LINK





Back to top
  Replies (0)
FalseProphet
LSU Fan
Funroe
Member since Dec 2011
6227 posts
 Online 

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance


The opinion:

LINK






Back to top
  Replies (0)
dante
LSU Fan
Kingwood, TX
Member since Mar 2006
7982 posts
 Online 

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance


How did 4 justices not support this?





Back to top
Rickety Cricket
Navy Fan
Premium Member
Member since Aug 2007
34774 posts
 Online 

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance


It's a good decision, I'm just so tired of seeing decisions come down to (seemingly) political ideologies.





Back to top
GumboPot
LSU Fan
Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2009
24281 posts
 Online 

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance


quote:

Means that more than a dozen states no longer have to ask the federal government for permission to make any voting changes, including moving a polling place across the street.


Marc Morial is not happy.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Shankopotomus
New Orleans Pelicans Fan
Brian Roberts Fan
Member since Feb 2009
18305 posts

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance


how about that, a little good news out of the SC





Back to top
  Replies (0)
FalseProphet
LSU Fan
Funroe
Member since Dec 2011
6227 posts
 Online 

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance


quote:

How did 4 justices not support this?


It was a really, really longstanding law.

Keep in mind, the Court did not strike down the preclearance section (section 5), but only the section dealing with which states (and their political subdivisions) should be subjected to preclearance.

The dissent aptly points out that "the very success of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act [now] demands its dormancy." The dissent poitns out that Congress, after myriad hearings and after crafting a "voluminous record," determined that Section 4 was still necessary as written in 2006.






Back to top
SlowFlowPro
Stanford Fan
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
296054 posts
 Online 

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance


quote:

“the racial gap in voter registration and turnout
[was] lower in the States originally covered by §5 than it
[was] nationwide.” Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist.
No. One v. Holder, 557 U. S. 193, 203–204 (2009). Since
that time, Census Bureau data indicate that AfricanAmerican voter turnout has come to exceed white voter
turnout in five of the six States originally covered by §5,
with a gap in the sixth State of less than one half of one
percent. See Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau, Reported Voting and Registration, by Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin, for States (Nov. 2012)

so it's basically not needed anymore






Back to top
TrueTiger
LSU Fan
Chicken's most valuable
Member since Sep 2004
10290 posts

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance


quote:

It is correct, but unexpected.



Looks like they got something right.

Unfortunately I expect the media to somehow spin it as racist or backwards.






Back to top
Rickety Cricket
Navy Fan
Premium Member
Member since Aug 2007
34774 posts
 Online 

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance


So, it seems that in essence the turnout to elect Obama provided the sound reasoning to strike down that portion of the law?





Back to top
FalseProphet
LSU Fan
Funroe
Member since Dec 2011
6227 posts
 Online 

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance


Basically, the dissent says we should leave it to Congress to decide if its still necessary, and after holding a ton of hearings, the determined it still was in 2006.





Back to top
BBONDS25
LSU Fan
Member since Mar 2008
16314 posts

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance


Well... good thing it is the dissent, then.





Back to top
  Replies (0)
Asgard Device
The Daedalus
Member since Apr 2011
4084 posts
 Online 

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance


.



This post was edited on 7/7 at 2:54 am


Back to top
  Replies (0)
GumboPot
LSU Fan
Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2009
24281 posts
 Online 

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance


quote:

Unfortunately I expect the media to somehow spin it as racist or backwards.



MSNBC will be in meltdown mode over this. "Racist court", "Jim Crow", "bla, bla, bla".






Back to top
  Replies (0)
GumboPot
LSU Fan
Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2009
24281 posts
 Online 

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance


quote:

So, it seems that in essence the turnout to elect Obama provided the sound reasoning to strike down that portion of the law?



Irony.






Back to top
dante
LSU Fan
Kingwood, TX
Member since Mar 2006
7982 posts
 Online 

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance


quote:

It was a really, really longstanding law
Question.....are/were the southern states unable to pass voter id requirements because of the existing requirements/permission from the DOJ?






Back to top
MSMHater
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Oct 2008
11930 posts
 Online 

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance


This will give Mr. Holder a sad!


He abused that provision thoroughly these past two election cycles.






Back to top
  Replies (0)


Back to top