Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance | TigerDroppings.com
Posted by
Message
FalseProphet
LSU Fan
Mecca
Member since Dec 2011
7408 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



udtiger
LSU Fan
Louisiana
Member since Nov 2006
28508 posts

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance
Well that was unexpected.

It is correct, but unexpected.


Asgard Device
The Daedalus
Member since Apr 2011
6563 posts

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance
.
This post was edited on 7/7 at 2:55 am


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
CajunAngele
LSU Fan
Member since Oct 2012
15376 posts

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


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
FalseProphet
LSU Fan
Mecca
Member since Dec 2011
7408 posts
Online

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

LINK


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
dante
LSU Fan
Kingwood, TX
Member since Mar 2006
9573 posts
Online

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance
How did 4 justices not support this?


Rickety Cricket
Navy Fan
Premium Member
Member since Aug 2007
38162 posts

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.


GumboPot
LSU Fan
Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2009
27318 posts

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.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
Shankopotomus
New Orleans Pelicans Fan
Brian Roberts Fan
Member since Feb 2009
18321 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


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
FalseProphet
LSU Fan
Mecca
Member since Dec 2011
7408 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.


SlowFlowPro
Stanford Fan
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
306765 posts

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


TrueTiger
LSU Fan
Chicken's most valuable
Member since Sep 2004
12999 posts
Online

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.


Rickety Cricket
Navy Fan
Premium Member
Member since Aug 2007
38162 posts

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?


FalseProphet
LSU Fan
Mecca
Member since Dec 2011
7408 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.


BBONDS25
LSU Fan
Member since Mar 2008
17706 posts

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance
Well... good thing it is the dissent, then.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
Asgard Device
The Daedalus
Member since Apr 2011
6563 posts

re: Voting Rights Act struck down; some states no longer need federal preclearance
.
This post was edited on 7/7 at 2:54 am


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
GumboPot
LSU Fan
Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2009
27318 posts

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".


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
GumboPot
LSU Fan
Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2009
27318 posts

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.


dante
LSU Fan
Kingwood, TX
Member since Mar 2006
9573 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?


MSMHater
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Oct 2008
13151 posts

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.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
Jump to page
Page 1 2 3 4 5 ... 12
Jump to page
Page 1 of 12

Back to top

Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram