Right-wing Justices on Supreme Court kill key provision of voting rights act

[Craig234]

Today, in yet another 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court's right-wing Justices struck down the key enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act.

In the long list of rulings showing how important and undervalued the Supreme Court is in the presidential election process, add today's ruling. We're still paying for Reagan/Bushes.

As a theoretical matter, it was a limited attack. The Justices struck down the formula for determining which states have heightened scrutiny.

For those not familiar, the act has a process for states to be identified as having a history of discrimination in their voting laws, and on that list they have to get Justice Department approval for changes to their voting rights laws. The process has a provision for them to be removed from the list if they can show the discrimination has ended.

This is the same act Georgue Bush signed the renewal of in 2006, stating how strongly he supported it and acknowledging how needed it was to right the wrongs of discrimination.

That 2006 renewal passed 98-0 in the Senate, but 33 House Republicans voted no.

While the theoretical attack by the right-wing Justices was somewhat narrow, as a practical matter it was a gutting. Every state on the list was removed and is now free to pass the discriminatory measures they had been banned from passing. And they wasted no time. Literally the same day of the ruling, several Republican states have announced plans for measures that had been prohibited such as voter id laws aimed at reducing minority voters.

One state said by next week they expect an 'omnibus' voter bill attacking/banning extended voting hours, Sunday voting (popular with blacks), same-day registration, etc.

The Justices preserved the right to do this in pricinple if Congress passes a new set of rues for states going on the list.

Thing is, what are the chances of that?

Unfortunately, Republicans have consistently shown themselves to put winning elections ahead of the principle of wanting everyone to vote in recent years.

Rachel Maddow did a very good segment worth watching on this. It starts off slowly, but it gets very good, making this point and discussing the issue.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#52313341

I'm reserving judgement on the specific legal issue, since I'm not familiar with the details. But I will say I have far more confidence in the four dissenting Justices.

I'm especially concerned that the law was so damaged, and Congress so unlikely to fix it.

Many people like to say 'the south has changed'. Two points to that - one is that this law is an imporant part of bringing about that change, and reversing it can slide back; and second, that as the rush to suppress minority voters and the many attempts in recent years to do so show, there is still a big problem.

Whether the ruling was correct or not, it's very bad policy not to have this law in place.

Now we'll watch as Republicans invent 'talking points' to justify not voting for laws to re-implement it.

 

[Greenman]

Seems to me the rules should be the same for every state. If a rule is implemented that's discriminatory, it gets challenged in court, and struck down. I see no reason to have congress standing in the middle of the process.

 

[Craig234]

Seems to me the rules should be the same for every state. If a rule is implemented that's discriminatory, it gets challenged in court, and struck down. I see no reason to have congress standing in the middle of the process.

And you disagree with all nine Supreme Court Justices, all 98 voting Senators in 2006, every President since the bill was passed in 1965, for a start.

There are reasons for some discrimination. Bd behavior is one. You don't go to jail, the guy who commits a crime is discriminated against for good reason.

There are very good reasons for this law and treating some states with extra measures.

Or maybe we should just put the measures on every state all the time, hm?

 

[Murloc]

Seems to me the rules should be the same for every state. If a rule is implemented that's discriminatory, it gets challenged in court, and struck down. I see no reason to have congress standing in the middle of the process.

I agree with this, I don't see why there's a need to have special rules for certain states, since there is already this way to challenge laws that are racially discriminatory.
Still, it's not like the presence of this law was stupid and it did certainly help to avoid wasting time in 1965 when trying to create racist laws was the default option for certain states, but nowadays, I don't think they'll try doing that all the time after a few rulings dissipate the fog about where the limit is.

 

[Craig234]

I agree with this, I don't see why there's a need to have special rules for certain states, since there is already this way to challenge laws that are racially discriminatory.

No, there isn't, hence the need for the act in the first place, and the states today doing things like Texas changing its districts so that the most white precinct has 6700 voters while the most black precinct had 10 times that many - creating long lines and problems that suppress the black vote - are not being implements today but were blocked before by this act.

Still, it's not like the presence of this law was stupid and it did certainly help to avoid wasting time in 1965 when trying to create racist laws was the default option for certain states, but nowadays, I don't think they'll try doing that all the time after a few rulings dissipate the fog about where the limit is.

Your argument is why Colbert coined the word truthiness. Who cares about the facts, your gut tells you the states won't do any racist things.

In the real world, the Justice Department has had to deny 74 changes by states since 2000.

Even if you had been right, the reason could have been a deterrent value of the act.

Your logic is like saying 'we haven't had any nuclear bomb use since WWII, so we can get rid of the policies against nuclear proliferation, where's the need?''

 

[Craig234]

Remember that intersection that used to have all those accidents? There hasn't been one in years since we put the traffic signal there, so clearly we can remove it now.

The act has a provision for states to be removed if they don't try to do racist things. Some have been removed.

I suspect the real reason for anyone who supports removing the act simply prefers for the policies that suppress minority voters to be allowed, or is at least ignorant about it.

 

[Greenman]

Remember that intersection that used to have all those accidents? There hasn't been one in years since we put the traffic signal there, so clearly we can remove it now.

The act has a provision for states to be removed if they don't try to do racist things. Some have been removed.

I suspect the real reason for anyone who supports removing the act simply prefers for the policies that suppress minority voters to be allowed, or is at least ignorant about it.

I take issue with the phrase "real reason" and the assumed racism. It's nothing but a ploy to change a debate from information to emotion.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Craig assumes that anyone who disagrees with him on this must be either a racist or an ignoramus. Knock me over with a feather.

I have mixed feelings about this ruling, but no doubt that there are valid reasons for it aside from the typical personal aspersions that ideologues on the losing side of any decision always manufacture.

ETA: The supposedly "right wing" Justice Kennedy just cast the swing vote to strike down DOMA.

 

[shadow9d9]

Craig assumes that anyone who disagrees with him on this must be either a racist or an ignoramus. Knock me over with a feather.

I have mixed feelings about this ruling, but no doubt that there are valid reasons for it aside from the typical personal aspersions that ideologues on the losing side of any decision always manufacture.

ETA: The supposedly "right wing" Justice Kennedy just cast the swing vote to strike down DOMA.

Right wing does not have to mean insane or afraid of the ghey...

 

[simpletron]

There is still be "bail in" procedure to get states or political subdivisions back on the preclearance requirements. It is section 3c of the VRA or 42 USC S1973c and quoted below.

(c) Retention of jurisdiction to prevent commencement of new devices to deny or abridge the right to vote
If in any proceeding instituted by the Attorney General or an aggrieved person under any statute to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment in any State or political subdivision the court finds that violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment justifying equitable relief have occurred within the territory of such State or political subdivision, the court, in addition to such relief as it may grant, shall retain jurisdiction for such period as it may deem appropriate and during such period no voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect at the time the proceeding was commenced shall be enforced unless and until the court finds that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the voting guarantees set forth in section 1973b (f)(2) of this title: Provided, That such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced if the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, except that neither the court’s finding nor the Attorney General’s failure to object shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure.

So instead of using a 50 year old formula, places can/will be added based on current behavior.

 

[Thump553]

Pretty clear example of a court substituting its views for what was duly determined by the legislature with only a wink and a nod at some supposed constitutional infirmities. Even the right wingers on the Court acknowledge (and agree with prior precedent) that the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was constitutional in its entirety when it was passed, they just argue that conditions have changed and Congress shouldn't have renewed it. THAT IS CLEARLY A FUNCTION OF THE LEGISLATURE AND NOT OF THE COURTS. This is a pure and naked case of judicial activism.

 

[sandorski]

Pretty clear example of a court substituting its views for what was duly determined by the legislature with only a wink and a nod at some supposed constitutional infirmities. Even the right wingers on the Court acknowledge (and agree with prior precedent) that the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was constitutional in its entirety when it was passed, they just argue that conditions have changed and Congress shouldn't have renewed it. THAT IS CLEARLY A FUNCTION OF THE LEGISLATURE AND NOT OF THE COURTS. This is a pure and naked case of judicial activism.

Indeed.

 

[Craig234]

I take issue with the phrase "real reason" and the assumed racism. It's nothing but a ploy to change a debate from information to emotion.

No, it's not.

It's an opinion about where people are coming from. It's not about 'emotion'.

If the topic is the white mobs screaming in rage against admitting blacks to a school in 1962, and I suggest it's really racism behind the mobs' motivation and not simply some constitutional concern about states' rights like they say it is, that's an opinion about their motication, not 'changing the subject to emotion'.

 

[Craig234]

Right wing does not have to mean insane or afraid of the ghey...

No, it doesn't. In the historic case for gay equality the Supreme Court just evaded ruling on, one of the two lawyers who tried the case was Bush's right-wing 2000 election lawyer.

It's perfectly possible for right-wingers to not oppose gay equality, if they had principles.

In practice, however, that is the de facto home for the bigots. Because in the past supporting discriminatory policies won them the votes of bigots, Repubicans have a long history of doing so, of putting gay discrimination into constitutions in order to bring out the bigot vote to help them win elections. Right now as immigration reform is being debated, it's Republicans who said they'll not support any reform if gay couples are treated equally.

So, they have 'corrupted' principles for political gain, denying people rights to get votes.

And the right has embraced 'social conservatives' who are the heart of the pro-discrimination movement, some of whom are bigots, some with misguided reliogious views.

 

[Craig234]

Pretty clear example of a court substituting its views for what was duly determined by the legislature with only a wink and a nod at some supposed constitutional infirmities. Even the right wingers on the Court acknowledge (and agree with prior precedent) that the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was constitutional in its entirety when it was passed, they just argue that conditions have changed and Congress shouldn't have renewed it. THAT IS CLEARLY A FUNCTION OF THE LEGISLATURE AND NOT OF THE COURTS. This is a pure and naked case of judicial activism.

I noticed that too, that the right-wingers who love to claim they're 'originalists' and how the constitution doesn't change apply that selectively - but ignore it when it suits their political agenda to do so. The constitution hasn't chaanged on this issue since the act was passed - it's not been declared unconstitutional in nearly 50 years, but now suddenly it is. Talk about legislating from the bench.

It's pretty clear they have an agenda and abused the court's role to follow it, as they have in the past repeatedly. That's the problem with a radical ideology on the court, words mean different things and the rights can be gutted. To be fair, the Obama administration seems to do the same thing at times, such as deciding that when the law says it can do something in the case of an "imminient threat", that means whenthey think someone might do something years down the road.

Or that IRS issue that in 1959, the IRS changed their enforcement of the law for 501(c)4's saying organizations had to be "exclusively" for public benefit instead of political, to treat that as "primarily" allowing up to 49% political advocacy advertising - and not even enforcing that oow standard. That's not an ideology issue, but it is the gutting of a law.

Unfortunately, this comes up all the time with Supreme Court, becausse they're asked to apply very simple guidelines - like one wod, say "reasonable" - to complex situations the founding fathers had no idea about, like the details of phone metadata and algorithmic searches of data collection. Ideology and politics are likely to guide those decisions.

And when you have people with a more radical ideology - as we do with the 'Federalist Society' agenda judges - law is going to be warped, as it is with all these 5-4 rulings.

 

[JTsyo]

Pretty clear example of a court substituting its views for what was duly determined by the legislature with only a wink and a nod at some supposed constitutional infirmities. Even the right wingers on the Court acknowledge (and agree with prior precedent) that the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was constitutional in its entirety when it was passed, they just argue that conditions have changed and Congress shouldn't have renewed it. THAT IS CLEARLY A FUNCTION OF THE LEGISLATURE AND NOT OF THE COURTS. This is a pure and naked case of judicial activism.

Agree. SC should only be overturning it if it's unconstitutional.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

...white mobs screaming in rage against admitting blacks to a school...

You couldn't have made his point for him better if you were trying to.

 

[Craig234]

To clarify my point about the Justice Department no longer being able to stop the racist practices, they can no longer stop them before they are implemented.

Now they have to sue after they are implemented, which can take a long time to go through the courts, while elections are affected.

 

[Pulsar]

Pretty clear example of a court substituting its views for what was duly determined by the legislature with only a wink and a nod at some supposed constitutional infirmities. Even the right wingers on the Court acknowledge (and agree with prior precedent) that the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was constitutional in its entirety when it was passed, they just argue that conditions have changed and Congress shouldn't have renewed it. THAT IS CLEARLY A FUNCTION OF THE LEGISLATURE AND NOT OF THE COURTS. This is a pure and naked case of judicial activism.

Now hold on. The entire law wasn't ruled unconstitutional. The judges invalidated the formula because evidence was presented that the formula is no longer representative of reality. Which means that as soon as congress and the senate approve a new formula the law will be back in force.

That's hardly judicial activism. If they'd thrown out the entire law I might have agreed with you.

Judges rule on the application of law all the time, and whether it's appropriate. They also rule on portions of the law.

Chief Justice Roberts closes his opinion by explaining what the decision does not do. It does not overturn the Voting Rights Act's ban on discriminatory voting rules. Furthermore, it does not directly affect the preclearance requirement in Section 5, which leaves Congress the opportunity to draft new rules -- based on current conditions -- to determine which states or local governments should be subject to preclearance.

 

[Anarchist420]

We all have to remember that Congress got its authority to give voting privileges from an Amendment that was ratified through force and fraud.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Now hold on. The entire law wasn't ruled unconstitutional. The judges invalidated the formula because evidence was presented that the formula is no longer representative of reality. Which means that as soon as congress and the senate approve a new formula the law will be back in force.

That's hardly judicial activism. If they'd thrown out the entire law I might have agreed with you.

Judges rule on the application of law all the time, and whether it's appropriate. They also rule on portions of the law.

Chief Justice Roberts closes his opinion by explaining what the decision does not do. It does not overturn the Voting Rights Act's ban on discriminatory voting rules. Furthermore, it does not directly affect the preclearance requirement in Section 5, which leaves Congress the opportunity to draft new rules -- based on current conditions -- to determine which states or local governments should be subject to preclearance.

Yes, this. Congress is now left to formulate a NEW way of determining the restrictions on states. That was made clear. The reasoning being that the laws from 50 years ago are no longer up to date. A statement I agree with.

 

[Jaskalas]

Pretty clear example of a court substituting its views for what was duly determined by the legislature with only a wink and a nod at some supposed constitutional infirmities. Even the right wingers on the Court acknowledge (and agree with prior precedent) that the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was constitutional in its entirety when it was passed, they just argue that conditions have changed and Congress shouldn't have renewed it. THAT IS CLEARLY A FUNCTION OF THE LEGISLATURE AND NOT OF THE COURTS. This is a pure and naked case of judicial activism.

I strongly disagree with it ever being Constitutional, but if they used such failed logic then yes - their ruling would be activism against their own belief of Constitutionality.

 

[Craig234]

Yes, this. Congress is now left to formulate a NEW way of determining the restrictions on states. That was made clear. The reasoning being that the laws from 50 years ago are no longer up to date. A statement I agree with.

How is it not 'up to date'? And how is that relevant to the constitution?

 

[Craig234]

I strongly disagree with it ever being Constitutional, but if they used such failed logic then yes - their ruling would be activism against their own belief of Constitutionality.

You strongly disagree with enforcing the right of people to equal protection to vote being constitutional?

 

[Jaskalas]

You strongly disagree with enforcing the right of people to equal protection to vote being constitutional?

Against unequal treatment of the States, against some States being guilty until proven innocent. Yes, I stand against that. You want to enforce "rights of people" then make it a national precedent that all must follow, OR take violators of the law to court.

You know, follow a legal and due process instead of a discriminatory process.

Interesting that you chose to focus on that when I clearly declared the SCOTUS's flippant disregard for its own reasoning. A stance which hurts their legitimacy and their own ruling here.