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

[EagleKeeper]

Every one back on the original thread intent.

More finger pointing will lock the thread after this post.

When you agreed to participate here, one key guideline was to check your egos at the door.

DO IT!

EK
Admin

 

[Craig234]

Oops, wrong thread. To update this post, many commentators have noted the same point I mentioned, that the court has effectively killed the law - knowing full well what they're doing - by sending it to Congress for an update, knowing about the dysfunction there and that there's so little chance of any reform getting passed.

The fact it's yet another 5-4 ruling of the radical right-wing Justices versus the moderates says quite a bit about the political nature of it as they continue oiverturning traditional American law.

For just one example of the commentators, the former Sescretary of the Army - and the chair of the EEOC under President Johnson when the act was signed - strongly criticized the five who overturned it. These are excellent people to comment - this person, Bill Moyers, John Lewis - who were involved when it was passed.

He described the five Justices with a word you don't hear much but fit them very well: "feckless".

Link to the interview:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#52347172

 

[ivwshane]

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.

What was the formula that you disagree with because it's no longer up to date? How exactly isn't it up to date?

 

[ciba]

What was the formula that you disagree with because it's no longer up to date? How exactly isn't it up to date?

Good to ask the question, ivwshane!

The formula had two prongs:
If, on November 1st, 1964 a jurisdiction had:
1) A test or device that restricted the opportunity to vote (character reference, literacy test, etc).
2) Fewer than 50% of its eligible residents registered to vote .

Revisions of the act modified this - changing the dates for which to measure the 50% registration, and adding English-only voting materials in districts with large portions of non-english speakers to the "test or device" measurement.

Basically, I see the arguments come down to two things:
1) Those in favor of keeping Section 4 in place: "Your grandpa was racist and your government should bear the cost because you're going to be racist like your grandpappy if we let you." (understand that there are people that were too young to vote in 1964 that have since retired).

2) Those that want the law brought up to date to be applicable to the government and citizens active today.

 

[Craig234]

Good to ask the question, ivwshane!

The formula had two prongs:
If, on November 1st, 1964 a jurisdiction had:
1) A test or device that restricted the opportunity to vote (character reference, literacy test, etc).
2) Fewer than 50% of its eligible residents registered to vote .

Revisions of the act modified this - changing the dates for which to measure the 50% registration, and adding English-only voting materials in districts with large portions of non-english speakers to the "test or device" measurement.

Basically, I see the arguments come down to two things:
1) Those in favor of keeping Section 4 in place: "Your grandpa was racist and your government should bear the cost because you're going to be racist like your grandpappy if we let you." (understand that there are people that were too young to vote in 1964 that have since retired).

2) Those that want the law brought up to date to be applicable to the government and citizens active today.

I don't think your view makes much sense. It has nothing to do with 'your grandfather was racist so you will be'. It has to do with racist policies by a state, and if states do not try to do racist things for 10 years, they can be removed. Some have. From 1982 to recent, the Justice Department has had to block over 1000 policies unreasonably harmful to minorities.

If there's a need to 'update' something - which you haven't shown - let Congress do it, not the Supreme Court on this.

This is simply a political ruling, it seems, by people who have a political agenda to gut the LBJ protections for primarily Democratic voters.

Roberts, for example, has reportedly fought to gut these since the time of Reagan.

 

[ciba]

The constitution doesn't say anything about an 'emergency'. Either it was constitutional then and now and the last 50 years, or it was uncponstitutional then as well.

I think we're in agreement. It wasn't constitutional 50 years ago.

Also - The rulings don't deal with the broad-spectrum constitutionality of a bill. The USSC only reviews the questions in front of it. In 2009 the USSC declined to rule on the constitutionality - that is not the same as ruling it constitutional.

South Carolina v. Katzenbach did support Section 4, but much of the opinion referred to "current circumstances"

his, too, was a permissible method of dealing with the problem. Congress had learned that substantial voting discrimination presently occurs in certain sections of the country, and it knew no way of accurately forecasting whether the evil might spread elsewhere in the future. [Footnote 36] In acceptable legislative fashion, Congress chose to limit its attention to the geographic areas where immediate action seemed necessary.

 

[ciba]

It has to do with racist policies by a state, and if states do not try to do racist things for 10 years, they can be removed. Some have. From 1982 to recent, the Justice Department has had to block over 1000 policies unreasonably harmful to minorities.

Fair enough, but it's a bit more complicated than that. Two things that can prevent eligibility for a "bail-out"
An objection from the attorney general, whether or not that objection is sustained by the courts.
Pending lawsuits alleging discrimination

This means that external forces can make an entity ineligible for a bailout, irrespective of their validity.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/misc/sec_4.php#bailout

 

[Craig234]

Fair enough, but it's a bit more complicated than that. Two things that can prevent eligibility for a "bail-out"
An objection from the attorney general, whether or not that objection is sustained by the courts.
Pending lawsuits alleging discrimination

This means that external forces can make an entity ineligible for a bailout, irrespective of their validity.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/misc/sec_4.php#bailout

Are those the things the court ruled on? Do external lawsuits always block removal?

 

[sgrinavi]

I live between two affected counties and visit them both regularly - there's no reason to treat them any differently than the county where I reside. I would go out on a limb and say there are places that were not "on the map" that need to have some oversight.

Might be good to hit the re-set button on this issue, hell there's people that are willing to re-write the first and second amendments, why not this?

 

[simpletron]

I don't think your view makes much sense. It has nothing to do with 'your grandfather was racist so you will be'. It has to do with racist policies by a state, and if states do not try to do racist things for 10 years, they can be removed. Some have. From 1982 to recent, the Justice Department has had to block over 1000 policies unreasonably harmful to minorities.

There haven't been many objections in the last 10 years. Below is link to all the objections and the total for each state(or one of its counties, cities, school board, etc.) in the last ten years
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/obj_activ.php
Alabama-1
Alaska-0
Arizona-0
California-0
Florida-0
Georgia-6
Louisiana-6
Michigan-1
Mississippi-4
New Mexico-0
New York-0
North Carolina-2
South Carolina-4
South Dakota-1
Texas-11
Virginia-1
total-37
I wonder what your reaction would be if almost all the counties submitted bailout requests because very few have any objections in the past 10 years and were granted those request reducing the section 5 covered area to a couple dozen counties.

 

[Craig234]

I wonder what your reaction would be if almost all the counties submitted bailout requests because very few have any objections in the past 10 years and were granted those request reducing the section 5 covered area to a couple dozen counties.

Glad to see the reduction in attempting to implement racist policies. That's a success.