Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Voting Rights Act

[mmhmm]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — the map that determines which states must get federal permission before they change their voting laws.

The ruling, a 5-4 decision by Chief Justice John Roberts, leaves the future of the law deeply uncertain because it will be up to a sharply divided Congress to redraw the map.
“Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions,” Roberts wrote for the court.

Full Article

[djAdvocate]

i think this will go very badly in the red states.  but another victory for Republicans, and states rights.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jun 25, 2013 11:25:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think this will go very badly in the red states.  but another victory for Republicans, and states rights.

Why do you think it will go badly, and why do you think it will only go badly in "Red states?"

[EVT1]

Probably just the southern red states. 

[Angel!]

Can someone explain why this is a big deal.  Shouldn't all states have to follow the same rules?

And if the 1965 law was struck down, then how is drawing a new map going to help?  Is the issue the states that were selected in the old map or what?

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jun 25, 2013 12:36:06 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Probably just the southern red states. 

Why southern Red States?

[Tennesseer]

Jun 25, 2013 12:40:00 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Can someone explain why this is a big deal.  Shouldn't all states have to follow the same rules?

And if the 1965 law was struck down, then how is drawing a new map going to help?  Is the issue the states that were selected in the old map or what?

My understanding is, per SCOTUS, the 1972 map is probably no longer relevant and Congress needs to investigate whether it still exists and then submit a new map (if necessary) for continued observation and compliance.

[mmhmm]

Jun 25, 2013 12:40:00 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Can someone explain why this is a big deal.  Shouldn't all states have to follow the same rules?

And if the 1965 law was struck down, then how is drawing a new map going to help?  Is the issue the states that were selected in the old map or what?

These paragraphs, from the linked article, may explain some of it, Angel:

"The Voting Rights Act is invoked often. It was used to block more than 1,000 proposed changes to voting laws between 1982 and 2006, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a public policy institute at New York University."

"And last year, the Voting Rights Act was invoked to stop a voter identification law in Texas and a Florida law that eliminated early voting days, which the center said would have made it more difficult for hundreds of thousands of minority voters to cast ballots."

Also:

"The states covered are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia."

As you say, all states should have to follow the same rules.  Selectively auditing the election law changes of some states while other states do as they wish could certainly be considered discriminatory.  The article states the coverage map uses data gathered in 1972.  That data is a bit long in the tooth to be used today, perhaps.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

I see it as a step forward, in realizing that laws written 50 years ago in regard to prevent discrimination may not be appropriate anymore.  People and times change....laws meant to prevent something widespread at one time does not mean those laws should just be left on the books when change does happen.  If cases of actual discrimination (actual not just perceived) occurring, then deal with that particular circumstance.

[kent]

Can someone explain why this is a big deal. Shouldn't all states have to follow the same rules?

All States?  Not when there's a divide and conquer agenda.

As you say, all states should have to follow the same rules. Selectively auditing the election law changes of some states while other states do as they wish could certainly be considered discriminatory.

I agree.  We live in what's supposed to be the UNITED states rather than the United States of Socialist Republics (USSR) - not to be confused with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) - wherein both situational ethics and laws abound.

[Angel!]

Jun 25, 2013 12:56:51 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jun 25, 2013 12:40:00 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Can someone explain why this is a big deal.  Shouldn't all states have to follow the same rules?

And if the 1965 law was struck down, then how is drawing a new map going to help?  Is the issue the states that were selected in the old map or what?

These paragraphs, from the linked article, may explain some of it, Angel:

"The Voting Rights Act is invoked often. It was used to block more than 1,000 proposed changes to voting laws between 1982 and 2006, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a public policy institute at New York University."

"And last year, the Voting Rights Act was invoked to stop a voter identification law in Texas and a Florida law that eliminated early voting days, which the center said would have made it more difficult for hundreds of thousands of minority voters to cast ballots."

Also:

"The states covered are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia."

As you say, all states should have to follow the same rules.  Selectively auditing the election law changes of some states while other states do as they wish could certainly be considered discriminatory.  The article states the coverage map uses data gathered in 1972.  That data is a bit long in the tooth to be used today, perhaps.

Thanks mmhmm. Although we saw a lot of states trying to change voter ID laws & early voting days, not just those two. Which to me speaks for the need for all states to have the same rules.

I guess I am not a very good liberal because I just can't get all up in arms in saying that based on information from 40 years ago these 9 states have to follow different rules. IMHO, they shouldn't even try to make a new map, they should change the rules they feel are necessary & apply them to all states. If some states need to have proposed changes approved, then all states should have to do so. I guess I just don't believe these states, most of whom aren't even close to being swing states, are the only culprites that have tried to change the law to their advantage.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

After Ruling, States Rush to Enact Voting Laws

State officials across the South are aggressively moving ahead with new laws requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls after the Supreme Court decision striking down a portion of the Voting Rights Act.
The Republicans who control state legislatures throughout the region say such laws are needed to prevent voter fraud. But such fraud is extremely rare, and Democrats are concerned that the proposed changes will make it harder for many poor voters and members of minorities — who tend to vote Democratic — to cast their ballots in states that once discriminated against black voters with poll taxes and literacy tests.

The Supreme Court ruling last month freed a number of states with a history of discrimination, mostly in the South, of the requirement to get advance federal permission in order to make changes to their election laws.

Within hours, Texas officials said that they would begin enforcing a strict photo identification requirement for voters, which had been blocked by a federal court on the ground that it would disproportionately affect black and Hispanic voters. In Mississippi and Alabama, which had passed their own voter identification laws but had not received federal approval for them, state officials said that they were moving to begin enforcing the laws.

The next flash point over voting laws will most likely be in North Carolina, where several voting bills had languished there this year as the Republicans who control the Legislature awaited the Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which had covered many counties in the state. After the ruling, some Republican lawmakers said that they would move as soon as next week to pass a bill requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls. And some Republicans there are considering cutting back on the number of early voting days in the state, which were especially popular among Democrats and black voters during the 2012 presidential election.

Voting laws emerged as a flash point in the 2012 presidential election after many states — including some that were not subject to special scrutiny under the Voting Rights Act — passed laws requiring voters to show photo identification, reducing early voting and making registration more difficult. Many of those new state laws were blocked, at least for that election, in state or federal courts.

Read more at:  www.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/us/politics/after-Supreme-Court-ruling-states-rush-to-enact-voting-laws.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[djAdvocate]

this is going to hurt Democrats, but only in red states.

[resolution]

I think if they implement voter ID laws, now would be a decent time to do it. At least everyone will have plenty of time to get their documents together, unlike the states that tried to pass restrictions at the last minute last year to block people out of the presidential election.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 25, 2013 12:40:00 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Can someone explain why this is a big deal.  Shouldn't all states have to follow the same rules?

And if the 1965 law was struck down, then how is drawing a new map going to help?  Is the issue the states that were selected in the old map or what?

if you want to know why, watch what happens.

[Tennesseer]

Jun 25, 2013 12:40:00 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Can someone explain why this is a big deal.  Shouldn't all states have to follow the same rules?

And if the 1965 law was struck down, then how is drawing a new map going to help?  Is the issue the states that were selected in the old map or what?

States which had Jim Crow laws:



States monitored under the Voting Rights Act of 1965:

[Angel!]

Jul 9, 2013 14:08:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 25, 2013 12:40:00 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Can someone explain why this is a big deal.  Shouldn't all states have to follow the same rules?

And if the 1965 law was struck down, then how is drawing a new map going to help?  Is the issue the states that were selected in the old map or what?

if you want to know why, watch what happens.

Do you believe these states will try more BS than the states that weren't previously under the law?  Those states weren't the only ones that were messing with changing early voting or changing ID laws.  I just don't see the fairness of having different rules for different states based on issues from decades earlier.  Is it reasonable to still want these specific states to be under the law while the other states are not?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 9, 2013 15:57:23 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Jul 9, 2013 14:08:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

if you want to know why, watch what happens.

Do you believe these states will try more BS than the states that weren't previously under the law? 

i don't have to believe it.  they are already doing it.

Those states weren't the only ones that were messing with changing early voting or changing ID laws. 

that is a fair objection.  the only one that i can think of.

I just don't see the fairness of having different rules for different states based on issues from decades earlier. 

i think i can use an analogy that will help you with that: do you let pedophiles teach first grade?

Is it reasonable to still want these specific states to be under the law while the other states are not?

i think it is.  the SCOTUS doesn't. 

what do you think?

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jul 9, 2013 23:01:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 9, 2013 15:57:23 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Do you believe these states will try more BS than the states that weren't previously under the law? 

i don't have to believe it.  they are already doing it.

Those states weren't the only ones that were messing with changing early voting or changing ID laws. 

that is a fair objection.  the only one that i can think of.

I just don't see the fairness of having different rules for different states based on issues from decades earlier. 

i think i can use an analogy that will help you with that: do you let pedophiles teach first grade?

Is it reasonable to still want these specific states to be under the law while the other states are not?

i think it is.  the SCOTUS doesn't. 

what do you think?

Not actually a relevant analogy...a more relevant analogy would be "Do you let the great grandchild of a pedophile teach first grade?"

[djAdvocate]

Jul 9, 2013 23:57:23 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Jul 9, 2013 23:01:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think it is.  the SCOTUS doesn't. 

what do you think?

Not actually a relevant analogy...a more relevant analogy would be "Do you let the great grandchild of a pedophile teach first grade?"

no, not at all. and your response misses my point completely. the justice department ROUTINELY overrules these states on the grounds that their voting policies are not in keeping with the VRA TO THIS DATE.

no, i think my analogy was as good as it gets, PI. we don't put pedophiles in charge of grade school kids because the recidivism is so high, and this is PRECISELY the same logic section 5 (?- is this right? i can't remember) of the VRA uses: that these jurisdictions are incapable of policing themselves. i could give you dozens of examples of this, but if you are TRULY curious about the strength of the example, you will find them yourself. again, i don't think we will have to wait long for proof. millions will be disenfranchised by new laws in these regions, and many of these cases will end up in court.

edit: i will grant you this, however, the SCOTUS logic is pretty much as you stated here. i just happen to disagree with it. if you would like me to explain why, i will- but i sense you are not actually all that interested.  if you are, the reason is in the VRA itself.  look under "petition to be removed from supervision".