• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

federal approval may still be required for changes in voting law

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
52,352
Reaction score
33,850
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Key provision could be Voting Rights Act’s ‘secret weapon’ | The Raw Story

article 3 appears to be the mechanism remaining intact and available after the supreme court eviscerated art 4 of the voting rights act
let's see how it might be played out in tejas:
... the state of Texas may still be subject to the federal government’s approval before it can rearrange voting districts or make changes to election law. In its June 25 decision in the case, Chief Justice John Roberts neutered the historic 1965 Voting Rights Act by deeming that the criteria established in the Act for determining racist states was no longer valid. Section 4 of the Act set forth the requirements to establish that a state has a history of racial discrimination in voting. Section 5 mandated that all the states meeting Section 4′s requirements must get clearance from the federal government (known as “preclearance”) before changing election rules. By invalidating Section 4, Roberts and the Court made Section 5 all but unenforceable.

Republicans in Texas acted immediately to implement changes to voting laws and setting new congressional districts in the state that would greatly reduce the electoral impact of traditionally Democratic constituencies like African-Americans, students and Latinos.
However, Travis Crum, now a law clerk for Federal Judge David S. Tatel, anticipated a ruling of the type handed down June 25. Crum called Section 3 the Voting Rights Act’s “secret weapon” in the Yale Law Review in 2010, saying that in the event of a ruling like Shelby, Section 3 could serve as a backup measure for establishing fairness in elections.
Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act, which the Court left intact, stipulates that any jurisdiction with a recent history of racially discriminatory practices shall be subject to the preclearance provisions of Section 5. Section 3 demands a higher standard of proof than Section 4. In Section 4, all that must be established is that changes in election law would have an adverse effect on racial equality in voting access. Section 3 demands that there be proof of the intent to racially discriminate on the part of the legislators seeking to change election laws. ...

let's now see who become the activist judges in this matter
 

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,701
Reaction score
6,259
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Key provision could be Voting Rights Act’s ‘secret weapon’ | The Raw Story

article 3 appears to be the mechanism remaining intact and available after the supreme court eviscerated art 4 of the voting rights act
let's see how it might be played out in tejas:


let's now see who become the activist judges in this matter

It seems that in their jubilant haste to implement their plans, Texas republicans seem to have overlooked that the rest of the voting rights act is still in effect.

As one famous Texan once said "..Oops"
 
Top Bottom