Conservative justices who hold a slim majority on the Supreme Court expressed grave doubts Wednesday that the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- the crowning achievement of the civil rights movement -- remains constitutional nearly a half century later.
The justices who could be the swing votes in an eventual ruling suggested that an outdated formula built into the law now discriminates against the South, much as Southern states discriminated against black voters by erecting barriers such as poll taxes and literacy tests.
"Is it the government's submission that the citizens in the South are more racist than the citizens in the North?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who argued that the law should remain intact. Roberts noted that Massachusetts has the worst black turnout in elections when compared with whites -- and Mississippi the best.
Although the more liberal justices defended Section 5 of the law, which requires all or parts of 16 states to clear any voting changes with the federal government, at times the die appeared cast inside the marble courtroom. That could mean a decision by June rendering that provision unconstitutional or sending it back to Congress.
"It's easy to go broke guessing on the outcome of any Supreme Court argument," said Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, which solicited the challenge to the law. But he said the questions from Roberts and others "highlighted the justices' skepticism about the differences in discrimination between the covered and non-covered jurisdictions. Those differerences simply don't exist any longer."
I'm leery of the argument that "times have changed." I see it as a potential excuse for dramatic alterations against minority rights.
Supreme Court raises doubts about Voting Rights Act
If we're going to keep Preclearance, it needs to apply to everyone, not just select states and counties. Things have changed and I don't see how theses select Southern areas are so much more likely to attempt discriminatory voting practices that they should be singled out.
I'm not saying that there aren't places that would still discriminate, just that it is wrong to only apply a law to people you suspect might do something. I see it as the equivalent of creating a law that all Middle Eastern airline passengers must go through a body scanner, but everyone else is not enough of a risk to be forced to undergo the same oversight. I'm not against the act, only the way it is currently applied.
I'm leery of the argument that "times have changed." I see it as a potential excuse for dramatic alterations against minority rights. I don't raise that argument for gun rights, I won't raise that argument for voting rights.
I agree. Times have not changed. Here in Houston, Hubert Vo, a Vietnamese American, won a Congressional seat years ago by 17 votes, and has won subsequent elections by wide margins. He was supported by the Houston Vietnamese community. Rick Perry and his cronies attempted to carve this district up and make it parts of 3 different districts, thus depriving the Vietnamese community of a voice in government. The courts used Title 5 of the Voting Rights Act to declare the Texas map that got rid of this district unconstitutional. There were also other Texas districts that were gerrymandered out of existence, which violated Title 5, and were part of the court decision. So, yes, the Voting Rights Act needs to stay.
Better yet would be a law which states that you cannot have a district that is gerrymandered at all, and districts must have a ratio of it's boundaries no larger than 3:1.
That's true.
Further, consider what someone may argue in a couple of generations or more, should a contemporary argument come about in regard to the African American population (or even the white population). They could return to those deliberations, perhaps misinterpret the common understanding and intentions of those who made the decision, to then make their own. It has happened quite a deal.
I say keep the precleareance part of the bill around. I believe we should keep it around because im still weary of southern states, and southern state legislatures. I say we keep it around until a law can be made that allows precelarnce to all states.
This sins of the father garbage is completely un-american; more importantly, it's completely unconstitutional. sadly, I have little faith in the court that claims the government can force anyone to buy anything at any time ever coming down on the side of the constitution.
I'm leery of the argument that "times have changed." I see it as a potential excuse for dramatic alterations against minority rights. I don't raise that argument for gun rights, I won't raise that argument for voting rights.
I agree. Times have not changed. Here in Houston, Hubert Vo, a Vietnamese American, won a Congressional seat years ago by 17 votes, and has won subsequent elections by wide margins. He was supported by the Houston Vietnamese community. Rick Perry and his cronies attempted to carve this district up and make it parts of 3 different districts, thus depriving the Vietnamese community of a voice in government. The courts used Title 5 of the Voting Rights Act to declare the Texas map that got rid of this district unconstitutional. There were also other Texas districts that were gerrymandered out of existence, which violated Title 5, and were part of the court decision. So, yes, the Voting Rights Act needs to stay.
Better yet would be a law which states that you cannot have a district that is gerrymandered at all, and districts must have a ratio of it's boundaries no larger than 3:1.
I'm not suggesting that those currently would want to do it, but specific wording of each decision carries meaning, and can be used against the spirit of intentions. For the issue of civil rights, the most dangerous idea is that a given protection is declared antiquated.
Supreme Court raises doubts about Voting Rights Act
If we're going to keep Preclearance, it needs to apply to everyone, not just select states and counties. Things have changed and I don't see how theses select Southern areas are so much more likely to attempt discriminatory voting practices that they should be singled out.
As long as there is gerrymandering, jury rigging the results of elections way before the first vote is cast, this nation will never have fair elections. I think gerrymandering should also be looked at by the SCOTUS. I will add another item to this discussion, the minority majority district's. These districts actually help the Republicans as the majority of minorities who normally vote for democrats can all be placed into one district leaving the rest more white and more republican than what would be if you split up minorities around the state. Here in Georgia putting most of the blacks into 4 districts guarentees the election of 4 black Democrats, that leaves 9 other districts which only one white democrat was elected along with 8 white republicans. If John Barrow runs for the senate here in Georgia in 2014, look for the republicans to pick up his seat. I would say having 9 out of 13 house seats in republicans hands, I am sure they are more than willing to let the 4 majority black districts stand.
As long as there is gerrymandering, jury rigging the results of elections way before the first vote is cast, this nation will never have fair elections. I think gerrymandering should also be looked at by the SCOTUS. I will add another item to this discussion, the minority majority district's. These districts actually help the Republicans as the majority of minorities who normally vote for democrats can all be placed into one district leaving the rest more white and more republican than what would be if you split up minorities around the state. Here in Georgia putting most of the blacks into 4 districts guarentees the election of 4 black Democrats, that leaves 9 other districts which only one white democrat was elected along with 8 white republicans. If John Barrow runs for the senate here in Georgia in 2014, look for the republicans to pick up his seat. I would say having 9 out of 13 house seats in republicans hands, I am sure they are more than willing to let the 4 majority black districts stand.
Supreme Court raises doubts about Voting Rights Act
If we're going to keep Preclearance, it needs to apply to everyone, not just select states and counties. Things have changed and I don't see how theses select Southern areas are so much more likely to attempt discriminatory voting practices that they should be singled out.
This sins of the father garbage is completely un-american; more importantly, it's completely unconstitutional. sadly, I have little faith in the court that claims the government can force anyone to buy anything at any time ever coming down on the side of the constitution.
I'm leery of a court that claims anyone can buy anything pertaining to promoting aspects of government at anytime (citizens united). So, looks like we're even.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?