Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters Rea

[cpwill]

Guess it's time to Let the States be States.

The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires states to get permission from the U.S. before changing their election laws.

The court ruled that Section 4's formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance, SCOTUSBlog reported.

Section 5 of the VRA requires 9 states with histories of discrimination (mostly in the South) to get permission from the federal government before changing their voting procedures....

SCOTUS declared Section 4 Unconstitutional.

 

[Redress]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

Guess it's time to Let the States be States.



SCOTUS declared Section 4 Unconstitutional.

From the SCOTUSblog live blog, it sounds like section 5 can be used if congress makes a new formula.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

From the SCOTUSblog live blog, it sounds like section 5 can be used if congress makes a new formula.

I saw that too. I'm wondering now how those two jive.


...but I think it's sort of politically moot - I don't really see any movement for that.


Meanwhile, I grew up in Shelby County. I'm pleased as Punch

 

[Redress]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

I saw that too. I'm wondering now how those two jive.


...but I think it's sort of politically moot - I don't really see any movement for that.

It is moot, congress is not going to reformulated it.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

A win for the states!

 

[cpwill]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

A win for the states!

I've wondered if the answer to the increasing left/right ideological divide in assumptions was going to be a resurgence of Federalism. It would be nice if we start to see the rise of the political structures capable of enabling that.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

I've wondered if the answer to the increasing left/right ideological divide in assumptions was going to be a resurgence of Federalism. It would be nice if we start to see the rise of the political structures capable of enabling that.

In other words, getting back to the way the country was supposed to operate?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

It's a good decision, but I am hating this "5-4" court! Over and over again we get these 5-4 decisions which weaken the power of the ruling. Yes, it is the law now, but one that can be easily overturned in the future through new challenges of similar laws after new appointments based on political party.

Can't these Justices forget "liberal" or "conservative" allegiances and think of the country as a whole? Vote on the MERITS of each issue and stop voting personal view-points?

I know it seems a lot to ask but GEEZ it would do this nation some good.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

Guess it's time to Let the States be States.



SCOTUS declared Section 4 Unconstitutional.

I served it's purpose almost 50 years ago - definitely unnecessary now, especially since the constitutionality of various voting-changes can always be challenged and waged against individually.

Also - consider - that in the last decade some of the other 41 states have passed measures which have been challenged regarding how it affects minorities. When that happened more than once and people saw the unfairness of such measures - they realized the old method was just outdated.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

It's a good decision, but I am hating this "5-4" court! Over and over again we get these 5-4 decisions which weaken the power of the ruling. Yes, it is the law now, but one that can be easily overturned in the future through new challenges of similar laws after new appointments based on political party.

Can't these Justices forget "liberal" or "conservative" allegiances and think of the country as a whole? Vote on the MERITS of each issue and stop voting personal view-points?

I know it seems a lot to ask but GEEZ it would do this nation some good.

I wish Congress would get that message too....

 

[Tucker Case]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

It's a good ruling if it helps increase state sovereignty.

I just hope that this isn't yet another example of racists trying to usurp state sovereignty arguments to suit their purposes. I'd love it if now that this law is gone, absolutely no racist bull**** follows. If that happens, I'll be very happy. If racist bull**** ensues, though, it'll be yet another instance of racists undermining the state's rights platform with their ignorant bull****.

 

[justabubba]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

A win for the states!

and a loss for minority voters

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

and a loss for minority voters

Not really.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

It's a good ruling if it helps increase state sovereignty.

I just hope that this isn't yet another example of racists trying to usurp state sovereignty arguments to suit their purposes. I'd love it if now that this law is gone, absolutely no racist bull**** follows. If that happens, I'll be very happy. If racist bull**** ensues, though, it'll be yet another instance of racists undermining the state's rights platform with their ignorant bull****.

It basically only changes who gets to do the gerrymandering. There will still be plenty of "activist" judges that will entertain any lame excuse to "review" the effect of any district boundary or voting conditions law change on minority voters - so it just changes the tactics to be used to defeat/delay state law. Look how many people went nuts over demanding presentation of a state issued, photo ID to vote yet see those same ID requirements as "absolutely essential" for national security at the airports, to prevent "bad" folks from getting guns/ammo or young folks from getting alcohol/tobacco.

 

[digsbe]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

It's a good decision, but I am hating this "5-4" court! Over and over again we get these 5-4 decisions which weaken the power of the ruling. Yes, it is the law now, but one that can be easily overturned in the future through new challenges of similar laws after new appointments based on political party.

Can't these Justices forget "liberal" or "conservative" allegiances and think of the country as a whole? Vote on the MERITS of each issue and stop voting personal view-points?

I know it seems a lot to ask but GEEZ it would do this nation some good.

I feel that they have far too much power with minimal accountability. Judges are appointed on ideology and it's very rare to see them deviate from their ideology when it comes to law. In my opinion this isn't justice, this is legislating from the bench.

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

I've wondered if the answer to the increasing left/right ideological divide in assumptions was going to be a resurgence of Federalism. It would be nice if we start to see the rise of the political structures capable of enabling that.

It sounds more like you are anxious for more discriminatory voting laws. Is that the basis for "Federalism"?

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

Horrible ruling. All the recent attempts to suppress voters show why. Kennedy and Scalia need to retire. Ginsburg is a badass. This country is a mess.

 

[Tucker Case]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

It basically only changes who gets to do the gerrymandering. There will still be plenty of "activist" judges that will entertain any lame excuse to "review" the effect of any district boundary or voting conditions law change on minority voters - so it just changes the tactics to be used to defeat/delay state law. Look how many people went nuts over demanding presentation of a state issued, photo ID to vote yet see those same ID requirements as "absolutely essential" for national security at the airports, to prevent "bad" folks from getting guns/ammo or young folks from getting alcohol/tobacco.

I don't have a problem with showing ID to vote, but I do have a problem with the fact that many of the people who are promoting such laws are doing so in order to prevent minorities from voting (under the guise of preventing voter fraud, which they themselves would gleefully engage in if it helped their cause).

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

I don't have a problem with showing ID to vote, but I do have a problem with the fact that many of the people who are promoting such laws are doing so in order to prevent minorities from voting (under the guise of preventing voter fraud, which they themselves would gleefully engage in if it helped their cause).

If that minority is illegal aliens or bus loads of "professional" voters then that should be stopped. The nonsense that you must first prove voter fraud is "rampant" before you can "justify" its prevention is insane. Banks/stores don't need to be robbed first to know that security is important.

 

[Tucker Case]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

If that minority is illegal aliens or bus loads of "professional" voters then that should be stopped. The nonsense of you must first prove voter fraud is "rampant" before you can "justify" its prevention is insane. Banks/stores don't need to be robbed first to know that security is important.

Banks are private businesses. I don't particularly care what they chose to do. I care about laws which are designed to make it more difficult for opposition to exercise their rights.

On the opposite side of the coin, though, you have people who support ID's for voting, but oppose ID's for getting guns. We know that crimes with guns are rampant. That's not merely paranoia, it's proven fact. If the people who oppose ID's for getting guns support ID's for voting, I'm naturally skeptical of the altruism in their claims of potential voter fraud. They don't seem to give a **** about criminals getting guns, why would they suddenly care about them voting? I guarantee the individual gun can do more damage than an individual with a vote can.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

The nonsense that you must first prove voter fraud is "rampant" before you can "justify" its prevention is insane.

Is it nonsense that one must first prove that gun laws would actually solve a serious problem before one can justify putting more restrictions on gun ownership?

 

[Deuce]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

If that minority is illegal aliens or bus loads of "professional" voters then that should be stopped. The nonsense that you must first prove voter fraud is "rampant" before you can "justify" its prevention is insane. Banks/stores don't need to be robbed first to know that security is important.

Yes, but a security method that also prevents legitimate customers from entering the building isn't a good option either, is it?

How many legitimate voters are you willing to disenfranchise for each fraudulent vote prevented?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

Banks are private businesses. I don't particularly care what they chose to do. I care about laws which are designed to make it more difficult for opposition to exercise their rights.

On the opposite side of the coin, though, you have people who support ID's for voting, but oppose ID's for getting guns. We know that crimes with guns are rampant. That's not merely paranoia, it's proven fact. If the people who oppose ID's for getting guns support ID's for voting, I'm naturally skeptical of the altruism in their claims of potential voter fraud. They don't seem to give a **** about criminals getting guns, why would they suddenly care about them voting? I guarantee the individual gun can do more damage than an individual with a vote can.

Good point. I support the exact same requirements for voting and buying/carrying guns - right down to the cost.

 

[Tucker Case]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

Good point. I support the exact same requirements for voting and buying/carrying guns - right down to the cost.

I don't understand the right down to the cost thing. Are you saying people should have to pay to vote, or that guns should be free?

 

[Deuce]

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

The sad part is that a lot of electoral changes were still getting blocked. States covered by this law really were trying to pull **** they shouldn't be pulling. Keep an eye on the flurry of electoral changes in those states that just by sheer coincidence happen to affect (D) votes slightly more than (R).