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....
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.
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.
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.
Guess it's time to Let the States be States.
SCOTUS declared Section 4 Unconstitutional.
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.
A win for the states!
and a loss for 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'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'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 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).
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.
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?The nonsense that you must first prove voter fraud is "rampant" before you can "justify" its prevention is insane.
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.
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.
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?