The US Supreme Court has overturned a key part of a landmark civil rights-era electoral law designed to protect minority voters.
By a margin of 5-4, the justices quashed section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
They ruled that an updated formula was needed to decide which jurisdictions' election laws need monitoring.
The law requires all or parts of 15 US states, mostly in the South, to receive federal approval for election changes.
The Voting Rights Act was extended for 25 years by Congress in 2006 with broad support.
"Congress did not use the record it compiled to shape a coverage formula grounded in current conditions," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court's opinion.
"It instead re-enacted a formula based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day."
Striking section 4 also removes the ability to enforce penalties for gerrymandering along perceived racial lines.
Yep. We cannot, in a such a traditionally racist nation, remove special voting laws until we have elected a minority president. Oh wait... never mind - we must keep these "good" discriminatory voting laws until the white male is a minority in this nation. Oh wait... never mind - they must remain forever discrimiantory out of fairness.
I've often heard right-leaning pundits throw around the term "judicial activism" when a court makes a decision which the pundit believes exceeds the Court's role or authority. I wonder if they'll say the same thing here?
I also wonder if conservatives who don't think it's appropriate to (re-)interpret the Constitution with modern reality in mind will object to this.
If the wihite male became a minority and applied these rules, they would suddenly become a lot more popular on the right.
This had really nothing to do with the Constitution directly. It applies to who holds the power to make the rules.
Tim-
If the law was Constitutional in 1964 it is still Constitutional now. If the Supreme Court is allowed to throw out Federal law passed and signed by a duly elected Congress and President on the basis of it being outdated and nothing more, I guess that means the Constitution is up for grabs as a whole.
BBC News - US Supreme Court strikes down Voting Rights Act clause
Using facts that are 40 years out of date typifies much thinking about race, an issue for which progress isn't allowed lest special privileges be lost.
Yes, but you and I both know that this wasn't specific and or directly related to the constitutionality of the VRA, only provision 4, which, according to the supreme court, lacked any sound basis in reality.
Tim-
Agreed, however it does illustrate a behavior by the court that exposes it's overreach in power. The court is willing to allow unconstitutional conditions (pass them off as constitutional) for a temporary time in order to address social issues. That's wrong on so many levels. The court as social engineers...
Yes, but you and I both know that this wasn't specific and or directly related to the constitutionality of the VRA, only provision 4, which, according to the supreme court, lacked any sound basis in reality.
Tim-
It isn't the Court's job to decide such things.
If the law was Constitutional in 1964 it is still Constitutional now. If the Supreme Court is allowed to throw out Federal law passed and signed by a duly elected Congress and President on the basis of it being outdated and nothing more, I guess that means the Constitution is up for grabs as a whole.
It isn't the Court's job to decide such things.
If the law was Constitutional in 1964 it is still Constitutional now. If the Supreme Court is allowed to throw out Federal law passed and signed by a duly elected Congress and President on the basis of it being outdated and nothing more, I guess that means the Constitution is up for grabs as a whole.
If the law was Constitutional in 1964 it is still Constitutional now. If the Supreme Court is allowed to throw out Federal law passed and signed by a duly elected Congress and President on the basis of it being outdated and nothing more, I guess that means the Constitution is up for grabs as a whole.
I don't think it was challenged to the Supreme Court prior to now.
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?