Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 25 Jun '13 17:19 / 1 edit
    In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday voided a provision of the Voting Rights Act that determines which state and local governments have to seek federal permission to change their voting laws.

    The 1960s-era provision largely singled out states and districts in the South -- those with a history of discrimination -- for special screening by the federal government over changes to their laws. But the court ruled 5-4 that the formula determining which states are affected is unconstitutional, and said Congress could try to draft a new provision.

    While lawmakers in those states hailed the decision, Democrats in Washington assailed it.

    The justices said that the law Congress most recently renewed in 2006 relies on 40-year-old data that does not reflect racial progress and changes in U.S. society.


    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/25/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-part-voting-rights-act/#ixzz2XFWS9xFF
  2. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    25 Jun '13 17:30 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday voided a provision of the Voting Rights Act that determines which state and local governments have to seek federal permission to change their voting laws.

    The 1960s-era provision largely singled out states and districts in the South -- those with a history of discrimination -- for special screening ...[text shortened]... ews.com/politics/2013/06/25/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-part-voting-rights-act/#ixzz2XFWS9xFF
    I think The Supreme Court was correct here. I'm not comfortable with the idea of Congress drafting a new provision however, considering they don't seem to be able to agree on which shade of blue the sky is.
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    25 Jun '13 17:41 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday voided a provision of the Voting Rights Act that determines which state and local governments have to seek federal permission to change their voting laws.

    The 1960s-era provision largely singled out states and districts in the South -- those with a history of discrimination -- for special screening ...[text shortened]... ews.com/politics/2013/06/25/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-part-voting-rights-act/#ixzz2XFWS9xFF
    It's an outrageous though expected decision. The evidence that there continued to be governmental attempts to limit the voter rights of affected minorities in the 25 years prior to 2006 (when the VRA was extended for 25 years) in violation of the 15th Amendment was overwhelming and the Amendment expressly provides:

    SECTION 2.

    The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    EDIT: At p. 13 of Ginsburg's dissent:

    All told, between 1982 and 2006, DOJ objections blocked
    over 700 voting changes based on a determination that the
    changes were discriminatory. H. R. Rep. No. 109–478, at
    21. Congress found that the majority of DOJ objections
    included findings of discriminatory intent, see 679 F. 3d,
    at 867, and that the changes blocked by preclearance were
    “calculated decisions to keep minority voters from fully
    participating in the political process.” H. R. Rep. 109–478,
    at 21. On top of that, over the same time period the DOJ
    and private plaintiffs succeeded in more than 100 actions
    to enforce the §5 preclearance requirements. 1 Evidence
    of Continued Need 186, 250.

    After making note of this record, Congress passed the 2006 extension by overwhelming majorities: 390-33 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate.
  4. 25 Jun '13 17:42 / 7 edits
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday voided a provision of the Voting Rights Act that determines which state and local governments have to seek federal permission to change their voting laws.

    The 1960s-era provision largely singled out states and districts in the South -- those with a history of discrimination -- for special screening ...[text shortened]... ews.com/politics/2013/06/25/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-part-voting-rights-act/#ixzz2XFWS9xFF
    An incredibly activist Court. Judicial activism.

    The provision remains but not the formula. Yet, the provision without a formula does not mean much. And to be sure the Republicans in the House would block any new formula.

    The appropriate way to handle this would have been to let Congress decide if they had wanted to get rid of the formula, and to vote to get rid of the formula, and not for five unelected judges to rewrite the law, and to get rid of the formula for the enforcement provision. The Court is in no position to adequately review such. This was sheer politics by a body that is suppose be apolitical.. Incredible judicial activism.

    SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    [The majority (Republican-nominated justices) on the Court are making sure African-Americans stay in the Democratic camp.]
  5. 25 Jun '13 17:53
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    After making note of this record, Congress passed the 2006 extension by overwhelming majorities: 390-33 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate.
    Yes, a very activist Court overruling the will of the American people.
  6. 25 Jun '13 17:57
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday voided a provision of the Voting Rights Act that determines which state and local governments have to seek federal permission to change their voting laws.

    The 1960s-era provision largely singled out states and districts in the South -- those with a history of discrimination -- for special screening ...[text shortened]... ews.com/politics/2013/06/25/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-part-voting-rights-act/#ixzz2XFWS9xFF
    I watched closely how racially-drawn voting districts have been prevented by federal judges via the Voting Rights Act in Texas, as recently as last year.

    Now the Texas Republicans will have free reign to draw districts based on race to limit the number of minority candidates who win elections.
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    25 Jun '13 17:59
    Originally posted by moon1969
    I watched closely how racially-drawn voting districts have been prevented by federal judges via the Voting Rights Act in Texas, as recently as last year.

    Now the Texas Republicans will have free reign to draw districts based on race to limit the number of minority candidates who win elections.
    Well, not "free rein"; they can always be challenged by affected voter lawsuits though as pointed out by the dissent Congress has determined that that is not a sufficient protection.
  8. 25 Jun '13 18:20
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Well, not "free rein"; they can always be challenged by affected voter lawsuits though as pointed out by the dissent Congress has determined that that is not a sufficient protection.
    As you indicate, much more effective (for several reasons) to have federal judges providing the oversight via the Voting Rights Act.
  9. 25 Jun '13 18:32
    Now there is a window of opportunity for States to pass Voter ID laws without having to first get approval from Lord Obama. Have some of that, liberals.
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    25 Jun '13 18:40
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    Now there is a window of opportunity for States to pass Voter ID laws without having to first get approval from Lord Obama. Have some of that, liberals.
    Yes, that is undoubtedly the right wing agenda made possible by this absurd decision; to use voter ID laws, among other measures, to dilute minority participation in elections to the benefit of Republicans.
  11. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    25 Jun '13 18:46
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Yes, that is undoubtedly the right wing agenda made possible by this absurd decision; to use voter ID laws, among other measures, to dilute minority participation in elections to the benefit of Republicans.
    Voter ID laws can still be challenged by lawsuit, as many of them were this past election season. The lawsuits would be (and are) based on the same constitutional provision that the VRA is based on.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    25 Jun '13 18:49
    Originally posted by sh76
    Voter ID laws can still be challenged by lawsuit, as many of them were this past election season. The lawsuits would be (and are) based on the same constitutional provision that the VRA is based on.
    From p. 14 of Ginsburg's dissent:

    Congress also received evidence that litigation under §2
    of the VRA was an inadequate substitute for preclearance
    in the covered jurisdictions. Litigation occurs only after
    the fact, when the illegal voting scheme has already been
    put in place and individuals have been elected pursuant to
    it, thereby gaining the advantages of incumbency. 1 Evi­
    dence of Continued Need 97. An illegal scheme might be
    in place for several election cycles before a §2 plaintiff can
    gather sufficient evidence to challenge it. 1 Voting Rights
    Act: Section 5 of the Act—History, Scope, and Purpose:
    Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of
    the House Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong., 1st
    Sess., p. 92 (2005) (hereinafter Section 5 Hearing). And
    litigation places a heavy financial burden on minority
    voters. See id., at 84. C
  13. 25 Jun '13 18:54
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Yes, that is undoubtedly the right wing agenda made possible by this absurd decision; to use voter ID laws, among other measures, to dilute minority participation in elections to the benefit of Republicans.
    lol No1, you sound like a right-wing, nutter conspiracy theorist.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    25 Jun '13 18:59
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    lol No1, you sound like a right-wing, nutter conspiracy theorist.


    Typical idiocy from you. Pretending that the majority in the SCOTUS hadn't noticed that Section 5 challenges derailed Texas' Voter ID law and forced South Carolina to severely modify theirs is disingenuous at best.
  15. 25 Jun '13 19:13
    Originally posted by no1marauder


    Typical idiocy from you. Pretending that the majority in the SCOTUS hadn't noticed that Section 5 challenges derailed Texas' Voter ID law and forced South Carolina to severely modify theirs is disingenuous at best.
    I'm sorry, I don't own a crystal ball or a tin foil hat. I do not know what motivated the Supreme Court Justices' respective decisions in this case. All I have is the written opinion. Perhaps you could point out the portion of the opinion where the Justices admit that they are political hacks.