Create new account | My Profile | My Journal | My Account | My Inbox | Help | Log in

DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Uh-oh! Supremes to hear c...

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:36 PM

theHandpuppet (11,639 posts)

Uh-oh! Supremes to hear challenge to Voting Rights Act

Wow -- didn't take them long, did it. This has me extremely worried.

Supreme Court to review key section of Voting Rights Act
Nov 09, 2012 08:41 PM EST
The Washington Post

The Supreme Court on Friday said it would decide the constitutionality of a signature portion of the Voting Rights Act.

The justices three years ago expressed skepticism about the continued need for Section 5 of the historic act, which requires states and localities with a history of discrimination, most of them in the South, to get federal approval of any changes in their voting laws.

It is the second important case involving race that the court has accepted this term. Last month, the justices heard a challenge to the University of Texas’s admissions policy that could redefine or eliminate the use of affirmative action in higher education.

The Section 5 requirements were passed during the darkest days of the civil rights struggle, paving the way for expanded voting rights for African Americans and greatly increasing the number of minority officeholders... MORE

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/supreme-court-to-review-key-section-of-voting-rights-act/2012/11/09/dd249cd0-216d-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_story.html

15 replies, 775 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

15 replies	Author	Time	Post
Uh-oh! Supremes to hear challenge to Voting Rights Act (Original post)	theHandpuppet	Nov 2012	OP
I am very worried that they will take away	LiberalLoner	Nov 2012	#1
Do you even know what the court is?	Indydem	Nov 2012	#2
You could answer without the snark	theHandpuppet	Nov 2012	#3
No, I can't.	Indydem	Nov 2012	#5
Especially when the SCOTUS usurps a state's rights to vote recount.	WinkyDink	Nov 2012	#12
Then how the fuck do you explain that Citizen's United decision?	lonestarnot	Nov 2012	#13
Really?	Indydem	Nov 2012	#15
Suffrage for minorities and women is enshrined in the Constitution, so no, they can't do that.	Geoff R. Casavant	Nov 2012	#4
Thank you.	LiberalLoner	Nov 2012	#9
"The justices three years ago expressed skepticism . . ."	Geoff R. Casavant	Nov 2012	#6
Gerrymandering is not covered by Section 5.	former9thward	Nov 2012	#7
Good to know. I stand educated.	Geoff R. Casavant	Nov 2012	#10
It is that section that requires pre-clearance.	former9thward	Nov 2012	#14
I predict a 5-4 decision.	Scuba	Nov 2012	#8
I predict this will be upheld.	NYC Liberal	Nov 2012	#11

Response to theHandpuppet (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:39 PM

LiberalLoner (5,343 posts)

1. I am very worried that they will take away

Suffrage for minorities and women too
Can they do that, does anyone know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to LiberalLoner (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:47 PM

Indydem (1,625 posts)

2. Do you even know what the court is?

No. They can't take away anyone's suffrage.

SMDH

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Indydem (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:49 PM

theHandpuppet (11,639 posts)

3. You could answer without the snark

Just a suggestion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to theHandpuppet (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:54 PM

Indydem (1,625 posts)

5. No, I can't.

The Supreme court is not some dictatorship. The idea that the really can "legislate from the bench" is GD ludicrous.

The VRA defines what states can and cannot do in regards to voting guidelines.

The SCOTUS isn't going to turn around and say "BTW, no one but white land owners can vote."

Get real. People who are so ignorant as to not understand how the court works make every single one of the members of the DU look stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Indydem (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:48 PM

WinkyDink (37,068 posts)

12. Especially when the SCOTUS usurps a state's rights to vote recount.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Indydem (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:50 PM

lonestarnot (71,135 posts)

13. Then how the fuck do you explain that Citizen's United decision?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to lonestarnot (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:24 PM

Indydem (1,625 posts)

15. Really?

They removed a restriction. They didn't add one.

Apples to Humus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to LiberalLoner (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:52 PM

Geoff R. Casavant (2,280 posts)

4. Suffrage for minorities and women is enshrined in the Constitution, so no, they can't do that.

But if that portion of the VRA is struck down, it becomes easier for southern states to gerrymander their districts to effectively disenfranchise large blocs of minorities. I think it's probably impossible to gerrymander to disenfranchise women specifically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Geoff R. Casavant (Reply #4)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 07:43 PM

LiberalLoner (5,343 posts)

9. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to theHandpuppet (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:54 PM

Geoff R. Casavant (2,280 posts)

6. "The justices three years ago expressed skepticism . . ."

". . . about the continued need for Section 5 of the historic act."

Well, considering the number of times the DOJ has had to invalidate gerrymandering in several southern states in just the last two years, I'd say yes, there's a continued need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Geoff R. Casavant (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 05:05 PM

former9thward (6,429 posts)

7. Gerrymandering is not covered by Section 5.

Section Five covers changes to voting qualifications or standards. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report saying that the DOJ objected to less than 0.1% of changes submitted to the DOJ by voting jurisdictions.

The VRA does not just cover "Southern States". Non-south states include New York, Michigan, Alaska, Arizona, South Dakota, California and New Hampshire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to former9thward (Reply #7)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:44 PM

Geoff R. Casavant (2,280 posts)

10. Good to know. I stand educated.

I had thought it was the section that required states with a history of discrimination to get pre-clearance from DOJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Geoff R. Casavant (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:10 PM

former9thward (6,429 posts)

14. It is that section that requires pre-clearance.

But it just covers changes in voter procedures (picture i.d for example) but it doesn't cover gerrymandering. Usually any gerrymandering challenge goes directly to the federal courts. The Supreme Court over the years (both liberal and conservative courts) has made it very tough to challenge gerrymandering. Usually it is only successful when the gerrymandering is done strictly on racial grounds. That is usually not the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to theHandpuppet (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 05:45 PM

Scuba (26,783 posts)

8. I predict a 5-4 decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to theHandpuppet (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:46 PM

NYC Liberal (15,600 posts)

11. I predict this will be upheld.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

General Discussion (Forum)