HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Uh-oh! Supremes to hear c...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:36 PM

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, 1263 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
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
Reply Uh-oh! Supremes to hear challenge to Voting Rights Act (Original post)
theHandpuppet Nov 2012 OP
LiberalLoner Nov 2012 #1
Indydem Nov 2012 #2
theHandpuppet Nov 2012 #3
Indydem Nov 2012 #5
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #12
lonestarnot Nov 2012 #13
Indydem Nov 2012 #15
Geoff R. Casavant Nov 2012 #4
LiberalLoner Nov 2012 #9
Geoff R. Casavant Nov 2012 #6
former9thward Nov 2012 #7
Geoff R. Casavant Nov 2012 #10
former9thward Nov 2012 #14
Scuba Nov 2012 #8
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #11

Response to theHandpuppet (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:39 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. I predict this will be upheld.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread