Reply #14

In the discussion thread: Uh-oh! Supremes to hear challenge to Voting Rights Act [View all]

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 OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

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 [View all]	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

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.