Supreme Court considers challenge to Voting Rights Act

Source: USA Today

By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The question of whether America needs the Voting Rights Act now that a black man has won the presidency looms over a major appeal the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider in its private conference Friday.
The justices could say as early as Friday if they will hear a challenge to the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act renewed by Congress in 2006. Their decision could impact federal power to oversee state election practices and to ensure racial minorities have as much of a chance as whites to elect candidates of their choice.

The law in dispute was overwhelmingly approved by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2006. Yet the Supreme Court in recent years has found some U.S regulation of the states too intrusive.

"If the court takes the case, it has the potential to be the most important election case since Bush v. Gore," says Richard Hasen, an election-law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, of the 2000 decision that ensured Bush the presidency. He notes the court has earlier upheld the disputed provision. "The question is whether the role of race in American politics has so changed … that remedies that were once constitutional are now impingements on state sovereignty," he says.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-0...

I hope these last vestiges of what they once called republican domination do cut their noses off to spite their face

...and we are talking about federal elections.

The federal government must regulate elections regarding US constitutional offices especially securing the rights of all Americans participating in those elections.

The USSC should not get involved in any "state sovereignty" issues which smack of shameful pre-civil rights racism and bigotry with particular focus on diluting the voting rights of blacks in those states.

This needs to be seen.

impinges on state sovereignty with no justification?

If Hillary had been a white male, who can guarantee that Obama would have been the Democratic nominee because of his race? If Dummya had not screwed things up beyond recognition, including the economy, or McCain had been 50 and had picked a normal running mate, who can guarantee that Obama would not have lost to the McCain ticket because of his race?

Let's face it. Obama got elected because he the benefit of the perfect storm politically. No reason for anyone to cross their fingers and hope that happens again so another minority can get elected someday.

And what on earth is wrong with a voting rights act? I would suspect the motives of any state objecting to it.

Go ahead lame brains, i want to personally double dare ya	nolabels	Jan-09-09 12:13 PM	#1
I bet I can tell you how Clarence Thomas will vote.	roguevalley	Jan-10-09 09:57 PM	#7
Gee, look at the states involved....state sovereignty my ass - we are a federal republic....	suston96	Jan-09-09 12:19 PM	#2
K&R: Important stuff here.	DeepModem Mom	Jan-09-09 06:47 PM	#3
kay and arrrrr!	mac56	Jan-09-09 06:51 PM	#4
One guy elected in over 200 years and suddenly a voting rights bill	No Elephants	Jan-10-09 07:43 AM	#5
k&r	ShadesOfGrey	Jan-10-09 08:25 AM	#6
Monitor describes the case at hand:	elleng	Jan-11-09 02:02 AM	#8