Supreme Court Pulls Teeth From the Voting Rights Act

[WilliamPitt]

Supreme Court Pulls Teeth From the Voting Rights Act
John Nichols
The Nation

6/22/09

Once an election is done, it is hard to undo. That's true in Iran, and it's also true in the United States. This is why it is important to get the rules by which elections are held right before elections are held. For this reason, one of the essential components of the Voting Rights Act -- arguably its most powerful tool for combating discrimination and disenfranchisement -- has long been a requirement that officials get approval from the Department of Justice before they change the way in which elections are conducted.

Allow states, counties, municipalities or school districts in the 16 states that are wholly or pafrtially with historic patterns of discrimination to opt out of the review, and they will be able to organize and hold elections that renew those patterns. That's why the requirement has been referred to by law professors as "one of the crown jewels of the civil rights movement."

Foes of the Voting Rights Act have long focused on weakening Section 5 of the act, the provision that requires election officials in the states covered by the act to obtain federal permission before making changes to voting procedures, moving polling-place locations, requiring so-called "citizenship checks" and redrawing voting district lines. They rightly argued that to do so would remove the teeth from the measure that has long been disdained by southerners pining for the days before what former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott referred to as "all the laws of Washington" changed the way things were done in Dixie.

On Monday, the Supreme Court tarnished the crown jewel, giving state and local officials new flexibility to "opt out" of the requirement that they obtain permission when changing election rules. The court ruling does not invalidate the Voting Rights Act -- as some had feared -- but it does undermine it. The court, with only one justice (Clarence Thomas) in partial dissent, said that the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 in Austin, Texas, can avoid the advance approval requirement. The ruling is being interpreted as a signal all local jurisdictions in a Voting Rights Act state can at least apply for what is referred to as "a statutory bailout." That was a reversal of a lower federal court that had preserved the Voting Rights Act as it was intended to operate.

That's a dangerous move, say civil rights supporters.

The rest: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/445246/supreme_c...

[midnight]

1. The fact that rules can be changed by locals without federal approval is going to create

chaos at the polls. I can see constitutional fights with this move.

[dysfunctional press]

2. "The court, with only one justice (Clarence Thomas) in partial dissent, "

does that mean that unca thomas didn't vote the same as fat tony? wouldn't that be a first..?

[cagesoulman]

3. Maybe Clarence just figured out he was black....

Too little too late, pubic hair guy.

[cagesoulman]

4. Maybe Clarence just figured out he was black....

Too little too late, pubic hair guy.

[11 Bravo]

7. Nope, in his dissent Slappy wanted to declare the entire Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.

[cagesoulman]

8. No fucking way!

Asswipe.

[starroute]

6. No, sounds like Thomas wanted to strike down the law entirely

Guess Clarence still hasn't noticed that he's black after all.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/06/supreme-co...

USA TODAY's Joan Biskupic reports that the Supreme Court has declined to decide whether a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is constitutional, sidestepping by an 8-1 vote the question at the heart of a closely watched case.

The disputed provision gives the U.S. Justice Department power to review proposed election law changes in several states, mostly in the South, and many other counties and municipalities, where race discrimination has been most flagrant. The case was shaping up to be a defining test of an ideologically split court that has been increasingly suspicious of government policies attempting to remedy racial bias.

Yet, Biskupic reports, the justices opted to avoid the constitutional question and, rather, narrowly decided that it should be easier for certain political jurisdictions to be exempt from the so-called pre-clearance requirements. The decision generally would allow all places that can show that they have not used a forbidden voting test or other discriminatory measure for 10 years to be free of Justice Department oversight.

Only Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's only African American, said the justices should have decided the looming constitutional issue. He would have struck down the law. The Voting Rights Act, a landmark of Congress' civil rights agenda in the 1960s, has been repeatedly renewed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court over the years.

[sakabatou]

14. Clarence Thomas equals...

Uncle Ruckus?

[RoyGBiv]

5. This is not exactly true ...

Section 4, the so-called bailout provision, was already there and has been used, although very infrequently with any success because the requirements are so stiff.

In this case the Court simply held that the district could attempt to invoke that provision and thereby refused to rule on the constitutionality of section 5, the latter being what was feared. Section 5 is already established as constitutional, and avoiding a ruling on it leaves that intact.

NAMUDO will not be able to invoke the bailout, however, because it does not qualify for the exception.

[Number23]

9. Repubs are trying their hardest to hammer away at the VRA

With a black man in the White House, they've decided that minority voter protections no longer apply.

Kicked and Rec'd. Thanks for posting

[defendandprotect]

10. First, notice that the computers began coming in as we passed the Voting Rights Act -- !!!

Second, where does it say in the Constitution that the Supreme Court can decide
on who the president will be?

Third -- if steals weren't still more difficult for right-wing than they'd like them to be,
they wouldn't need to try to undo the Voting Rights Act - partial good news there!

Fourth -- I agree that this is a dangerous move -- we've gotten rid of Bush/Cheney . . .
but not the court they built!

Fifth - is the pervert Thomas still this deep into his own self-hatred, or does this
signal that those who have the goods on him are still controlling him?

[DaLittle Kitty]

15. Computers COUNT VOTES In SECRET! We MUST Return To Counting Votes By Hand!

The more people involved in the process the less likely will be the WHOLESAle Vote Rigging/FRAUD that has occurred since 200 and in subsequent elections. Increase the number of precincts and count BY HAND!!!!!!!!

[defendandprotect]

16. Absolutely agree with you . . ..

but you might also be interested in the investigation done by two journalists
in the late 1960's -- and give more serious thought to corporate-press involvement.

I don't think the Fox News/John Ellis scam was the first time - probably the noisiest tho.

And, where does it say in the Constitution that the Supremes Can pick the president?

The story is pretty much here - their book has been on line courtesy of the family.

Evidently the large computers used by the corporate-press began coming in during the mid-1960's.

That not only give them the ability to report vote tallies but to predict and call winners.

Later in the 1960's the electronic voting machines used by individual voters began coming in.

Their investigation is quite interesting.

Votescam
http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

The books also available at Amazon for just a few bucks and/or your library will get it
for you -

[KakistocracyHater]

11. Bush vs Gore precedent still damaging us

they need to be prosecuted & imprisoned, these rotted fruits are multiplying like zombies....

[Senator]

13. K&R

[defendandprotect]

17. Right . . . how was that for an "activist court" . . . ???

Repugs are such hypocrites --

And where in the Constitution does it say the Supremes get to pick the president?

[GeorgeGist]

12. Supreme Fools attempt to rewrite history ...

so that sanity can prove them wrong again.