Justice Department to challenge states’ voting rights laws

[octoberlib]

The Justice Department is preparing to take fresh legal action in a string of voting rights cases across the nation, U.S. officials said, part of a new attempt to blunt the impact of a Supreme Court ruling that the Obama administration has warned will imperil minority representation.

The decision to challenge state officials marks an aggressive effort to continue policing voting rights issues and follows a ruling by the court last month that invalidated a critical part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The justices threw out a part of the act that determined which states with a history of discrimination had to be granted Justice Department or court approval before making voting law changes.


.In the coming weeks, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is expected to announce that the Justice Department is using other sections of the Voting Rights Act to bring lawsuits or take other legal action to prevent states from implementing certain laws, including requirements to present certain kinds of identification in order to vote. The department is also expected to try to force certain states to get approval, or “pre-clearance,” before they can change their election laws.

“Even as Congress considers updates to the Voting Rights Act in light of the Court’s ruling, we plan, in the meantime, to fully utilize the law’s remaining sections to subject states to pre-clearance as necessary,” Holder said in a speech Thursday morning in Philadelphia. “My colleagues and I are determined to use every tool at our disposal to stand against such discrimination wherever it is found.”

Holder announced that, in a first step, the department will support a lawsuit in Texas that was brought by a coalition of Democratic legislators and civil rights groups against the state’s redistricting plan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-department-to-challenge-states-voting-rights-laws/2013/07/25/c26740b2-f49b-11e2-a2f1-a7acf9bd5d3a_story.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpol

BREAKING NEWS: The U.S. Justice Department announced this morning that it will file new law suits against states that have passed anti-voting laws with voter ID requirements and other limitations. Actions are expected to be filed against 21 states -- and North Carolina will become one of them if the NC House passes HB589 as expected. Will our lawmakers expose NC to millions in legal fees by passing this bill? We will know by the end of the afternoon. Please see The Washington Post for details.
https://www.facebook.com/ProgressNorthCarolinaAction?ref=br_tf

[Fantastic Anarchist]

1. This is very good news.

I'm glad to hear that Holder, apart from busting MMJ dispensaries, is actually using his job to do something good.

I do have a question: Since the Supreme Court invalidated the pre-clearance clause, how is the DOJ going to require states to have pre-clearance as suggested in article? I'm glad they're going to, but I'm just interested if there are other sections that still make this requirement valid.

Anyone in the know, I'd appreciate learning what you have to offer.

[octoberlib]

2. I found this at Daily Kos

Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that the formula used by Congress to determine which states and localities should be subject to preclearance was unconstitutional, but it left intact the preclearance provision itself as well as the mechanism for "bailing in" state and local governments on an ad hoc basis.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/25/1226425/-Holder-seeks-to-restore-key-Voting-Rights-Act-protections-in-Texas

[Fantastic Anarchist]

3. Ah, excellent!

So, really, the people didn't really lose anything, am I correct?

Effectively, the DOJ can still require states to not discriminate with these undemocratic voter laws.

[octoberlib]

4. Yep. Basically it just makes more work for the DOJ. They have to prove that a state

qualifies on a case by case basis. Once a state qualifies , it has to be renewed every 10 years. Actually this might work against the GOP because the DOJ will take it to states like Ohio that didn't previously have pre-clearance.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

5. Nice! I'm not sure why you haven't gotten more responses.

This certainly needs to be visible.

Thanks for posting and answering my questions!!!

[octoberlib]

6. People are probably at work. Thanks for your interest!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

7. I'm at work, too.

Shhhhhhh! Don't tell anyone!

[Lee-Lee]

8. On the downside

Whoever controls the DOJ chooses what states to target now.

That was what was critical about keeping the law running withe the 1970's numbers used to determine what states required preclearance- the DOJ couldn't change what states were targeted just because a Repug was AG.

[octoberlib]

9. I don't believe it has been said anywhere that Holder is targeting

states with a Republican AG . He's targeting states that have voter ID requirements and other retrictive voting laws. If the voter ID bill passes today, NC will have the most restrictive voting laws in the US. The DOJ will be suing according to Progress NC.

[Lee-Lee]

10. That is not what I am saying

I am saying if we end up with Republicans running the DOJ they now have the flexibility to not go after states- where prior to SCOTUS the preclearance had to remain.

[octoberlib]

11. I see what you mean. Well , hopefully the Senate will come up with something.

They're supposed to be working on a new VRA, if they can get it passed. And hopefully a couple of these Supreme justices will retire while we have a Democratic President.

[Lee-Lee]

12. I have asked this before but never got an answer

If they simply used data from 2012 instead of 1972 or whatever, which was the big issue SCOTUS had, and left the formula unchanged what states would it cover? Essentially the same? Or would they have to rework the formula to keep it targeted where we want?

[octoberlib]

13. Concerning Texas ,an article

said that Texas' voting history will be taken into account. It didn't say how far back this will go. It's not really fair seeing as how we've been ruled by Dems for so long and had some of the best voting laws in the US. Since we were one of the states that had the pre-clearance originally I would think that would be taken into account.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced Thursday morning that the Department of Justice would seek to "bail in" the state of Texas to the preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act, citing "intentional" and "pervasive" racial discrimination in the state's voting laws

Maybe there doesn't need to be a prior history and they just look at current enacted laws.