Wow... SC strikes down part of the Voting Rights Act.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

SC strikes down the provision that required some southern states to ask the DoJ to 'pre-clear' any new voting regulations... ie, Voter ID acts.

Here's the ruling:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf

Expect a lot of noise about this...

There's a plethora of information here.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Expect a lot of noise about this...

Much ado about nothing.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

Expect a lot of noise about this...

Much ado about nothing.

o.O Really?

With all the hysteria that those states trying to implement Voter ID Acts... I'd figure it would as the DoJ can't use the provision in Section 5 to stop them (unless congress passes another statute to update Section 4).

**Easy E**

The SC has been on a tear lately.

5-4 rulings to make it harder for Worker's to sue their employers for discrimination too.

**whembly**

Easy E wrote:
The SC has been on a tear lately.

5-4 rulings to make it harder for Worker's to sue their employers for discrimination too.

Is that the one where you couldn't sue a supervisor who doesn't have the ability to hire/fire the employee?

**Easy E**

Yes, plus there was another one that escapes me at the moment.

Then, there is the ruling Secret Squirrel posted about the 5th, too.

They are making all sorts of noteworthy rulings at the end of this session.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:
o.O Really?

Yes, really.

whembly wrote:

With all the hysteria that those states trying to implement Voter ID Acts... I'd figure it would as the DoJ can't use the provision in Section 5 to stop them (unless congress passes another statute to update Section 4).

Section 4 informs Section 5, and Section 4 was not struck down.

**Seaward**

dogma wrote:
Section 4 informs Section 5, and Section 4 was not struck down.

Section 4 needs to be rewritten by Congress, though. You think that's gonna happen?

**whembly**

dogma wrote:

whembly wrote:

With all the hysteria that those states trying to implement Voter ID Acts... I'd figure it would as the DoJ can't use the provision in Section 5 to stop them (unless congress passes another statute to update Section 4).

Section 4 informs Section 5, and Section 4 was not struck down.

No, Section 4 was struck down.

Section 5 is still on the book, but right now its inert.

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:

Section 4 needs to be rewritten by Congress, though.

Why?

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
Seaward wrote:

Section 4 needs to be rewritten by Congress, though.

Why?

Because, the DoJ can't use Section 5 now.

Here's the SCOTUS blog explanation -

Today’s holding in Shelby County v. Holder, in Plain English: Today the Court issued its decision in Shelby County v. Holder, the challenge to the constitutionality of the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. That portion of the Act was designed to prevent discrimination in voting by requiring all state and local governments with a history of voting discrimination to get approval from the federal government before making any changes to their voting laws or procedures, no matter how small. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts that was joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, the Court did not invalidate the principle that preclearance can be required. But much more importantly, it held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which sets out the formula that is used to determine which state and local governments must comply with Section 5’s preapproval requirement, is unconstitutional and can no longer be used. Thus, although Section 5 survives, it will have no actual effect unless and until Congress can enact a new statute to determine who should be covered by it.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

No, Section 4 was struck down.

Section 5 is still on the book, but right now its inert.

No, the decision regarded Section 5. Both of your links indicated as much.

whembly wrote:

Because, the DoJ can't use Section 5 now.

And you just said it again.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

No, Section 4 was struck down.

Section 5 is still on the book, but right now its inert.

No, the decision regarded Section 5. Both of your links indicated as much.

whembly wrote:

Because, the DoJ can't use Section 5 now.

And you just said it again.

Read it again dogma...

The Court makes clear that: "Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2. We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions"

**Seaward**

dogma wrote:
No, the decision regarded Section 5. Both of your links indicated as much.

Dude, do even a basic Googlemachine search on this. It's Section 4 that goes until rewritten.

**djones520**

They're right Dogma. Section 4 was struck down, which made Section 5 inert. Congress has to create a new formula in order to make section 5 usable again.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Read it again dogma...

I've read the original document several times and I am very disappointed that you didn't immediately cite this:

Held: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

Read it again dogma...

I've read the original document several times and I am very disappointed that you didn't immediately cite this:

Held: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.

Read it again.

**dogma**

I've been forcing you towards clarity and, to your credit, you got there.

**Seaward**

dogma wrote:
I've been forcing you towards clarity and, to your credit, you got there.

It's an unconventional tactic, making incorrect statements in order to force the other side to continue to insist on the truth they outlined at the beginning of the discussion, but I'll be damned if it didn't work to get whembly to repeatedly say the same correct thing.

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:

It's an unconventional tactic, making incorrect statements in order to force the other side to continue to insist on the truth they outlined at the beginning of the discussion, but I'll be damned if it didn't work to get whembly to repeatedly say the same correct thing.

No, it isn't unconventional; it is just teaching.

**djones520**

dogma wrote:
Seaward wrote:

It's an unconventional tactic, making incorrect statements in order to force the other side to continue to insist on the truth they outlined at the beginning of the discussion, but I'll be damned if it didn't work to get whembly to repeatedly say the same correct thing.

No, it isn't unconventional; it is just teaching.

Full of themselves, someone is.

**d-usa**

They stopped enforcement of section 5 by striking down section 4 which is needed for section 5 to be of any use.

It's not rocket science. All congress needs to do is to come up with a new formula for section 4 and everything is back in order.

I'm not counting on congress to get anything done.

**Ahtman**

djones520 wrote:
dogma wrote:
Seaward wrote:

It's an unconventional tactic, making incorrect statements in order to force the other side to continue to insist on the truth they outlined at the beginning of the discussion, but I'll be damned if it didn't work to get whembly to repeatedly say the same correct thing.

No, it isn't unconventional; it is just teaching.

Full of themselves, someone is.

Or, they actually are a teacher. Possibly in the realm of government and politics.

**Jihadin**

After reading the old section 4....it needs to be rewritten. If the government wants to an ass about it they can throw it at any state. Imagine AZ getting hit with it.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
Seaward wrote:

It's an unconventional tactic, making incorrect statements in order to force the other side to continue to insist on the truth they outlined at the beginning of the discussion, but I'll be damned if it didn't work to get whembly to repeatedly say the same correct thing.

No, it isn't unconventional; it is just teaching.

Nice walkback...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
They stopped enforcement of section 5 by striking down section 4 which is needed for section 5 to be of any use.

It's not rocket science. All congress needs to do is to come up with a new formula for section 4 and everything is back in order.

I'm not counting on congress to get anything done.

That's true...

But, remember, the VRA as a whole is still in force. It just means that the burden is on the DoJ if the challenge any future state voting laws.

**Seaward**

Ahtman wrote:
Or, they actually are a teacher. Possibly in the realm of government and politics.

Or he didn't bother actually reading the decision, then had to backtrack fast when it turned out his assertions were inaccurate, so treated us to this bizarre "I'm going to say a lot of incorrect stuff as you continue to repeat the correct stuff!" version of the Socratic method.

**Easy E**

.... I was just testing you.

**Ouze**

I don't this is too big of a deal despite the play it's getting. I think it's probably the right call to make, as well.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
I don't this is too big of a deal despite the play it's getting. I think it's probably the right call to make, as well.

I agree... I just never thought I'd see the SC do this.

*shrugs*

Watch out for crazy gerrymanderings.... (which happens everywhere).

**azazel the cat**

While I think the VRA is there for a very good reason, I don't quite understand why it was previously only applicable to a few states, and not all the states.