November 9, 2012

Supreme Court takes Voting Rights Act case.

WaPo reports:
The justices three years ago expressed skepticism about the continued need for Section 5 of the historic act, which requires states and localities with a history of discrimination, most of them in the South, to get federal approval of any changes in their voting laws....
That is, the law applies differently to different states, based on their record with voting and race decades ago.

22 comments:

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

That's the first good news since Tuesday. Get the 'Justice' Department - a misnomer for the last four, and now the next four years - out of its crusade to interfere with elections without resraint.

The Drill SGT said...

Those Southern states should not be punished 50 years later. They are not the same places.

Many have been representd in Congress by blacks over the years. they are not more racist than say: Marin County, CA.

Big Mike said...

Not just "decades ago," but a half century ago.

Dante said...

Where is equal protection under the laws when you need it.

Dante said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

A lot of stuff needs to be done before Obama can screw everything up worse. Watch for a spike in medical procedures by Medicare benes who fear the death panels.

Ann Althouse said...

"Not just "decades ago," but a half century ago."

The current formula is based on 1972, 40 years ago.

caplight45 said...

I could only hope that they would retire it under equal protection. What a wonderful dent it would put in the Racist Dept of the Justice Department and the Race Industry.

Sorun said...

Those Southern states should not be punished 50 years later. They are not the same places.

They are in the minds of people from the Northeast, which is where most of SCOTUS comes from. Three or four from NYC alone.

Simon said...

The Supreme Court was crystal clear in NAMUDNO--they told Congress "fix this now, or we invalidate it in the next case to come up here." Congress did nothing. The next case is here.

Hagar said...

According to that NYT map, the exception to the general Republican trend in the last election was the "Deep South" states, and I guess a good part of that is due to the reported movement of Black people back from the "rustbelt" states they fled to in the mid-20th century.

Would they bee moving back south if DoJ oversight was still needed for them to vote?

garage mahal said...

Those Southern states should not be punished 50 years later. They are not the same places.

What's different?

Rabel said...

Ten townships in New Hampshire are covered. As you point out above, their governor and all four of their reps are white women. The evidence is clear, it's obviously it's too soon to take the federal boot off the neck of those bigots.

Weak reasoning, I know, but probably as good as much of what will be presented in defense of Section 5.

Chuck said...

The curious thing about Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (it is to me a dumb anachronism now, at the very least) is what to say about it.

Was it somehow a due process problem all along? A statute that was Constitutionally defective in its design all along?

Or does it now fail, based on some recent change in circumstances in the affected states? Is is somehow a fact question?

sane_voter said...

The DOJ needs to focus on Philly and Chicago election fraud and leave the South alone.

Marshal said...

garage mahal said...
Those Southern states should not be punished 50 years later. They are not the same places.

What's different?


Garage has made 80 or so comments today, every one of them trying to be as big an asshole as he possibly could be. But recently someone said there are people of good will on both sides and specifically included him. Can anyone who thinks that please identify what they're talking about?

mccullough said...

The problem is that Congress reauthorized it in 2006 without any findings that there continued to be any pattern of discrimination in any of the covered jurisdictions.

No member of Congress wanted to be accused of voting against the extension for fear of being labeled a racist. But there was no reason to extend it. Striking down section 5 is not judicial activism. It's an acknowledgment that state and local racism in the voting process has been eradicated. There was no basis to keep stigmatizing these covered jurisdictions as being racially hostile.

Hagar said...

There was an old Bennet Cerf story: When WWII broke out in 1939 all Britain was blacked out at night so as to avoid providing guide lights for the Luftwaffe. However, a wavering light was seen one night proceeding toward the cliffs of Dover. The Home Guard rushed on over to arrest the culprit and found an old man dressed up as sort of a Beefeater and carrying an oldfashioned lantern. He turned out to be the last of a family that had been ordered by Queen Elizabeth I to go down to the cliffs every night and look for the Spanish Armada, and no one had thought to cancel the order.
And that's how government works.

William said...

Gather your rosebuds while ye may. After Obama names the next two or three Supreme Court Justices, this law will be applied not just to southern states but to all states equally. And laws outlawing slavery are applicable to SUV's. No man has a right to own another man or an SUV.

Sam L. said...

And 40 years is two (2) generations ago. Still, towns and counties can and do have people in offices for many years.

Big Mike said...

The current formula is based on 1972, 40 years ago.

I stand corrected. [Infer heavily sarcastic tone in my voice.]

McTriumph said...

The ignorance of the New South is astounding. Compare the numbers of minorities holding public office in the South with other regions. Did DOJ elect these minorities or the citizens?