End Times and Current Events
March 28, 2024, 04:53:14 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome To End Times and Current Events.
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

Shoutbox
March 27, 2024, 12:55:24 pm Mark says: Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked  When Hamas spokesman Abu Ubaida began a speech marking the 100th day of the war in Gaza, one confounding yet eye-opening proclamation escaped the headlines. Listing the motives for the Palestinian militant group's Oct. 7 massacre in Israel, he accused Jews of "bringing red cows" to the Holy Land.
December 31, 2022, 10:08:58 am NilsFor1611 says: blessings
August 08, 2018, 02:38:10 am suzytr says: Hello, any good churches in the Sacto, CA area, also looking in Reno NV, thanks in advance and God Bless you Smiley
January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-11-new-fda-approved-hepatitis-b-vaccine-found-to-increase-heart-attack-risk-by-700.html
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
View Shout History
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters  (Read 884 times)
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« on: June 25, 2013, 09:48:26 am »

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/washington/20130625-supreme-court-strikes-down-voting-rights-act-formula-that-put-heightened-scrutiny-on-texas.ece
6/25/13
Supreme Court strikes down Voting Rights Act formula that put heightened scrutiny on Texas

TODD J. GILLMAN
 
Washington Bureau Chief

Published: 25 June 2013 09:26 AM

Updated: 25 June 2013 09:32 AM

WASHINGTON — The US Supreme Court has struck down a central provision of the Voting Rights Act that has long put Texas and most of the South under federal scrutiny.

The historic ruling, by Chief Justice John Roberts, finds that the current formula for picking which states face such hurdles is outdated and unconstitutional. Until Congress devises a new formula that passes muster, these states no longer need to seek Justice Department approval ahead of time for new voter ID rules, congressional maps and other changes.

The court emphasized that other elements of the landmark law, enacted in 1965 and amended and extended several times since, remain in place. Allegations of bias can still be brought to court after the fact under Section 2, another provision.

“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,” Roberts wrote.

The ruling is here.

In practice, divisions in Congress — where Republicans control the House and Democrats control the Senate — suggest that it would be unlikely for lawmakers to quickly hammer out a new formula to subject certain states and not others to heightened federal scrutiny. GOP mistrust of the Obama administration Justice Department is running high, as well, making it even less likely Republicans would eagerly restore the authority the Roberts court stripped today.

The Feb. 27 oral arguments exposed a gaping ideological chasm among the justices.

Members of the court’s liberal wing found it hard to accept the argument that discrimination in the South and other targeted states has subsided enough to end decades of scrutiny.

Conservatives openly questioned the justification for treating states differently — particularly when some states that escape extra scrutiny have worse track records on discrimination in recent years.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the swing vote in divisive cases, expressed concern at the time about putting states under a sort of federal “trusteeship.”

The case hinged on the future of Section 5 of the landmark Voting Rights Act.

That provision requires covered jurisdictions to seek permission — known as preclearance — from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before making any election changes, from moving a polling site to redrawing the maps used to elect school boards, city councils, state legislators and members of Congress.

Even without that provision, Section 2 of the law allows for lawsuits after the fact nationwide
. But the Obama administration argued that going to court after a violation doesn’t create the same deterrent because that costs too much and takes too much time.

With lawsuits as the only recourse, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli told the justices, “You’re never going to get at all these thousands of under-the-radar changes.”

The lawyer for Shelby County, Ala., which brought the challenge, implored the justices to lift the “stigma of prior restraint.”

Section 5 covers Texas and eight other states, mostly in the South: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginia. Parts of six other states are also covered: California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Dakota and South Dakota. (Full list here.)

Jurisdictions can apply for bailout once they show they have not engaged in discrimination for 10 years, and a number have done so. The Justice Department has regularly found violations in Texas, however. Each violation resets the 10-year clock.

Since Texas came under the Voting Rights Act in 1975 for discrimination against Latino voters, Section 5 has been invoked to block more than 200 changes to election procedure.

The provision has been used to block gerrymandered political maps each of the last four decades. Last summer, a federal court made yet another such finding, days before another court blocked Texas’ strict new voter ID law, finding unanimously that it would impose “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor.”

Critics say the law would have left 795,000 registered voters without an acceptable ID.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott argued in a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Shelby County that federal oversight thwarts legitimate state policy-making. He alleged “abusive and heavy-handed tactics” but the Obama Justice Department.

Congress renewed the Voting Rights Act in 2006 for 25 years with support from lawmakers in most every covered jurisdiction. The votes were overwhelming: 98-0 in the Senate, 390-33 in the House. President George W. Bush signed the extension into law.

At oral arguments, Justice Antonin Scalia brushed aside the significance of the lopsided congressional votes, calling it natural for politicians to avoid offending constituents. He left little mystery about his sympathies, calling the Voting Rights Act “the perpetuation of racial entitlement” – a comment the Rev. Al Sharpton, a civil rights activist, called “the height of insult.”

The Supreme Court all but invited a challenge to Section 5 in a case decided three years ago. That case involved a small utility district in northwest Austin that had no history of racial discrimination. With support from all but one justice, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion that the time was nearing for the court to revisit formulas used to decide which states get extra federal scrutiny.

Shelby County, near Birmingham, has lost more than 240 discrimination cases. For minority advocates, that made it a poster child for why preclearance is needed.
Report Spam   Logged


Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy