# Practical effects of Shelby County v. Holder? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 25, 2013, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878 "2013-06-25T16:23:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878/21 "2013-06-26T13:31:15Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I don’t have the energy. But your post makes it clear that you’re not especially well-informed on this issue yourself. A good place to start is the amicus briefs in _Shelby_. > > In particular, you seem to be entirely ignorant of the so-called “second generation” tactics that Ginsburg refers to in her dissent, and also of the history of Section 4. Well aware of it, found it unpersuasive. I even brought it up in another thread. Especially when other States pass “problematic” laws all the time that sustain judicial challenge. No one is arguing States don’t do inappropriate stuff with voter registration laws, I’m just saying there’s no evidence the nine pre-clearance States do so to any different degree than other States. Plus, all the practical indicators show that the preclearance States have succeeded in giving the vote to minorities dramatically better than anyone probably ever could have imagined in the 1960s. And when it comes to “ill informed” I hope you aren’t talking about the poll tax / literacy test stuff, because anyone who thinks that was affected by this ruling is simply too ignorant of the issues to even discuss it. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878/22 "2013-06-26T13:33:14Z")
The ability to institute more restrictive voting cannot be good. The ability to gerrymander unimpeded might be good or might be bad. If the GOP wants to capture the entirety of federal congressional districts in the south, they might have to draw districts so closely that slightly more moderate politicians might be elected. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878/23 "2013-06-26T13:35:10Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I’m just saying there’s no evidence the nine pre-clearance States do so to any different degree than other States. This is incorrect. You may not be persuaded by the evidence, but there is evidence. Read the briefs. > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > And when it comes to “ill informed” I hope you aren’t talking about the poll tax / literacy test stuff, because anyone who thinks that was affected by this ruling is simply too ignorant of the issues to even discuss it. No, I was not. I was talking about your exclusive focus on the voting issues present in the 60s and 70s instead of the issues around today. That’s an argument relevant to the judicial opinion, but not to the practical effects of it. ---
**Author:** ![Parthol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/dec6dc/32.png) [@Parthol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Parthol)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878/24 "2013-06-26T13:43:17Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > … > > No one is arguing States don’t do inappropriate stuff with voter registration laws, I’m just saying there’s no evidence the nine pre-clearance States do so to any different degree than other States. Plus, all the practical indicators show that the preclearance States have succeeded in giving the vote to minorities dramatically better than anyone probably ever could have imagined in the 1960s. > > … But don’t you think the recent change in the preclearance states is _because_ of the preclearance restrictions? And that in large part those states haven’t tried passing more voter-suppression laws _because_ they’ve known they were under greater scrutiny? As Ginsburg said in her dissent: “The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the [Voting Rights Act] has proven effective … Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878/25 "2013-06-26T13:45:39Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Another thing: The Court did not rule that the entire concept of pre-clearance is unconstitutional, but rather that it was impermissible to continue to use the VRA’s original formula for determining what states and localities needed to be pre-cleared. The Court expressly said that Congress can now (if it chooses) enact a new formula to determine who needs pre-clearance, using updated criteria for identifying racial discrimination. I agree with your post. It’s now up to Congress to address (or not address) the situation. It’s up to Congress to decide if another pre-clearance law is still required. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878/26 "2013-06-26T16:13:36Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I agree with your post. It’s now up to Congress to address (or not address) the situation. It’s up to Congress to decide if another pre-clearance law is still required. Alternatively, Congress could extend the pre-clearance provision nationwide. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878/27 "2013-06-26T16:35:37Z")
That wouldn’t fly. The preclearance was justified based on a history of voter suppression by a particular region. Congress can create new formulas, or name new regions, but that would be politically… awkward, which is why it won’t be done. And frankly, it doesn’t need to be done. Preclearance is a relic of a time long past and has been abused by this administration. A few years ago, a North Carolina city wanted to remove party affiliation from the ballot. The federal government told them no. It was a blatantly partisan decision with no justification. The VRA’s substance still stands. All that’s been removed is the summary judgement part of it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878/28 "2013-06-26T17:31:17Z")
> [@Parthol](#): > > But don’t you think the recent change in the preclearance states is _because_ of the preclearance restrictions? And that in large part those states haven’t tried passing more voter-suppression laws _because_ they’ve known they were under greater scrutiny? > > As Ginsburg said in her dissent: “The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the [Voting Rights Act] has proven effective … Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” And, yes, **it’s still raining.** ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878/29 "2013-06-26T18:29:40Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > You guys are ridiculous. For one, the fact that in some of these States are on their way to being minority-majority, have tons of black elected officials and etc seems to be totally escaping your attention. You’re the one being ridiculous. You’re correlating amount of elected black officials in the South as some weird metric to show how unracist and how equal the U.S is. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I guess all the black voters in places like Mississippi and Georgia are so week and infantile they’ll never be able to do anything about the invincible white Gods of the South without the Federal government protecting them? Exactly so, Martin Hyde. The U.S government freed the slaves, passed a host of amendments giving them personhood, passed the Civil Rights Amendment, and even sent troops to allow a little black girl to go to school with very little support from the South. The South has shown time and time again how they feel about minorities, just take a look at Paula Deen, the self-styled embodiment of southern “hospitality” or the fact that these Southern states have still yet to ratify slavery amendments and interracial marriage. The South is panicking because in order to keep from turning blue, they must staunch the implacable tide of minorities that are pouring into their voter rolls. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878/30 "2013-06-26T18:37:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > And, yes, **it’s still raining.** How will we know when it’s not raining anymore? That’s the problem, you can’t maintain special treatment of certain regions forever. If voting rights are not secure now, when black turnout exceeds white turnout(albeit due to a black Presidential candidate), when will we know? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878/31 "2013-06-26T18:42:40Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > How will we know when it’s not raining anymore? The VRA provides mechanisms for that, as has been pointed out to you several times in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878/32 "2013-06-26T18:48:52Z")
Those mechanisms were inadequate. Because many places under the preclearance requirements had outstanding minority turnout rates for decades. And although it wasn’t part of the court case, the preclearance had been abused by this administration in a partisan fashion. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878/33 "2013-06-26T18:51:32Z")
Then they have no problem. Good. If those measures stay in place, they will continue not to have a problem. What onerous burden is placed by those reviews? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878/34 "2013-06-26T18:59:35Z")
There’s no problem with everyplace being under the same rules. Is there a compelling reason why in 2013 some of the country needs more scrutiny than the rest of the country? So much so that only summary judgment can bring about justice? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878/35 "2013-06-26T19:01:50Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > There’s no problem with everyplace being under the same rules. Is there a compelling reason why in 2013 some of the country needs more scrutiny than the rest of the country? So much so that only summary judgment can bring about justice? Past history. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878/36 "2013-06-26T19:02:43Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > There’s no problem with everyplace being under the same rules. Is there a compelling reason why in 2013 some of the country needs more scrutiny than the rest of the country? So much so that only summary judgment can bring about justice? You do realize that if the DOJ refuses to pre-clear, that’s not the end of the story, right? Calling it “summary judgment” is pretty misleading. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878/37 "2013-06-26T19:08:03Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Past history. Nothing has changed since 1964? Maybe Robert Byrd should have had to have his votes precleared due to his past history. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878/38 "2013-06-26T19:15:53Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Nothing has changed since 1964? Maybe Robert Byrd should have had to have his votes precleared due to his past history. Do you actually want to compare Robert Byrd’s progression over the years to that of the Texas legislature? Just look at what they attempted to do seconds after the SCOTUS decision. edited to add: In other words, Byrd changed. Texas didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878/39 "2013-06-26T19:40:26Z")
Texas is not what it was in 1964. That’s just absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878/40 "2013-06-26T19:59:38Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Nothing has changed since 1964? Maybe Robert Byrd should have had to have his votes precleared due to his past history. Well, technically since 1972. The VRA was amended a couple times as it was renewed. But as best I can tell the metrics of the formula in section 4 are now [based upon voter registration and turnout percentages in the 1972 election](http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/misc/sec_4.php#formula). If Congress had kept updating the formula during each renewal then perhaps the court would have ruled differently. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/practical-effects-of-shelby-county-v-holder/661878.md?page=3)