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.
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.
This is incorrect. You may not be persuaded by the evidence, but there is evidence. Read the briefs.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.