# SCOTUS strikes down part of Voting Rights Act **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 25, 2013, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/661905 "2013-06-25T19:34:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Clu-Me-In](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@Clu-Me-In](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clu-Me-In)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2013, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/661905/1 "2013-06-25T19:34:56Z")
How will [this](http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/25/19132385-supreme-court-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act?lite) SCOTUS decision affect voting rights? ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2013, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/661905/2 "2013-06-25T19:51:24Z")
Your question is more suited for Great Debates or IMHO since there is no simple answer. The current Congress will do nothing. That’s because a segment of Congress will do nothing to enfranchise voters who would be inclined to vote out that same segment of Congress. In other words, the Republican / conservative / religious right / Tea Partyesque members of Congress will are celebrating today’s Court decision and will do little, if anything, to cut off their own noses. > [@](#): > > \*Analysis \*-- A divided Congress faces skepticism about its ability to function as it now meets the challenge of revising a key portion of the Voting Rights Act. And recent history provides ample evidence to fuel the lack of optimism in handling this political hot potato. > > The current Congress has been unable to pass bills on issues from gun control to the budget and even the farm bill. Matters once considered routine have been hung up by partisanship and ideology. The last Congress was the least productive in history when quantified by passed legislation, and this Congress is not far off that pace. > > – snip – > > But even the White House acknowledges the political realities. “This is not a welcome decision, by any means, but there is a theoretical path for Congress to update the statute in ways that would make it constitutional.” A senior adviser told NBC News: “As a practical matter, that may be difficult to do given political dynamics.” [Politics: Latest news and headlines | NBC News](http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/25/19134566-a-divided-congress-gets-political-hot-potato-from-high-court?lite) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2013, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/661905/3 "2013-06-25T21:54:07Z")
As has been mentioned in the Pit threads, [Texas is already moving](http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/texas-advances-voter-id-law-after-supreme-court-ruling.php) to take advantage of this ruling to push forward on voting ID laws and use gerrymandered maps. So I expect the widespread disenfranchisement of people with dark skin to be a result of this. ---
**Author:** ![rsat3acr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a3d4f5/32.png) [@rsat3acr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsat3acr)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/661905/4 "2013-06-26T01:08:53Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > As has been mentioned in the Pit threads, [Texas is already moving](http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/texas-advances-voter-id-law-after-supreme-court-ruling.php) to take advantage of this ruling to push forward on voting ID laws and use gerrymandered maps. > > So I expect the widespread disenfranchisement of people with dark skin to be a result of this. Hell, we already have gerrymandered maps. As for voter ID, I don’t have a problem with that. Most people don’t vote most of the time. Informed citizenship takes a bit of effort and most people can’t be botherd to make effort. I think most disenfranchisement is self imposed. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/661905/5 "2013-06-26T02:17:16Z")
> [@rsat3acr](#): > > Hell, we already have gerrymandered maps. As for voter ID, I don’t have a problem with that. > > Most people don’t vote most of the time. Informed citizenship takes a bit of effort and most people can’t be botherd to make effort. I think most disenfranchisement is self imposed. And of course it’s merely a _coincidence_ that the disenfranchised tend to be poor and dark skinned and vote Democrat. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/661905/6 "2013-06-26T02:19:08Z")
Moved to Great Debates. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/661905/7 "2013-06-26T04:18:06Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > As has been mentioned in the Pit threads, [Texas is already moving](http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/texas-advances-voter-id-law-after-supreme-court-ruling.php) to take advantage of this ruling to push forward on voting ID laws and use gerrymandered maps. > > So I expect the widespread disenfranchisement of people with dark skin to be a result of this. Most of such laws tend to get blocked and bogged down in courts (if last year was any indication) so I doubt any sort of widespread disenfranchisement will occur. If anything, if the public anger is big enough, it may serve to further increase black voter registration and turnout. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/661905/8 "2013-06-26T06:03:42Z")
Pretty predictably. Laws that were blocked by the Voting Rights Act are no longer blocked, and those laws are going to be put into effect ASAP. See also: every red state hates brown people. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/661905/9 "2013-06-26T06:07:00Z")
Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and every other place where Republican governors and state government try to disenfranchise the poor, elderly and minorities makes it clear to me that this sort of shit is not limited to former slave states. We need a broader reading of the constitutional right to vote that makes the VRA redundant. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/661905/10 "2013-06-26T06:27:08Z")
> [@rsat3acr](#): > > Most people don’t vote most of the time. Informed citizenship takes a bit of effort and most people can’t be botherd to make effort. I think most disenfranchisement is self imposed. Where’s the nearest DMV to where you live? Back when I lived in the states, it was 30 miles away. That’s 30 miles with no transportation. Sure, I guess you could ride 30 miles each way on your bike, or maybe hitchhike (keeping in mind that not having ID precludes having a driver’s license), but that’s pretty much the entire day down the drain, plus you have to hope you can get ID at your first try (which often isn’t the case - sometimes, you’re missing something, or their computers are down, or some other shit comes into play). And of course, 60 miles round trip is small potatoes compared to the [200-250 cited in the texas court case](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/court-blocks-tough-voter-id-law-in-texas.html?_r=0). Enforcing voter ID laws means very realistically that some people simply will be completely unable to vote unless they take a massive road trip (without a car, mind you), and given the state of public transit in the USA, I wouldn’t rely on that either. And of course, it doesn’t have to make it _impossible_ - all it has to do is make it so that it’s a challenge that people aren’t willing to go through to vote. And that’s definitely the case with such laws - I think many people aren’t going to be bothered enough to get ID, given that it’s just one vote anyways. And for what? The number of voter fraud cases documented within the past 13 years (since the DOJ started a massive investigation under Bush) has been essentially non-existent. However, the number of eligible voters without ID has been a pretty constant 10%, and the groups most likely to not have ID include: - The Poor - Racial Minorities - The young - The elderly …So basically, 3/4 groups which are hard democrat, and one which is starting to move towards the democrats as the republicans become more extreme on their positions towards programs they rely on. It’s blatantly obvious that the goal of these laws is not to prevent the (virtually non-existent) voter fraud, but rather to _disenfranchise voters_. ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/661905/11 "2013-06-26T10:57:22Z")
So after stripping Americans of our right to remain silent unless we assert it, and our right to vote regardless of socioeconomic status, it’s not looking good for the gays that are also up for a ruling this week, is it? I guess we can be glad that Roberts had his one moment of benevolence back with the ACA. I knew it was too much to hope for another. ---
**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, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/661905/12 "2013-06-26T12:27:07Z")
> [@Duckster](#): > > The current Congress will do nothing. That’s because a segment of Congress will do nothing to enfranchise voters who would be inclined to vote out that same segment of Congress. In other words, the Republican / conservative / religious right / Tea Partyesque members of Congress will are celebrating today’s Court decision and will do little, if anything, to cut off their own noses. The 2006 reauthorization of section 5 of the VRA passed 390-33 and 98-0. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/661905/13 "2013-06-26T13:45:30Z")
> [@drewtwo99](#): > > So after stripping Americans of our right to remain silent unless we assert it, and our right to vote regardless of socioeconomic status, it’s not looking good for the gays that are also up for a ruling this week, is it? > > I guess we can be glad that Roberts had his one moment of benevolence back with the ACA. I knew it was too much to hope for another. The part of the VRA that prohibits voting acts or procedures with a discriminatory result is Section 2, which was unaffected by this ruling. Any discriminatory law that was illegal yesterday is still illegal today, and any that were legal yesterday are legal today. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/661905/14 "2013-06-26T14:04:54Z")
> [@drewtwo99](#): > > So after stripping Americans of our right to remain silent unless we assert it, and our right to vote regardless of socioeconomic status, it’s not looking good for the gays that are also up for a ruling this week, is it? Actually, it’s looking pretty good right now! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/661905/15 "2013-06-26T14:06:04Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > The part of the VRA that prohibits voting acts or procedures with a discriminatory result is Section 2, which was unaffected by this ruling. Any discriminatory law that was illegal yesterday is still illegal today, and any that were legal yesterday are legal today. But it effectively doesn’t matter since the list of places where it applies has been rescinded. Practically speaking, the VRA doesn’t apply anywhere until Congress approves a new list of locations. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/661905/16 "2013-06-26T14:19:25Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > But it effectively doesn’t matter since the list of places where it applies has been rescinded. Practically speaking, the VRA doesn’t apply anywhere until Congress approves a new list of locations. Nope, that’s incorrect. Section 2 applies to the entire nation. New York City can’t pass a law tomorrow requiring pure white blood to vote any more than Alabama could. It is Section 5 that only applies to certain districts, using critera spelled out in Section 4 (primarily, data from the 1964 election). This required the covered jurisdictions to pre-approve (or “pre-clear”) any changes in their election laws or procedures through the Department of Justice. _That_ is what has been struck down, the pre-clearance formula of Section 4. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/661905/17 "2013-06-26T18:28:48Z")
Chief Justice Roberts has made a finding, based on his personal mood, that this country has changed. The constitution authorizes remedies for voter restriction, Congress has passed them multiple times and tailored them as narrowly as possible to remedy the ill, and passed them by overwhelming margins. The one-vote majority of the Court has ruled the narrow remedy too narrow because it doesn’t cover all wider instances than Congress intended to address (or was authorized to address) and overturned previous decisions upholding the Voting Rights Act. Ignores all previous equal protection jurisprudence to substitute the judicial feeling that the country has changed in place of Congress’ findings. I’ve got to say that I never thought the conservative majority on the court would sink lower than Bush v. Gore, but this does it. The country has indeed changed. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/661905/18 "2013-06-26T18:31:15Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Nope, that’s incorrect. Section 2 applies to the entire nation. New York City can’t pass a law tomorrow requiring pure white blood to vote any more than Alabama could. > > It is Section 5 that only applies to certain districts, using critera spelled out in Section 4 (primarily, data from the 1964 election). This required the covered jurisdictions to pre-approve (or “pre-clear”) any changes in their election laws or procedures through the Department of Justice. > > _That_ is what has been struck down, the pre-clearance formula of Section 4. Yes, this is it. From what I read/heard - They struck down the requirement that some states had to have every little election process change approved in Washington, some don’t. The logic of the decision was the situation as it stood 50 years ago does not automatically apply today. Like the affirmative action ruling, they said - you need to look closer and explain the reasons/benefits for any actions based on the current circumstances. You cannot rely on the fact there was a serious problem many years ago to apply a restriction on rights today. However, if a law is passed anywhere today, a concerned group can still take it to court and have the discriminatory effect weighed against the seriousness of overriding a legally elected legislature. That part has not changed. For example, Texas said it will issue ID’s to those who do not have them. If the requirements or process turn out to be discriminatory (too far, too complex documentation needed, too expensive) Then preumably some court will override that law. Or not… ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/661905/19 "2013-06-26T18:38:06Z")
“Preclearance has worked so well that…we don’t need preclearance anymore!” Makes perfect sense. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/661905/20 "2013-06-26T19:05:26Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Chief Justice Roberts has made a finding, based on his personal mood, that this country has changed. The constitution authorizes remedies for voter restriction, Congress has passed them multiple times and tailored them as narrowly as possible to remedy the ill, and passed them by overwhelming margins. The one-vote majority of the Court has ruled the narrow remedy too narrow because it doesn’t cover all wider instances than Congress intended to address (or was authorized to address) and overturned previous decisions upholding the Voting Rights Act. > > Ignores all previous equal protection jurisprudence to substitute the judicial feeling that the country has changed in place of Congress’ findings. > > I’ve got to say that I never thought the conservative majority on the court would sink lower than Bush v. Gore, but this does it. The country has indeed changed. That the conditions the VRA Section 4 formula were created to address no longer exist to the same extent or in the same places isn’t anyone’s personal mood, it’s a fact. Read the [DoJ’s](http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/051006VRAStatReport.pdf) report on the matter if you don’t believe me. > [@md2000](#): > > Yes, this is it. > From what I read/heard - They struck down the requirement that some states had to have every little election process change approved in Washington, some don’t. The logic of the decision was the situation as it stood 50 years ago does not automatically apply today. Like the affirmative action ruling, they said - you need to look closer and explain the reasons/benefits for any actions based on the current circumstances. You cannot rely on the fact there was a serious problem many years ago to apply a restriction on rights today. Essentially; the objection wasn’t to some states being pre-cleared and others not, it was to the formula being used to decide which ones were and were not. > [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > “Preclearance has worked so well that…we don’t need preclearance anymore!” > > Makes perfect sense. That wasn’t the ruling, it was that pre-clearance based on this _particular_ 47-year old formula, was no longer acceptable. Pre-clearance remains constitutional, but a new formula must be created. People genuinely in favor of voting rights being protected should support the creation of a new formula, since it would presumably cover districts that are engaged in (minor compared to the past, but still extant) voter discrimination _right now_, rather than focus on ones that did it in 1964 (or were covered by the formula despite no actual efforts at discrimination). We don’t use 1964 as the basis for our laws governing cars, or computer crimes, or any number of things. It shouldn’t be the basis for voting pre-clearance either. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/661905.md?page=2)