How can you know someone’s intent? Is this a real question? The legal system makes judgments of this kind everyday are far more important and weighty matters. More importantly, these “bureaucrats” reject less than .1% of changes proposed. If you are gonna act like these people are making arbitrary politically motivated decisions, they must be remarkably restrained.
Why 10 years? You are also ignoring that districts can apply to bail out if they can demonstrate they shouldn’t be covered.
No it’s not. You keep repeating this as if it has any merit. You can make pretty good statistical measurements on things far more complicated and convoluted. The fact that you keep acting as though relying on a superficial statistical measurement is our only choice just highlights the weakness of your claims.
How many times does this need to be repeated? Just because more Blacks vote doesn’t mean someone isn’t trying to enact laws to prevent them from doing so along racial lines. Especially when their hands are routinely tied by legislation to prevent such a thing from happening.
As far as ways to measure this more accurately:
Compare the likely outcomes from legislation proposed on covered states to other states.
Measure the differences in voter turnout, representation, proposed legislation, etc., in districts that were able to bail out before and after the bail out, and against nearby districts.
And there are plenty of other ways to do this that I am sure someone could figure out.
They don’t know that it’s not unique to those states because they didn’t bother to look at any data that would be able to actually substantiate that claim. I am not claiming to know whether they are worse or not, but I sure as hell wouldn’t claim they are better based on such crappy factoids.
This is clearly false. Why you would even bother to make such a definitive and spurious statement is beyond me.
Which is an entirely separate argument. The issue is why the court felt the superficial data they used justified the conclusions they drew. It doesn’t.
For example, let’s say I have two kids who love to go to the casino. One day, my son makes a really bad, expensive bet, and loses a lot of money which I cover for him. From that point on, we agree he must clear any bet with me before he makes it. My daughter on the other hand had, at the time of her brother’s bad bet, relatively superior judgement and gambling skill. Now over the years, my son comes to me every now and then with horrendous wagers that I, of course, reject. Five years pass without incident (aside from my son having his bets denied by me). One day, my son comes to me and says he should not have to clear his bets with me because he has money now, so he does not have poor judgment anymore. Should I agree with his logic?
Maybe, maybe not. But, him having money doesn’t mean he is a better or more prudent gambler, it just means he has money.
Social Security number, not card. You do not have to show the actual Social Security card to register using your Social Security number. And I forgot about this earlier, but if you vote absentee (or provisional), you can use your Social Security number to vote without ever providing the card, so in Ohio, you can register to vote and cast a ballot (except at a polling place on a normal ballot/machine) without ever showing any ID papers.
Not that I’m happy with everything going on in Ohio election law, but Ohio’s current ID law is materially very different from what the situation will be in Texas at the next election. (I wouldn’t put it past the General Assembly to enact a photo ID law, though. They tried last year but had to take it out at the last minute.)
Alright, but like I listed, there are many other States that require photo ID other than Texas now. Only two others were subject to preclearance, Tennessee, Hawaii, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, and Rhode Island were not. This just reinforces that there is not a substantial difference between the preclearance States and the other 41 States such as justifies denying equal sovereignty. So just the Texas Photo ID law is no evidence that Texas should still be required to go through preclearance, unless you believe Rhode Island and Arkansas should also be required to get preclearance.
Even preclearance isn’t a great protection against the Photo ID laws. The DoJ did not preclear South Carolina’s Photo ID voting requirement so South Carolina took the case to Federal court–and won, at the district level.
I’m not going to engage in third grade style repeater games with you. I’ll leave it standing (and won’t argue it again): actual voter participation is real data. “Projections” about the impact of a law are predictions. It’s the difference between knowing what GEs stock price was on 2/5/2013 and predicting what it’ll be on 2/5/2014.
Cite? I didn’t realize you were privy to private SCOTUS deliberations and the results of their research.
Clearly not false.
Actually the court looked at a lot of the data you assert is so import. Ginsburg did, and mentions it in her dissent. But five of the justices looked at that data and felt it wasn’t compelling compared to the fact that many non-preclearance States were passing laws that were routinely being denied preclearance in the nine preclearance States (suggesting that either the laws shouldn’t have been denied or that preclearance shouldn’t be applied only to the nine) or compared to the voter participation numbers. You can disagree/whine about that all you want, but five SCOTUS justices trump you 7 days a week.
Actually, no, just impact. As amended in 1982, Section 2 of the VRA (the part that prohibits voting discrimination) applies to anything that results in discrimination. Intent doesn’t matter at all for this law. Relevant statute:
Of course, it’s a lot easier to pass the bill with the status quo list of states and municipalities subject to pre-clearance than to get the House and Senate to agree that this state, this town, that county will now be subject to pre-clearance.
Regarding the method of determining whether a change is racist or not (using voting turnout as a proxy or something else) – it seems irrelevant to the question of whether the decision itself was an example of judicial activism. Results-based rulings, rather than principles-based seems like a good indicator of activism, right?
Also, you really cannot go back to the constitution as it was originally written, since the 15th amendment specifically put congress’s decisions above state sovereignty when it comes to voting rights.
RitterSport what do you think of Roberts argument that he agrees the Federal government gets to regulate voting, but that it needs a compelling reason to treat the States differently when it does so? The ruling doesn’t say that State sovereignty trumps the Federal government’s power to regulate voting under the 15th amendment.
Instead what it says is that the lion’s share of voting laws have and always have been crafted by the States, and when you deny that right to a small number of the States under the aegis of the 15th amendment or whatever aegis you better have a very compelling reason to treat one State different from another.
I just don’t see it as judicial activism. The argument makes a lot of sense to me, in that this was only allowed in the first place because of a compelling reason based on facts at hand. That’s the same kind of thing that resulted in the Brown ruling and is why the Brown court overruled an extremely old precedent and something that had been settled law for a very long time. Basically it was found that in practice, separate could not be equal and thus it was unconstitutional.
The court in this case uses a very similar type of thinking process, that history has changed the facts in the case–the compelling reason that justified the Katzenbach court in allowing the Federal government to treat States as “differently sovereign” was not shown to apply with the criteria the Congress used in 2006.
Once the court gave Congress the power to do something unconstitutional–treat States as unequal, but justified it by weighing the equality of the States against voting rights of citizens then it’s not judicial activism for the Court to periodically look at the situation on the ground to see if that justification is still real. Ideally the Congress would be the first line in that, and would have let the preclearance requirements expire years ago–or barring that would have changed the formula to be fairer. But they didn’t, and after a previous court case that already warned about this sort of thing, the court finally ruled that it just wasn’t justified anymore.
It’d be like if a court ruled that military governorships were justified for the Southern states in 1868 but then the Federal government had tried to keep them in place up through the 20th century. It wouldn’t be judicial activism for a later court to say, “Okay, these military governorships have to end. It was acceptable due to extreme circumstances that are no longer present, many of the armed insurrections are old men or dead now.”
White racists who are nervous about the changing demographics in their states. We’ll just need to work harder to get out the vote here in Texas.
If our state turns Blue, the Republicans will never again get enough electoral votes to put one of their guys in the White House. They realized this after the last vote on the act…
Thank you for the clarification between equal sovereignty (the same as “equal footing”, no?) and state sovereignty.
I still don’t see where equal sovereignty is spelled out in the Constitution. It seems to stem from Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1, but that just says that new states should have the same footing as existing ones when they join, not that Congress can’t pass laws that effect states unequally (it doesn’t even say that textually, but I guess SCOTUS ruled that way a long, long time ago).
It seems to me that there are plenty of laws that effect states unequally - consider disaster relief bills that only apply to certain states and not others. Are those also unconstitutional?
I think that finding that kind of emanation or penumbra is judicial activism. Scalia certainly couldn’t find it in the text of the document, and he signed on to the majority ruling.
This thread is not meant to be whether the result was good and just, whether the methods congress used were appropriate or inappropriate. Those kinds of findings are what the liberal judges are accused of doing when they are accused of activism.
It’s meant to be whether the finding is a clear example of judicial activism.
That’s not a very good argument. Roberts problem with preclearance wasn’t just simply that some States had to go through preclearance and some didn’t. It’s that the criteria to decide whether a State should be subject to preclearance was fundamentally different for some States versus others. It appears States like Ohio and Pennsylvania by and large would never be subject to preclearance almost regardless of their actions, while the nine States in the South were assumed to need preclearance by default.
Your argument might make sense if the Federal government had a policy of directing disaster relief only to States on the Atlantic seaboard in times of disaster, but they do not. They distribute disaster relief funds to States as needed, using a generally equal criteria for evaluating when something is a “Federal disaster” requiring aid.
Definitely not; the decision fundamentally follows the same reasoning that the court has considered for a great while now. They considered the situation anomalous for some time, and since the Fed did not correct the issue, the Supreme Court opted to force the issue. More to the point, there’s a difference between forcing a change of some kind and judicial activism. The principles here are a surprise to no one.
This isn’t any kind of judicial activism. The Court construed its authority narrowly and did not specify a specific rule, law, or path that must be taken. It instead pointed out a significant and unacceptable flaw in the existing law, nullified only the relevant portions for the time being, and pointed out explicitly how Congress can reinstate the effect through a neutral formulation.
I can’t see how it is, given Roberts argument. He established pretty clearly for me that States are supposed to be equally sovereign, and then supports his point by referencing the original case upholding the VRA and notes that the court at that time even considered the VRA’s inequal treatment of the States to be an extraordinary act.
So to me if anything is judicial activism it was a 1966 court that basically said, “this isn’t really something we should legally be doing, but a hundred year history of racial disenfranchisement necessitates it.” That’s making new law to correct a societal problem–the definition of judicial activism. I don’t see how reigning that law in a bit 47 years later on the logic that the justification for such a thing is weaker now can be judicial activism while the original ruling in Katzenbach wasn’t. And if the original ruling was judicial activism, then this has to be viewed as a much weaker type of judicial activism since it is intentionally clipping the scope of the Katzenbach decision.
What I actually said was I do not see how one can call it judicial activism unless you also consider the original ruling that allowed for inequal State sovereignty in the first place judicial activism. I’m not sure I view either as judicial activism, but rather as valid judicial exercise of their valid Article III powers.
When different competing constitutional principles compete, the Supreme Court has to make tough decisions one way or the other. That’s what happened in Roe, that doesn’t intrinsically make something judicial activism.
Judicial activism to me is more like specifying a specific type of busing plan a school district has to follow.
But are you saying Katzenbach was judicial activism?
See, I disagree. The court didn’t say that the law violated the constitution. It instead made up a rule that the criteria have to be more up-to-date or something. It wasn’t as if the legislature hasn’t revisited the law since the sixties or seventies. They renewed it in 2006, by a huge margin. The court has now stepped in and told congress how it has to review its own rules.
What part of the constitution did section 4 violate? By Roberts’ own admission, no part – section 4 is OK, but it has to be updated.
And so they haven’t had one single incident of race-based voting problems since 1965? Which is apparently the requirement (10 years racism free) to get out of Section 4 sanctions.