Nitpick: as Bricker pointed out on the first page, the Voting Rights Act has nothing to do with poll taxes or literacy tests.
I know that part. I was wondering whether the attempt has been made to reauthorize and extend (which reinforces the intent of the original measure), not defeat reauthorization (which just skulks out of it). Edit: never mind, I see the part later in your post that covers this. Thank you.
Agreed, but the temporariness here should be the higher standard being applied to the subject states, not the protection of rights qua rights.
Well, there was a little thing called the War of Northern Aggression fought over it… 
But having lived in both Boston and North Carolina I can state the former was a far, far more racist place.
Agreed, just pointing out that using “the slave states” to mean “the South” is ignorance. In addition to New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, it also included Missouri, the New Mexico Territory and the Utah Territory
Agreed again, I mentioned that figure as evidence that the bailout process is difficult, which explains, at least as much and almost certainly more so than continued disenfranchisement, why so many jurisdictions are still required to preclear. If I implied that this was a basis for overturning the law, that was not my intention.
Right, but not because of the VRA.
It’s not that simple, see the requirements I quoted, nor is it without costs.
In that case, let’s make every jurisdiction in the US preclear through the DoJ. Would you be opposed to this?
Again, then, let’s preclear everywhere.
That’s what I meant, Section 5 was meant to be temporary, not the entire VRA.
Yep, and my slave-holding state of Kentucky was on the Northern side.
This board cracks me up. Let me get this straight: 200 years of slavery, 100 years of legal segregation and disfranchisement, followed by 47 years of of “freedom” (and I use that word loosely), and we’re supposed to trust the South and conservatives to play nice when they have been placing their foot on the back of minorities’ neck since they arrived on these shores? LOL! It’s absurd and it’s even more absurd that the Supreme Court of the-fucking-United States is debating whether the Act is constitutional.
White people reneged on the Civil Rights Movement - first it was Affirmative Action (which is now destroyed) and now it’s the Voting Rights Act. What’s next? Equal employment? Housing? Pay? Here’s a real question for all of you: Why bother pretending MLK dream was achievable and make legislation to that end but quickly start dismantling it a few years after MLK dies? This effort (as well as previous efforts) is nothing but a bold-face attempt to roll back the gains of the Civil Rights Movement in order to stifle the power of minorities at the ballot box.
- Honesty
I agree, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
I will just note the political irony of GOP-nominated justices undoing the Voting Rights Act (perhaps one of the most popular bills in the country, certainly amongst minorities) at the same time the party is trying to rid itself of the “unfriendly to minorities” label. Actions speak louder than words.
Whether it’s useful or needed is a separate question from whether it is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is doing its job.
Depends on why the legislation is being dismantled, does it not? If it’s unconstitutional, of course it has to go. If it’s not needed, then it should probably go. If it’s neither, then we can keep it.
And yet, Kentucky wasn’t made a covered jurisdiction in 1965. Point being, racism and discrimination isn’t a state-level yes-or-no matter, particularly over decades.
Alright then. Assuming the VRA remains constitutional, I’d rather extend it to every jurisdiction or make it easier for jurisdictions to bail out. The continued focus on the South is what’s problematic, not the aims of the VRA as such. And as was noted earlier, perhaps it could be brought to bear against more modern forms of disenfranchisment, like voter ID laws.
You can’t really correlate judicial opinions to parties like that.
Also, the last time the VRA went to SCOTUS, it was an 8-1 decision in favor of making bailout easier, not split among GOP / Dem nominated judges.
So he seems to be quoting somebody else, but I can’t find anyone else who used the phrase “perpetuation of racial entitlements”.
These and comments like these are the primary reason that racism will never die.
It isn’t the fact that racism doesn’t still exist, I imagine that it does but its getting smaller and less effective.
This is plain and simple punishment of everyone for a crime ,people long dead, committed. You are the cause of the perpetuation of this thinking. You will NEVER make amends for things long past. Fix it and move forward.
You may bring up the past as long and as often as you want, as long as it propels us all forward but that isn’t how the past gets brought up or used. It gets used as a bludgeoning tool to keep harping about how bad someone once had it.
Times have changed, the ones who keep looking for some method of redress or compensation for something other people did, a long long time ago, are misplacing all that energy.
You and I know that, sure (although the argument could be made that after time it becomes clear which party will nominate justices that will support, for example, AA).
Either way, the headlines will read “Conservative Justices Overturn Voting Rights Act”. Then you will have Democratic Senators and Representatives denouncing the decision. You will have Republican ones either supporting it or remaining quiet. This will, IMO, have the effect of continuing the popular narrative that the GOP is disinterested in, if not antagonist towards, minority rights.
Are you under the impression that everyone who was alive in 1964 is dead?
Hell, the justice most antagonistic to the VRA (based on oral arguments) was 28 years old in 1964.
Right, I meant more that Supreme Court justices aren’t party to efforts by the party that nominated them to re-brand their image, and won’t change their judicial opinions accordingly.
Yeah, I think you’re correct here. I remember how in 2006, when the VRA was up for renewal again, rumor had it that if Congress didn’t renew the VRA, black people would then immediately be legally unable to vote.
Then we’re in agreement. Let’s preclear everywhere, including my states attempts at an onerous voter ID law.
The people in power who were interested in denying minorities the right to vote are.
Fine by me. I would support either:
-
Preclearing every jurisdiction in the U.S.
-
Making the bailout process faster and easier.
The status quo serves to stigmatize certain jurisdictions, primarily in the South, while failing to extend the same protections to all U.S. citizens.