SCOTUS strikes down Provision 4 of the Voting Rights Act

[Ult92]

Provision 4 requires that certain states, determined by a formula, 'pre-clear' their voting standards and practices with the federal government. This was typically applied to states in the South.

The decision was divided 5-4 along the typical ideological lines.

Key Part of Voting Rights Act Invalidated
NYtimes

“In 1965, the states could be divided into two groups: those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout, and those without those characteristics,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote for the majority. “Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were.”

Chief Justice Roberts said that Congress remained free to attempt to impose federal oversight on states where voting rights are at risk but must do so based on contemporary data. When the law was last renewed, in 2006, Congress relied on data from decades before. The chances that the current Congress could reach agreement on where federal oversight is required are, most analysts say, small.

Justice Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority opinion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The majority held that the coverage formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965 and most recently updated by Congress in 1975, was unconstitutional. The section determines which states must receive pre-clearance from federal authorities.

The court did not strike Section 5, which sets out the pre-clearance requirement itself. But without Section 4, which determines which states are covered, Section 5 is without significance — unless Congress chooses to pass a new bill for determining which states would be covered.

The dissent, led by Ginsburg:

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented. Ginsburg wrote, "The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA 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."

Some other opinions on the matter:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3429810.html

“The Supreme Court has effectively gutted one of the nation's most important and effective civil rights laws,” Jon Greenbaum, chief counsel for the Lawyers Committee on Civil Rights Under Law, said in a statement. “Minority voters in places with a record of discrimination are now at greater risk of being disenfranchised than they have been in decades. Today's decision is a blow to democracy. Jurisdictions will be able to enact policies which prevent minorities from voting, and the only recourse these citizens will have will be expensive and time-consuming litigation.”

“Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision erases fundamental protections against racial discrimination in voting that have been effective for more than 40 years,” Elisabeth MacNamara, president of the League of Women Voters of the United States, said in a statement. “Congress must act quickly to restore the Voting Rights Act.”

“Today will be remembered as a step backwards in the march towards equal rights,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. “We must ensure that this day is just a page in our nation’s history, rather than the return to a dark chapter."

Frankly, while this could have been worse, it's still bad. If the current Congress had the capacity to act on this matter and change the formula to fit current conditions, I might be okay with it. That's just not the political reality. Many of you on here claimed, in my other thread about Paula Deen, that states like Mississippi are "still just as bad as the 1950s in some areas" - surely you don't agree with this decision then?

Statement by the Attorney General on the matter:

“The Department of Justice will continue to carefully monitor jurisdictions around the country for voting changes that may hamper voting rights,” Mr. Holder said. “Let me be very clear: We will not hesitate to take swift enforcement action using every legal tool that remains available to us against any jurisdiction that seeks to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s ruling by hindering eligible citizens full and free exercise of the franchise.”

[Slybak]

The most horrible example of judicial activism since at least Lochner. The Supreme Court has essentially usurped the power given to Congress under Section 2 of the 15th Amendment.

[Wells]

Well shit that's going to be fucking awful.

[Rukentuts]

Well shit that's going to be fucking awful.

How long until certain states take advantage of this ruling? Because we all know the Tea Party bigots in the House won't modify this law to "bring it up to constitutional scrutiny".

[Slybak]

Well shit that's going to be fucking awful.

Expect a raft of heavily restrictive Voter ID laws.

They're coming, the only question on which Neanderthal-filled state legislature will enact them first. Texas is the obvious front-runner.

[Wells]

How long until certain states take advantage of this ruling?

I suspect its going to start coming in hard and fast.

---------- Post added 2013-06-25 at 03:29 PM ----------

This also seems wildly outside the Court's authority.

[Sorrior]

Expect a raft of heavily restrictive Voter ID laws.

They're coming, the only question on which Neanderthal-filled state legislature will enact them first. Texas is the obvious front-runner.

Ummm sorry but Neanderthals were highly intelligent.

Also this is messed up and I expect it to be abused.

[Deleted]

Reminds of my country where we had a referendum to suspend the president. When it was over, the result was clear in favor of him leaving but the so-called "Constitutional Court" said:
- Umm...nah...it must be a 50% participation. Which it wasn't.
- But the law clearly states that citizens who live outside the country do not count toward that 50% threshold.
- Yeah...no...
- But the law...the statistics...
- Naah...

Ofcourse it had nothing to do with the fact that 6 out of the 11 judges on the board were in the president's pocket. Nothing at all.

Looks like legal crap doesn't go down just in eastern Europe.

[GreatOak]

So they've basically denied congress of a power they are specifically granted in the Constitution and opened the gates for racial, political, or gender based discrimination in the future. Man, I really despise judicial activism and constitutional revisionism.

[Wells]

This is so fucking depressing.

[GreatOak]

Expect a raft of heavily restrictive Voter ID laws.

They're coming, the only question on which Neanderthal-filled state legislature will enact them first. Texas is the obvious front-runner.

I doubt it. It's more likely to be Florida or Mississippi imo

[Rukentuts]

I doubt it. It's more likely to be Florida or Mississippi imo

North Dakota is my bet. After that "no abortions after a heartbeat is detected" law, nothing they really do surprises me anymore.

[Wells]

I doubt it. It's more likely to be Florida or Mississippi imo

The GOP is scared shitless in Texas right now.

[Slybak]

I suspect its going to start coming in hard and fast.

The Texas legislature is in special session as I type this sentence, grappling over what would be the most restrictive abortion ban in the country. They likely have an ID law waiting in the wings and, now that it doesn't need preclearance, can likely be fully implemented before the municipal elections that are scheduled for this coming November. There's also been a fight over redistricting maps based on preclearance issues that is now effectively over.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

A step back towards pre-1965. No, actually it isn't a step, it is a massive effing leap.

I guess this is one way to ensure the republican party gets the votes they need, stop the democrat-voting minorities from voting altogether.

[obdigore]

North Dakota is my bet.

ND's oil industry is booming so much they wont touch anything.

I kind of feel like it will be Mississippi or Alabama.

GreatOak, Florida has too many old, voting, retirees from the north to pass something like that, imo.

[Naxere]

Maybe the shouldn't use data that's 40 years old and instead gather some updated information on those jurisdictions.

[Wells]

The Texas legislature is in special session as I type this sentence, grappling over what would be the most restrictive abortion ban in the country. They likely have an ID law waiting in the wings and, now that it doesn't need preclearance, can likely be fully implemented before the municipal elections that are scheduled for this coming November. There's also been a fight over redistricting maps based on preclearance issues that is now effectively over.

Yeah I've been following that. Feel pretty bad for you guys down there. Its always small government for me big government for you.

[Slybak]

I doubt it. It's more likely to be Florida or Mississippi imo

Florida isn't covered under the preclearance provision as an entire state. Neither is is North Carolina, which would be my first guess if it was. Mississippi or South Carolina is my guess for second place.

[Wells]

Maybe the shouldn't use data that's 40 years old and instead gather some updated information on those jurisdictions.

Maybe the Court shouldn't overstep its authority.