US Supreme Court gelds Voting Rights Act

[DaShi]

That post must have really stung if you dug up a thread from 2013 to respond to it.

Looks like his response stung you more.

[The Mad Monk]

He is right though. In 2012 Democrats actually got far more votes in the house yet magically Republicans control that body due to gerrymandering. If it wasn't for gerrymandering the Republicans wouldn't control either the house or the senate.

I can't believe I missed this the first time around --HOW DOES GERRYMANDERING AFFECT SENATE ELECTIONS???

[Dinner]

Not the senate. I mentioned the house in the first place but typed it wrong the second time.

[DinoDoc]

Looks like his response stung you more.

You'll have to wait two years to find out.

[kentonio]

That post must have really stung if you dug up a thread from 2013 to respond to it.

Why would any of this stung me? It was obvious at the time what was going to happen and it was equally obvious how naive HC was about the whole thing. I'm just childish enough to enjoy throwing it back at people a couple of years later.

[Sava]

I guess what DD is trying to figure out is why this story in particular? Pretty much any political comment HC makes is filled with wrongness. The only limiting factor here is his posting frequency.

[kentonio]

I get bored easily.

[metalhead]

Bravo!

I would also suggest that people actually read the decision. The Voting Rights Act went clearly above the Constitution at the time it was passed, but the SCOTUS said that extraordinary measures are sometimes necessary for a temporary time frame (Robert's opinion as relating to South Carolina v. Katzenbach, decided in 1966: "We recognized that it“may have been an uncommon exercise of congressional power,” but concluded that “legislative measures not otherwise appropriate” could be justified by “exceptional conditions.” Id., at 334. We have since noted that the Act “authorizes federal intrusion").

In Katezebach: "We explained that “[t]ests and devices are relevant to voting discrimination because of their long history as a tool for perpetrating the evil; a low voting rate is pertinent for the obvious reason that widespread disenfranchisement must inevitably affect the number of actual voters.” Ibid. We therefore concluded that “the coverage formula [was] rational in both practice and theory.”" The next two times it was renewed the low voting rate aspect of the two pronged test was updated - first to 1968 and then to 1972. When it was renewed in 1975, the Congress also added "English Only" requirements for places where more than 5% of the voters were non-English speaking. The coverage test has NOT BEEN UPDATED since the 1975 renewal. In the 1982 as well as 2006, the same requirements were renewed. That means that districts are being judges on 1972 voter registration and turnout numbers. How can that possibly justify the "exceptional measures" in the year 2013 for "legislative measures not otherwise appropriate"?!

I don't feel like reading the decision, but it sounds like it was based upon due process, yes? I'm curious what precedent there is for the Court to decide that lazy and incompetent legislating violates due process. Are there clear guidelines, or was the reasoning case-specific? Seems like a dangerous precedent that the Court can simply decide Congress did not use due diligence or any measure of thought. Perhaps they considered updating the standards but didn't deem it necessary. Doesn't this, in essence, substitute the Supreme Court's view as to what is adequate legislating for that of Congress?

The fact that Congress passed the legislation is usually considered overwhelming evidence that the content of the legislation was considered prior to passage. I really don't see how it's the place of the Court to upset this well-established principle, and their finding of extraordinary circumstances appears to be to be misdirection, hedging their bets against critics claiming this merely substitutes their judgment for that of Congress when it comes to duly written and passed legislation - EVEN THOUGH THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT DOES!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't feel like reading the decision, but it sounds like it was based upon due process, yes?

No. I suggest you read the decision? The ruling against the pre-clearance part was based on the principle of equal sovereignty of states (which is a long standing precedent and continually affirmed) - which was allowed to be contravened due to exception circumstances when the VRA was initially passed.

[metalhead]

But then either the exceptional circumstances still exist, and Congress can pass the legislation even if it is bad and lazy, or they don't and the whole VRA is invalid. I'm not really seeing the connection between that precedent and the Court's action in this case.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Eh? The exception circumstances don't necessarily still exist for just those areas deemed to be subject to the coverage test based on 1972 voter registration and turnout numbers. That was the problem. Roberts said, you kind of have to update things and can't say you need to violate the equal sovereignty of states due to exception circumstances based on 40 year old numbers.

[metalhead]

They don't necessarily, but that is for Congress to decide. Maybe Congress had a valid reason for using 40 year old numbers. It's not the Court's place to question whether Congress' determination of the exceptional circumstances is proper. By passing the law, Congress said that they felt the 40 year old numbers accurately represented the current situation with regards to states' likelihood of suppressing the votes of black voters. I don't know where the Court finds precedent to overrule that finding. It flies in the face of all precedent I'm aware of with regards to how much weight the Court is supposed to give to the content of duly passed legislation.

This ruling was and still is a vast overreach by the Court.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, it's not really for Congress to decide. The Court decided to grant Congress an exception to passing a prima facie unconstitutional law due to exceptional circumstances. Congress didn't decide exceptional circumstances made an unconstitutional law ok - SCOTUS DID. And then SCOTUS decided that those exceptional circumstances didn't apply anymore and therefore the exception that the Court granted to Congress fails. Hence, falls back to unconstitutional.

[DaShi]

You'll have to wait two years to find out.

Why? You're clearly riled by it now.

[metalhead]

No, it's not really for Congress to decide. The Court decided to grant Congress an exception to passing a prima facie unconstitutional law due to exceptional circumstances. Congress didn't decide exceptional circumstances made an unconstitutional law ok - SCOTUS DID. And then SCOTUS decided that those exceptional circumstances didn't apply anymore and therefore the exception that the Court granted to Congress fails. Hence, falls back to unconstitutional.

But the Court is substituting its judgment for that of Congress, when this is a question far better suited for the legislature to decide. If Congress believes that the history of injustice the 40 year old standards represent is sufficient, the Court simply has no place stepping in, just because they might disagree with Congress' finding.

“While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions

Where is the evidence that Congress did not do so? The use of old standards does not mean Congress did not ensure those standards still reflect current conditions. Old is not the same as outdated, but the Court seems to think so. If Congress believes the previous standards are adequate, the Court has no right to supersede that finding. Particularly when Congress is the body far better suited to making those determinations.