US Supreme Court gelds Voting Rights Act

[regexcellent]

Would thank, but I spent it already

Did it for you.

[MrFun]

Which, btw, invalidates the argument that 1972 election turnout and registration numbers are flawed for use for pre-clearance. The VRA was allowed by the SCOTUS (S.C. vs. Katzenbach) because extraordinary circumstances, indicated by the turnout & registration numbers in 1964 election combined with voter tests indicated that pre-clearance was necessary and proper under the 14th Amendment, even though in other contexts it would an unconstitutional restraint on equality of state sovereignty. That justification for allowing something that would normally be unconstitutional because you claimed it was necessary and proper due to numbers from 40 years ago is just ridiculous.

A better formula is needed, which would incorporate any racist counties in Mississippi, Alabama, or Illinois, Idaho, etc.

I would be in favor of applying the formula to all states, locales, or areas that are suspicious - North or South.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So basically you want to pick the "suspicious" states or locales and then "apply the formula" to them? That doesn't sound wrought with problems at all

[MrFun]

So basically you want to pick the "suspicious" states or locales and then "apply the formula" to them? That doesn't sound wrought with problems at all

There's a better way to say what I meant.

[giblets]

Which, btw, invalidates the argument that 1972 election turnout and registration numbers are flawed for use for pre-clearance. The VRA was allowed by the SCOTUS (S.C. vs. Katzenbach) because extraordinary circumstances, indicated by the turnout & registration numbers in 1964 election combined with voter tests indicated that pre-clearance was necessary and proper under the 14th Amendment, even though in other contexts it would an unconstitutional restraint on equality of state sovereignty. That justification for allowing something that would normally be unconstitutional because you claimed it was necessary and proper due to numbers from 40 years ago is just ridiculous.

A better formula is needed, which would incorporate any racist counties in Mississippi, Alabama, or Illinois, Idaho, etc.

Does the formula have to be updated every election cycle? When was the magic year when the formula suddenly became unconstitutional?

[Felch]

I'd say every ten years, to coincide with the census and redistricting.

[Guynemer]

To be perfectly honest I don't think there are any counties that actually still need it. The problem is contained to the point that it can be handled through the judicial system after damages have actually occurred.

I sympathize with that argument, as it sticks to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."

However, you can't just ignore that, if damages do occur in this issue, that means elections themselves will have been altered, leading to god-knows-what-sort of legislative consequences.

I honestly have no idea how to solve that problem.

[PLATO]

I'd say every ten years, to coincide with the census and redistricting.

I think this is a very good idea. Write your Congressman. I am going to. Tying this to the census is a great idea as this is what causes redistricting, I see the biggest issue in voting rights currently being redistricting abuse and not denial of voting.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd say every ten years, to coincide with the census and redistricting.

I'll echo that this is a great idea

[snoopy369]

A few people on here have called me "******" and other slurs. What are the rules here? Some forms of bigotry is acceptable but other forms of bigotry is not?

Do you know what 'myopic' means? I bet you don't. Because if you did, you'd understand what HC was doing there.

[Dinner]

It's pretty telling that with in two hours of this ruling getting handed down Texas was already changing voting laws in ways which would harm minority voting rights. Nope, there sure wasn't any reason for section 4 any more.

[giblets]

It's pretty telling that with in two hours of this ruling getting handed down Texas was already changing voting laws in ways which would harm minority voting rights. Nope, there sure wasn't any reason for section 4 any more.

The section of the law was totally unfair because it didn't prevent Pennsylvania from doing the same thing and therefore it's more constitutional to let all states harm minority voting rights instead of merely letting most states do it.

[Dinner]

We can debate the merits or lack there of for that ruling but, to paraphrase John Oliver, it's pretty telling that Texas Republicans attacked minority voting rights in less time then it takes them to BBQ a pig.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Or is it that they was widespread support for a voter ID law, which other states had done, so when they were allowed to pass it, it flew through?

Everything doesn't have to be nefarious.

[Elok]

I wouldn't be too quick to assume they did it because they felt minorities needed to be systematically kept down (i.e., what the original VRA was about). More likely they did it because they felt minorities would vote Democrat. You may say their motive is irrelevant when the effect is the same, but if the situation on the ground has, in fact, changed, the court was correct in principle. Now the South is free to undermine egalitarian democracy, the same as all the other states.

Which I think is a fair argument for imposing VRA restrictions on all fifty instead.