[The Final Dakar]

Voting Rights Act Heads Before Supreme Court In Shelby Case

The justices are hearing arguments Wednesday in a challenge to the part of the Voting Rights Act that forces places with a history of discrimination, mainly in the Deep South, to get approval before they make any change in the way elections are held.

The lawsuit from Shelby County, Ala., near Birmingham, says the "dire local conditions" that once justified strict federal oversight of elections no longer exist

Advance approval has been successful because it requires the governments to demonstrate that their proposed election changes will not discriminate, the law's advocates say. "It moved the burden from victims to perpetrators," said Sherrilyn Ifill, the head of the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund.

Just last year, federal judges in Washington refused to sign off on two separate Texas plans to institute a tough photo identification law for voters and redistricting plans for the state's congressional delegation and Legislature. Also, South Carolina's plan to put in place its own voter ID law was delayed beyond the 2012 election and then allowed to take effect only after the state carved out an exception for some people who lack photo identification.

The provision was a huge success, and Congress periodically has renewed it over the years. The most recent time was in 2006, when a Republican-led Congress overwhelmingly approved and President George W. Bush signed a 25-year extension.

No predictions here. I doubt I need to clarify which way I lean, but I think the overwhelming bipartisan reaffirmation by Congress just six years ago says all that needs to be said.

Edit: If anything, to be truly fair, it should be extended to all states.

[subego]

I'm entertained by the image of Scalia and Thomas wearing Swatches.

[The Final Dakar]

Scalia being Scalia

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia referred to the renewal of the Voting Rights Act as the “perpetuation of racial entitlement,” during Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing on the law.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenged Scalia’s comments, asking “Do you think Section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement?” She also asked “Do you think racial discrimination has ended?”

[subego]

Preach it, sister.

[OAW]

Proof positive that the Voting Rights Act ... especially Section 5 ... is still needed.

Stay Classy, PA: Voter Suppression 2012 – Now with 2013!

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Proof positive that the Voting Rights Act ... especially Section 5 ... is still needed.

Stay Classy, PA: Voter Suppression 2012 – Now with 2013!

OAW

Well that's what interests me. With such timely examples of its necessity any ruling against the VRA will be on a technicality rather than the reality of situation, right? I think that's why we're focused on Section 5 and not the entire law itself.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Well that's what interests me. With such timely examples of its necessity any ruling against the VRA will be on a technicality rather than the reality of situation, right? I think that's why we're focused on Section 5 and not the entire law itself.

Indeed. And the fact that the preeminent conservative justice on the SCOTUS characterized the Voting Rights Act as a “perpetuation of racial entitlement" given not only the historical record but the modern day efforts at voter suppression speaks volumes. And our good friends on the right wonder why the number of African-Americans in their ranks is practically a rounding error.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Yeah, Scalia's logic is always amazing.

Honestly, I do see a sliver of valid reasoning by those who brought the case. In a better connected nation, racism, and racially motivated attacks on voting rights don't stop at the Mason-Dixon line. And attack on voting rights aren't limited on the basis of race.

However, I'm sure they'd rather see the oversight removed, rather than extended to all states, so all citizens can enjoy the benefits.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yeah, Scalia's logic is always amazing.

Honestly, I do see a sliver of valid reasoning by those who brought the case. In a better connected nation, racism, and racially motivated attacks on voting rights don't stop at the Mason-Dixon line. And attack on voting rights aren't limited on the basis of race.

However, I'm sure they'd rather see the oversight removed, rather than extended to all states, so all citizens can enjoy the benefits.

Exactly. If they were talking about extending those protections nationwide that would be one thing. Because as we can see when voting rules are arbitrarily changed the damage is already done for that election cycle. Witness the ridiculously long lines in urban areas around the country in the 2012 election ... especially in Florida. Conservatives like Scalia will argue that people can always sue or challenges such restrictions in court. But the problem is that's after the fact. Personally I think there should be national standards for how voting is conducted. Non-partisan commissions for drawing districts. Etc. Then perhaps Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act would not be needed. But until then ....

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

I think there's a possibility they send this back to congress? Of course, given the situation in the House, I'm sure the idea of expanding the VRA would be dead in the water.

Edit: I feel like this is a liberal circle-jerk.

[OAW]

I wouldn't call it a "liberal circle jerk". I'd say this is one of those situations that is so blatantly obvious that our conservative compatriots wisely choose to remain silent rather than attempt to defend the indefensible.

OAW

[subego]

This one has "Alito" written all over it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I wouldn't call it a "liberal circle jerk". I'd say this is one of those situations that is so blatantly obvious that our conservative compatriots wisely choose to remain silent rather than attempt to defend the indefensible.

OAW

I'm trying not to be that bitter or pessimistic. I suppose there's a states right angle, but I would ask if that's really practical given what we just saw last year. I also offered that if it applies to all 50 states, isn't that fair?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

This one has "Alito" written all over it.

I'm going to continue to not acknowledge your swatch joke.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm trying not to be that bitter or pessimistic. I suppose there's a states right angle, but I would ask if that's really practical given what we just saw last year. I also offered that if it applies to all 50 states, isn't that fair?

Yes it is fair. As I said above .... "If they were talking about extending those protections nationwide that would be one thing."

OAW