[SeekAndFind]

FOR THOSE WHO DON’T REMEMBER AND NEED A REFRESHER:

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973–1973aa-6) is a landmark piece of national legislation in the United States that outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the U.S.

Echoing the language of the 15th Amendment, the Act prohibits states from imposing any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”

Specifically, Congress intended the Act to outlaw the practice of requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literacy tests in order to register to vote, a principal means by which Southern states had prevented African Americans from exercising the franchise.

The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had earlier signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law.

[Ingtar]

Another thing to remember is that from the arguments, people thought they would void Obamacare.

[SeekAndFind]

MORE DETAILS HERE:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/feb/27/supreme-court-strike-down-voting-rights-act

EXCERPT:

Justice Elena Kagan argued that while the initial aim of ensuring African Americans could vote had been met, there is a “second generation” of discrimination under way with the insidious use of other devices, such as the drawing of electoral boundaries, voter identification laws and the placing of polling stations, which are intended to undermine the power of minority votes.

“Think about this state that you’re representing. It’s about a quarter black but Alabama has no black statewide elected officials,” she said.

Kagan said that while Rein objected to the formula used by Congress to decide which states should have their elections still fall under federal oversight, “by any formula Congress could devise, Alabama would be captured”.

One of the questions the justices are considering is whether it is unjust to impose controls on Shelby County and Alabama if other jurisdictions which may be similarly guilty are not also subject to the same constraints.

Sotomayor told Rein that he was trying to obscure continuing discrimination in Alabama.

“You’re asking us to do something, which is to ignore your record and look at everybody else’s,” she said.

Rein responded that the number of black members of the Alabama legislature is proportionate to African Americans living in the state.

The argument was at times framed in terms of dealing with a disease and whether the remedy should still be applied, or whether there is a new disease requiring a different remedy.

“It’s an old disease,” said Justice Stephen Breyer. “It’s gotten a lot better. A lot better. But it’s still there.”

Part of the disagreement between the justices centred on how Congress reached the decision to renew the Voting Rights Act. Sotomayor noted that Congress compiled a long record of recent measures by the affected states that discriminated against minority voters at elections.

[SeeSharp]

The only thing wrong with the literacy tests was that they were not difficult enough.

[zeugma]

A transcript of the oral arguments can be found here. My apologies for it being a PDF, that's what the court publishes. I read through the whole thing. While there were some zingers, everyone came down exactly where you expect along ideological lines. There's no way to tell how this one will go. Roberts could easily stab us in the back again, the putz.

[Jacquerie]

What makes the head of the DOJ Voting Rights Division less corrupt or more virtuous than the people of Alabama as represented by their representatives? Why does the opinion of a single lawyer appointed by Obama have more weight than the state of Alabama?

To ask the question is to know the answer.

[deport]

Don’t forget that President GW Bush signed the renewal act into law in 2006.

[Smokin' Joe]

... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.

Race or color has nothing to do with it.

Being a citizen, the right is protected. Showing one is a citizen should not be an undue encumbrance, nor should identifying one's self to prevent being denied the Right by those who might fraudulently utilize one's right to vote.

Of course, if that seems simple enough to me, they will probably vote the other way.

[tet68]

the Act prohibits states from imposing any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”

Seems to me that this arguement if valid could apply to
the 2nd amendment also.
What the gun grabbers are trying to do is no different,
infringement is infringement no matter which amendment
you are talking about.

The Gun Rights Act of 2013...the Act prohibits states from imposing any “ qualification or prerequisite to owning, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to bear arms.”

If it’s good enough for voting, it’s good enough for
firearms.