Skip to comments.
Per Drudge - FLASH: Section 4 of Voting Rights Act unconstitutional...
Drudge report ^
Posted on 06/25/2013 7:15:58 AM PDT by Perdogg
Per Drudge - FLASH: Section 4 of Voting Rights Act unconstitutional...
TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 15thamendment; act; rights; scotus; scotusvoterrights; scotusvotingrights; supremecourt; unconstitutional; vanity; voting; votingrightsact
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
To: Perdogg; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ..
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
21
posted on
06/25/2013 7:26:10 AM PDT
by
BuckeyeTexan
(There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
To: Perdogg
22
posted on
06/25/2013 7:26:20 AM PDT
by
Izzy Dunne
(Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
To: Perdogg
AND Texas JUST ROLLED-OVER and voted into law the (minority 'protecting') redistricting done by the Federal Courts for the 2012 elections.
My, my, my! Ain't we just the smartest-of-the-smart when it comes to gettin' screwed by the Feds.
23
posted on
06/25/2013 7:26:35 AM PDT
by
harpu
( "...it's better to be hated for who you are than loved for someone you're not!")
To: green iguana
Formulas for rights.
Ugly.
24
posted on
06/25/2013 7:27:07 AM PDT
by
Uncle Miltie
(If youÂ’re happy and you know it clank your chains!)
To: BuckeyeTexan
25
posted on
06/25/2013 7:27:20 AM PDT
by
crosslink
(Moderates should play in the middle of a busy street)
To: green iguana
Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions
I fully expect Obama to issue a new oppressive formula by executive decree to ensure all of us crackers in the South get what's coming to us. It's what Abe Lincoln would have wanted after all.
26
posted on
06/25/2013 7:27:25 AM PDT
by
peyton randolph
(Tagline copyright in violation of Directive 10-289)
To: Enterprise
The Court did not issue a holding on Section 5. They said specifically that Congress is free to legislate a new coverage formula.
27
posted on
06/25/2013 7:27:28 AM PDT
by
BuckeyeTexan
(There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
To: ~Vor~
Read that vote was 5 - 4...but didnt see the breakdown...Do we need to? I bet it was the usual political split.
To: fwdude
29
posted on
06/25/2013 7:27:58 AM PDT
by
Red Badger
(Want to be surprised? Google your own name......Want to have fun? Google your friend's names........)
To: crosslink
sorry I can’t spell as I post.
30
posted on
06/25/2013 7:28:10 AM PDT
by
crosslink
(Moderates should play in the middle of a busy street)
To: Perdogg; stephenjohnbanker; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; Gilbo_3; Impy; NFHale; BillyBoy; ...
Here's excerpts and the direct link to the article that Drudge posted
The Supreme Court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act Monday, a cornerstone of the civil rights movement that helped dismantle decades of discriminatory voting restrictions in the South when it passed 60 years ago. The vote was 5-4, with the court's liberal justices dissenting.
....
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, reauthorized by Congress in 2006, gives the federal government the ability to pre-emptively reject changes to election law in states and counties that have a history of discriminating against minority voters. The law covers nine states and portions of seven more, most of them in the South. The formula used to decide which states are subject to this special scrutiny (set out in Section 4 of the law) is based on decades-old voter turnout and registration data, the justices ruled, which is unfair to the states covered under it.
Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act(yahoo news today)
MSNBC will be burning tonight, at least this will dampen their celibration if the gay rights cases go bad.
31
posted on
06/25/2013 7:28:53 AM PDT
by
sickoflibs
(To GOP : Any path to US citizenship IS putting them ahead in line. Stop lying about your position.)
To: BuckeyeTexan
I’m just commenting what the reporters have said.
32
posted on
06/25/2013 7:29:12 AM PDT
by
Enterprise
("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
To: Victor
text of voting rights act (PDF) See PDF page 14. Section 4 is the one which puts certain jurisdictions under federal courts, where they must seek approval of any rules which may affect qualifications for voting, or may affect blacks ability to vote.
33
posted on
06/25/2013 7:29:37 AM PDT
by
PapaBear3625
(You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
To: Perdogg
Our Fing communist administration will just ignore this and anything else that has an effect on its plans.
34
posted on
06/25/2013 7:29:40 AM PDT
by
mongo141
(Revolution ver. 2.0, just a matter of when, not a matter of if!)
To: Perdogg
Sounds like good news, but the short article begins discussing Section 4 and then jumps to Section 5 and it’s not clear exactly what’s been shot down. There’s usually a lag between the first announcement and a clear understanding of what a ruling means.
35
posted on
06/25/2013 7:30:07 AM PDT
by
Will88
To: Enterprise
36
posted on
06/25/2013 7:30:48 AM PDT
by
BuckeyeTexan
(There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
To: Enterprise
The judges didn’t throw out section 5 (preclearence), they threw out section 4, which set the formula for preclearence.
They ruled that the formula was unconstitutional as it doesn’t appy evenly to all states and there is no valid reason today for it not to do so.
The decision effectively throws out section 5 unless Congress comes up with a new formula that applies to all the states.
To: green iguana
38
posted on
06/25/2013 7:31:55 AM PDT
by
Enterprise
("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
To: Perdogg
If I understand correctly, Section 5 (
not "4") was not struck down. Only the ancient list of proscribed counties, all the counties in some States, requiring federal pre-clearance before
any changes are made in election law.
For example, in N.C. 40 of 100 counties are, or were, "covered" under Sec. 5:
Congress, who placed these counties on this list in 1965, can draw up a new list (or make federal pre-clearance universal).
Preclearance comes either from a Three-Judge federal panel or from the DOJ Civil Rights Division (or both, in some cases.)
There are some redistricting plans presently in litigation, and how they are or are not affected I don't yet know.
39
posted on
06/25/2013 7:32:51 AM PDT
by
Prospero
(Si Deus trucido mihi, ego etiam fides Deus.)
To: ~Vor~
If it was 5 to 4 then we can all guess the breakdown: Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer against and Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Roberts for.
40
posted on
06/25/2013 7:32:55 AM PDT
by
0.E.O
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson