Posted on 06/25/2013 7:40:20 AM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a civil rights law that requires some states to get federal permission to change their voting rules, but it struck down the formula for which jurisdictions are covered — leaving it to Congress to redraw the map.
The opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. The vote was 5-4.
“Our country has changed, and 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,” Roberts wrote for the court.
Under the law, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, nine mostly Southern states must get permission from the Justice Department or a special panel of three federal judges before they make changes. The rule also applies to 12 cities and 57 counties elsewhere.
The act is considered the most important piece of civil rights legislation ever passed. Congress has renewed it four times, most recently in 2006, with overwhelming margins in both houses.
But the law still uses election data from 1972 to determine which states, cities and counties are covered. Some jurisdictions complain that they are being punished for the sins of many decades ago.
Legal observers have said that striking down the map would mean sending the issue back to a deeply divided Congress, and they said it was an open question whether Congress could even agree on a new coverage map.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by three other members of the court’s more liberal wing.
As someone who is living in VA, I can only say, "Free at last, free at last!!!" Any Rep that now votes to expand Erich Holder's power over our nation given what he did in Philadelphia with the Black Panther intimidation of voters should be removed immediately.
I lived in the famous New Jersey "contiguous only to yachtsmen" gerrymandered district -- until the latest gerrymander, which put me back in a Republican district. Rectangular districts would make some sense, but gerrymandering goes back to the 19th century. Computer programs that are in use now would probably get around even that requirement. You'd see districts that are 250 miles long and a mile wide.
Paradoxically, the VRA is directly responsible for the current Republican congressional majority.
They could try to get around the rectangular requirement with computer algorithms - but they couldn’t be nearly as “flexible” as they are today.
So true.
We need representatives with some intestinal and testicular/ovarian fortitude to stand up for what is right.
Alas, the nature of politics precludes such individuals from serving.
This is annoying. The world HAS changed- a lot. When I am in my classroom teaching my students, the situation is the oldest person in the room (me) was born at the dawn of the ‘70s, therefore, 1965 is history. To my students, who are currently people born in the late 1990s, 1965 might has well have been 1865. Or 1765. This law reflects a situation that no longer really exists, save in the minds of a few doddering antiques and some people who make bales of political hay and cash off of race pimping. It should have been struck down in its entirety.
Also, when exactly is the South going to be treated as an equal part of the United States? Is Federal supervision of what is properly an internal state matter going to go on perpetuity, or is it going to take a 2nd Civil War to restore an equal place in the Union? (Which then opens the question- do we really want to be? :P )
What I fear is that soon the only thing they’ll teach about World War II is how the evil Americans bombed Nagasaki, Hiroshima and Dresden, and talk about the Japanese internment camps to the exclusion of everything else, and claim that the Soviets alone won WWII.
Not while I’m teaching it- the Axis had it comin’, and the Ivans would have never got anywhere without 10,000 American trucks and 15 million pairs of boots.....
FROM HOTAIR:
In order for the VRA to interfere with state sovereignty, Congress has to identify where racial discrimination in voting access is so endemic as to require that kind of intervention now, and not 50 years ago:
(3) Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. Largely because of the Voting Rights Act, “[v]oter turnout and registration rates” in covered jurisdictions “now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.” Northwest Austin, supra, at 202. The tests and devices that blocked ballot access have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years. Yet the Act has not eased §5’s restrictions or narrowed the scope of §4’s coverage formula along the way. Instead those extraordinary and unprecedented features have been reauthorized as if nothing has changed, and they have grown even stronger. Because §5 applies only to those jurisdictions singled out by §4, the Court turns to consider that provision. Pp. 13–17.
The defense of those 50-year-old definitions did not impress the court:
(2) The Government attempts to defend the formula on grounds that it is “reverse-engineered”—Congress identified the jurisdictions to be covered and then came up with criteria to describe them. Katzenbach did not sanction such an approach, reasoning instead that the coverage formula was rational because the “formula . . . was relevant to the problem.” 383 U. S., at 329, 330. The Government has a fallback argument—because the formula was relevant in 1965, its continued use is permissible so long as any discrimination remains in the States identified in 1965. But this does not look to “current political conditions,” Northwest Austin, supra, at 203, instead relying on a comparison between the States in 1965. But history did not end in 1965. In assessing the “current need[ ]” for a preclearance system treating States differently from one another today, history since 1965 cannot be ignored. The Fifteenth Amendment is not designed to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future. To serve that purpose, Congress—if it is to divide the States—must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions. Pp. 18–21.
In other words, the government couldn’t even make an argument that the endemic discrimination that required federal interference in state-level legislative processes still existed. They just argued that because the conditions existed 50 years ago, they might still be a problem today — an argument that lends itself to unlimited exercise. Small wonder the court found this irrational.
Sorry my FR friend but, I have to respectfully disagree with your defense of the USSC hacks, I do not give the USSC any leeway when it comes to understanding what the Founders intended.
Remember, we were promised these traitors (er Judges) were the best of the best and as such, even if they could not fathom what the founders intended there is an owners manual known to the rest of us unwashed as the Federalist Papers.
If your sole job is to understand and defend the Constitution, then it is completely unreasonable to allow ANY of these hacks any latitude and to tolerate ignorance of the very core foundation laws of this country.
If a person does not know the intent of the most basic laws of our land they have no business sitting on the bench of the USSC or any other court for that matter.
One of the most basic concepts of the Constitution is that if it is not in there, the Federal government cannot do it. That concept is now completely ignored.
Subsequent Amendments to the Constitution reflect the huge influx of dishonest lawyers into our political system. They become longer and more vague with each subsequent amendment. This is deliberate when you are a dishonest politician.
speaks to current conditions.. maybe Roberts feeels less threatened now with all the scandals unraveling the O regime..
Given how supposedly sensitive the court is to public perception/popularity, I kinda wonder if they’ve arranged these last three big rulings on purpose..
First, they can claim that they went to the Right with the Voting Rights Act. Then they can claim that they went down the middle when they punted on affirmative action. And they’ll claim that they went Left with a bombshell on homo marriage.
Overall, they’ll be able to say that they were “balanced”.. in some twisted way. It makes me wonder, given how popularity/legacy-obsessed Roberts seems.
That's correct, of course, on both accounts. But it is not always clear whether "it" is "in there" or not. Again, look at the 15th Amendment, which grants Congress the authority to enforce voting rights by "appropriate legislation." Under the wording of this amendment, Congress can pass legislation to enforce voting rights, but only if the legislation is "appropriate." So, determining whether a particilar piece of voting-related legislation is "in there" requires a determination of whether the legialation is "appropriate." Reasonable minds can differ as to what is and is not "appropriate," and as to whose role it is to determine what is "appopriate."
“Paradoxically, the VRA is directly responsible for the current Republican congressional majority.”
Yep. The same thing happened in Ohio. The Lou Stokes district (I call it that because his successors have been nonentities but he was not) came about because of a deal between the black Democrats and the GOP. The white Dems hated it but couldn’t say modell about it.
Me too....but let our Military votes count.
It’s not only the southern states affected by Section 5 (preclearance) of the Voting Rights Act. Parts of South Dakota, Michigan, New York, Alaska, Arizona and California fall under this section as well.
Sure, but it doesn’t seem like they were using it. Now they’ve been ordered by the courts to do so. I’m skeptical that Congress will use it for any good purpose, because, well, when was the last time Congress did anything good?
now liberals will be able to change these laws to include more protected classes. that’s how they will see it, anyway.
They still can’t rescind it, they can only try to change the formula that determines which states fall under the law, and Holder will still have the power to disapprove all the changes to states which fall under the new formula.
Basically, we don’t know yet whether this will really be an improvement. Hopefully, it will, but it could also just expand the number of states that are under Holder’s thumb.
They had the opportunity in 2006, but merely renewed it...Bush II signed it....for 25 years.
Now, there is a choice to re-write the section shot down by the court.....or not, and let the rest of the law stand as is. It ALSO means that states can now require voter ID WITHOUT seeking permission from the DoJ.
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.