Free Republic

The Supreme Court has decided Shelby v. Holder. It is one of the most important decisions in decades. Now, federal preclearance of state election procedures seems to be forever dead and buried. While some Congressional Republicans had vowed to enact new legislation to “fix” any coverage formula deemed unconstitutional, the Court opinion today offers almost no room to do so. They would have to decide what’s more important: the Republican Party, or the Constitution? Section 5 required states to obtain preclearance approval for any change involving elections — any change, even moving a polling place 20 feet. Only 15 states...

The Supreme Court's decision to strike a key part of the Voting Rights Act threatens to damage Democrats’ chances at the polls — and potentially cost them House seats, beginning in Texas. The court ruled Tuesday that the way states were chosen for special federal scrutiny was unconstitutional. Barring congressional action, that means a number of states — most of them southern and GOP-controlled — no longer have to meet higher criteria to pass voting laws. The ruling holds big implications for congressional redistricting and voter identification laws that Democrats claim are aimed suppressing minority turnout. "This makes it much...

The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, ruling that Congress had not provided adequate justification for subjecting nine states, mostly in the South, to federal oversight. “In 1965, the states could be divided into two groups: those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout, and those without those characteristics,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting...

The conservative majority on the Roberts Court issued another damaging and intellectually dishonest ruling today. It eviscerated enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, in which Congress kept the Constitution’s promise of a vote for every citizen. But it did not rule on the constitutional validity of the idea that some places have such strong records of discrimination that they must seek federal approval before they may change their voting rules. Instead, the 5-4 ruling usurped Congress’s power to strike down the formula ... The Justice Department is still free to sue jurisdictions over their voting policies after the fact, and...

The Constitution and laws of the United States are “the supreme Law of the Land.” U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. State legislation may not contravene federal law. The Federal Government does not, however, have a general right to review and veto state enactments before they gointo effect. A proposal to grant such authority to “negative” state laws was considered at the Constitutional Convention, but rejected in favor of allowing state laws totake effect, subject to later challenge under the SupremacyClause. See 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, pp. 21, 164–168 (M. Farrand ed. 1911); 2 id.,...

A landmark Supreme Court ruling that struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act has set up a stand-off between Republican-led states and the Obama administration over controversial voting laws that until now had been stalled. The 5-4 ruling on Tuesday addressed a 1960s-era provision that largely singled out states and districts in the South -- those with a history of discrimination -- and required them to seek federal permission to change their voting laws. The court ruled that the formula determining which states are affected was unconstitutional. ********************** Attorney General Eric Holder warned states against going too...

Per Drudge - FLASH: Section 4 of Voting Rights Act unconstitutional...

In a statement, President Obama called today's Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act a "setback." "I am deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision today. For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act – enacted and repeatedly renewed by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress – has helped secure the right to vote for millions of Americans. Today’s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent," reads Obama's statement.

The local Miami tv just ran a LIVE feed of Eric Holder making a statement (in the form of whining) about his LOSS at the Supreme Court. The liberal media here in Miami has found LOTS of people who are angry about the decision, but the media cannot find ANYONE who agrees with the decision.

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,...

Attorney General Eric Holder spoke to reporters following the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder in which the court ruled that the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act could not be enforced until Congress established new guidelines for review.