Supreme Court: Section 4 of Voting Rights Act Unconstitutional

[Kleves]

Washington (CNN) -- A deeply divided Supreme Court has limited use of a key provision in the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, in effect invalidating the key enforcement provision that applies to all or parts of 15 states with past history of voter discrimination.

The case involved Section 5, which gives federal authorities open-ended oversight of states and localities with a history of voter discrimination. Any changes in voting laws and procedures in the covered areas -- which include all or parts of 15 states -- must be "pre-cleared" with Washington.

After the provision was reauthorized by Congress in 2006 for another 25 years, counties in Alabama and North Carolina filed suit, saying the monitoring was burdensome and unwarranted.

Civil rights groups say Section 5 has proved to be an important tool in protecting minority voters from local governments that would set unfair, shifting barriers to the polls. If it is ruled unconstitutional, they warn, the very power and effect of the entire Voting Rights Act would crumble.

But opponents of the provision counter that it should not be enforced in areas where it can be argued that racial discrimination no longer exists.

The holding: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formulacan no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.

[Kleves]

BTW, the gay marriage rulings are coming out tomorrow at 10.

[Admiral Yi]

Good.  Original sin has no place in jurisprudence.

[Razgovory]

Good.  Original sin has no place in jurisprudence.

There is a place for keeping an eye on previous offenders.

[garbon]

I have to say I think this makes sense, Raz's point notwithstanding.

[Admiral Yi]

There is a place for keeping an eye on previous offenders.

This ruling doesn't prevent anyone from keeping an eye on previous offenders.

[CountDeMoney]

Just fucking lovely.

But what the fuck, right?  Niggers in the South have had it too good for too long, anyway.

[derspiess]

[Razgovory]

There is a place for keeping an eye on previous offenders.

This ruling doesn't prevent anyone from keeping an eye on previous offenders.

That's exactly what it does.  The previous offenders complained about the burden of monitoring.

[Admiral Yi]

That's exactly what it does.  The previous offenders complained about the burden of monitoring.

No it doesn't.  Legislation is all in the public domain.  You can look up any proposed changes you want to South Carolina's voting regulations.

[jimmy olsen]

The case involved Section 5, which gives federal authorities open-ended oversight of states and localities with a history of voter discrimination. Any changes in voting laws and procedures in the covered areas -- which include all or parts of 15 states -- must be "pre-cleared" with Washington.

The holding: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formulacan no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.

Which is it?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Section 5. Preclearance made sense for a long time, when it was extended for 25 years in 2006 I dunno that it still made sense. I remember the oral arguments from this case, didn't it come out that several of the preclearance States actually had among the very best minority voter registration rates in the country and the best rates of minority elected officials? Suggesting if there is any problem with minorities voting in the United States it doesn't follow the same map it did in the 1960s.

I'd be fine with them coming back with a new preclearance formula that applied to all fifty states if a given jurisdiction ran afoul of certain metrics, it could be put under preclearance for a set period of time (say 10 years.)

As it is, all this changes is in States that have very high minority voter participation and minority elected officials, their voting law changes no longer have to be precleared by the Justice Department. It did nothing else to Federal voting protections, so if the Justice Department looks at any voting law changes and decides they violate a group's civil rights they can still take action--so this isn't at all the doors opening to a flood gate of local legislation to disenfranchise blacks or whatever. The DoJ still retains the rest of its powers to go after jurisdictions that passed discriminatory voting laws. Given they would probably get an injunction against the law taking effect a few days after it passed, the practical effect of this should basically be nothing.

[MadImmortalMan]

Putting aside the pragmatic necessity for having it to begin with (that's not really in question is it?), the concept that a thing can be first constitutional and then later unconstitutional simply shouldn't happen. In theory.

[Caliga]

Niggers in the South have had it too good for too long, anyway.

Give this man a cooking show!

[crazy canuck]

Give this man a cooking show!