NBC: Supreme Court to hear key voting rights case

[brandymac27]

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...id=msnhp&pos=6

Agreeing to hear another important case on race in America, the Supreme Court said Friday it will take up a battle over a key part of the landmark Voting Rights Act. Civil rights groups fear the court will use this case to gut the law.

Passed by Congress in 1965 and renewed four times since then, most recently in 2006, a key provision requires states with a history of discrimination at the polls to get federal permission before making any changes to election procedures -- from redrawing congressional district boundaries to changing the locations of polling places.

The law was at the core of the legal cases this year blocking strict new voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina.

Shelby County, Ala., claims the pre-clearance requirement -- which currently covers nine entire states, 12 cities and 57 counties elsewhere -- is unconstitutional. Under the law, those states and areas are presumed to be acting improperly whenever they seek election changes and "must either go hat in hand to Justice Department officialdom to seek approval, or embark on expensive litigation in a remote judicial venue," says the lawyer for the county.

Cont'd at link....

[Larry]

I can see the argument. There's something wrong about the idea that a state cannot pass a law or a regulation, without getting prior federal approval.

OTOH, what I also see is a history of changing laws for the specific purpose of discrimination, and the behavior continuing. (And, in fact, expanding.)

Which causes me to regard this law as "one of those things that I sincerely regret is necessary".

[AsburySkinsFan]

Path to disenfranchisement.

[elkabong82]

I would say such things are no longer necessary, but then you have the voter ID laws which really are meant to disenfranchise voters.

[SteveFromYellowstone]

This scares me. I don't trust the Supreme Court. In states like Mississippi, 50% of Republicans believe Obama is a secret muslim. They are most often the party in power in the south. Don't see anything wrong with reviewing their voting laws. I hope a conservative justice retires soon so we don't have to worry about crap like this.

[Larry]

This scares me. I don't trust the Supreme Court. In states like Mississippi, 50% of Republicans believe Obama is a secret muslim. They are most often the party in power in the south. Don't see anything wrong with reviewing their voting laws. I hope a conservative justice retires soon so we don't have to worry about crap like this.

Just picking you, because your post mentioned specific locations. But it's a general question, open for everybody.

How y'all feel about federal laws that only apply to part of the country, though?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Just picking you, because your post mentioned specific locations. But it's a general question, open for everybody.

How y'all feel about federal laws that only apply to part of the country, though?

Is there a reason for it? Now, I would argue that the same laws govern all. I'd also argue for Federal control of National (Congress, Senate, President) elections.

[elkabong82]

Just picking you, because your post mentioned specific locations. But it's a general question, open for everybody.

How y'all feel about federal laws that only apply to part of the country, though?

Normally I wouldn't like the lack of universality, but in this case voter disenfranchisement is a very real thing that was used all throughout the South post-Civil War. There is no coincidence that this provision was passed during the Civil Rights Era. Now we have voter ID laws being passed almost exclusively by Republicans, aimed at solving a problem which is almost non-existent, but negatively affects many voters of their opposition. So, as I said in my previous post, when the problem persists, so must the solution.

[Larry]

Might be a good topic for a poll:

Should the Voting Rights Act apply to the whole country?

Cause with we got, right now, is a situation where passing voter ID laws designed to disenfranchise minorities is illegal in Alabama, but it's just fine in Ohio.

[SteveFromYellowstone]

Just picking you, because your post mentioned specific locations. But it's a general question, open for everybody.

How y'all feel about federal laws that only apply to part of the country, though?

I don't know if this is so much trying to apply to a specific part of the country as it is applying it to states with a history of discrimination. If there was a law that said "we will only enforce pot laws in texas but not maryland" I'd have a problem with that, but not something like this.

---------- Post added November-10th-2012 at 01:18 PM ----------

Might be a good topic for a poll:

Should the Voting Rights Act apply to the whole country?

Cause with we got, right now, is a situation where passing voter ID laws designed to disenfranchise minorities is illegal in Alabama, but it's just fine in Ohio.

Ohio doesn't have a long and nasty history of disenfranchisement in the way Alabama does. If Ohio was doing the same types of things and trying to weaken minorities position and had a constant history of it, I might agree with you.

[brandymac27]

I'm with Asbury on this. I think when we vote in an election for POTUS, Senate and House members, it's a national issue and shouldn't be left up to the individual states. The fed government should extend the same laws to every state. I'd even go so far as saying that all polls should open and close at the same time, accounting for time zone differences.

[twa]

Ohio doesn't have a long and nasty history of disenfranchisement in the way Alabama does. If Ohio was doing the same types of things and trying to weaken minorities position and had a constant history of it, I might agree with you.

Why wouldn't universal laws work?
Why should I be held to a different standard than you for my grandfathers actions?

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

Might be a good topic for a poll:

Should the Voting Rights Act apply to the whole country?

Cause with we got, right now, is a situation where passing voter ID laws designed to disenfranchise minorities is illegal in Alabama, but it's just fine in Ohio.

it does


as for this case, unfortunately we just had a year where states tried to disenfranchise voters so I feel this has to stay.

[twa]

it does


as for this case, unfortunately we just had a year where states tried to disenfranchise voters so I feel this has to stay.

No sir, all the provisions do not, which is a major part of this case

[Larry]

it does

Really?

I was kinda under the impression that only specifically stated locations were required to receive pre-approval before their laws could take effect.

In fact, I coulda sworn that the OP specifically stated that. And that the plaintiff in this case is citing that fact in his complaint.

----------

Now, if this clause were to only apply to jurisdictions which had been convicted of something, then I could see it being somewhat more palatable. It becomes part of the sentence, or a probationary period, or some such.

(And, I'll confess, I don't know that that isn't the case. I don't know how they decide where this clause applies, and where it doesn't)

----------

That's one reason why I could also see the benefit of simply applying that clause to the whole country. Frankly, I'm getting ticked at politicians intentionally changing election laws (or other things, like voter purge lists) mere days before the election. My general opinion of politicians says that the reason they intentionally wait till the last minute, is so that the victims don't have time to go to court.

I would think that a requirement that you can't change the rules of an election,within one year of the election, and that proposed changes must be examined to see if they have a discriminatory effect, might be a Really Good Idea.