Supreme Court Voting Rights Act Decision — Section 4 invalid

[B-Man]

Before you read the hysterical reaction from the usual suspects on the left and the "media, perhaps it would be best if you read some excerpts from Chief Justice Roberts common-sense majority opinion.

 

From the Chief Justice’s majority opinion:

 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 employed extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem.

Section 5 of the Act required States to obtain federal permission before enacting any law related to voting—a drastic departure from basic principles of federalism.

And §4 of the Act applied that requirement only to some States—an equally dramatic departure from the principle that all States enjoy equal sovereignty.

 

This was strong medicine, but Congress determined it was needed to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting, “an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution.” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 309 (1966). As we explained in upholding the law, “exceptional conditions can justify legislative measures not otherwise appropriate.” Id., at 334.

 

Reflecting the unprecedented nature of these measures, they were scheduled to expire after five years.

See Voting Rights Act of 1965, §4(a), 79 Stat. 438.

 

Nearly 50 years later, they are still in effect; indeed, they have been made more stringent, and are now scheduled to last until 2031

. There is no denying, however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions….

 

At the same time, voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that. The question is whether the Act’s extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment ofthe States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements….

 

Outside the strictures of the Supremacy Clause, States retain broad autonomy in structuring their governments and pursuing legislative objectives.

Indeed, the Constitution provides that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or citizens. Amdt. 10

….

 

Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” among the States….

 

The Voting Rights Act sharply departs from these basicprinciples.

It suspends “all changes to state election law—however innocuous—until they have been preclearedby federal authorities in Washington, D. C.”….

 

And despite the tradition of

equal sovereignty

, the Act applies to only nine States (and several additional counties). While one State waits months or years and expends funds to implement a validly enacted law, its neighbor can typically put the same law into effect immediately, through the normal legislative process….

 

Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. Shelby County contends that the preclearance requirement, even without regard to its disparate coverage, is now unconstitutional. Its arguments have a good deal of force. In the covered jurisdictions, “[v]oter turnout and inatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.” Northwest Austin, 557 U. S., at 202. The tests and devices that blocked access to the ballot have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years.

 

{snip}

 

…. There is no doubt that these improvements are in large part because of the Voting Rights Act. The Act has proved immensely successful at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process.

 

Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices….

 

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. Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the Nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were….

 

There is no valid reason to insulate the coverage formula from review merely because it was previously enacted 40 years ago.

If Congress had started from scratch in 2006, it plainly could not have enacted the present coverage formula.

It would have been irrational for Congress to distinguish between States in such a fundamental way based on 40-year-old data, when today’s statistics tell an entirely different story. And it would have been irrational to base coverage on the use of voting tests 40 years ago, when such tests have been illegal since that time.

 

But that is exactly what Congress has done.

 

http://legalinsurrec...decision//#more

Edited June 25, 2013 by B-Man

[KD in CA]

Seems logical. I didn't dig into it but was there anything resembling an intelligent defense of the current situation, or just the usual 'racism exists so we need to keep pretending it's still 1964'?

[IDBillzFan]

Seems logical. I didn't dig into it but was there anything resembling an intelligent defense of the current situation, or just the usual 'racism exists so we need to keep pretending it's still 1964'?

 

Nope, that's pretty much it.

[B-Man]

Seems logical. I didn't dig into it but was there anything resembling an intelligent defense of the current situation, or just the usual 'racism exists so we need to keep pretending it's still 1964'?

 

To the left, America is always the Southern states in 1965.

 

There's no whining allowed about this one. The court told us several terms ago that Congress could fix the formula or lose it the next time that it came up for review. Absolutely everyone understood this with crystalline clarity. Congress did nothing, it came up for review, it was struck down.

 

 

 

 

Quoth Justice Ginsberg in the Minority opinion:

".

In the Court’s view, the very success of §5 of the Voting Rights Act demands its dormancy

"

 

 

 

Well, that’s how things work in the real world. The success of a “temporary” corrective measure should be seen as a reason to suspend the corrective measure.

 

For example, if the passenger side tires of a car slip off the side of a narrow road one steers harder to the left to correct the problem and then returns to normal driving, one doesn’t keep the wheel cranked to the left once the vehicle is back on the roadway. Unless, that is, one wants to end up in the ditch on the left side of the road.

 

.

Edited June 25, 2013 by B-Man

[PTS]

If you want to slam your head against a wall, go to Twitter and search #SCOTUS to see reaction to this ruling.

 

There are so many uninformed citizens in this nation. The only thing worse is the moronic "celebrities" that comment when they simply have no clue about anything in the real world.

 

This is also too funny: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/25/democratic-lawmaker-hits-justice-uncle-thomas/

[Fezmid]

You'll get a kick out of this.

 

http://act.credoaction.com/sign/voting_rights_act/?akid=8236.2432584.GjMGjj&rd=1&t=8

[B-Large]

ok, so congress had the opportunity to modernize the section in question, and chose not to.... so i assume if voter ID laws come into place in places like Texas and S. Carolina, and there is evidence that they are discriminatory, those said laws will end up at some point in the future infront of the Supreme Court anyway, right?

 

I don't get the feeling the Supreme Justices will tolerate voter disrimination, but at the same time will not uphold a law that is outdated and not repsrentative of the current situation....

 

I don't see the problem.

 

If you want to slam your head against a wall, go to Twitter and search #SCOTUS to see reaction to this ruling.

 

There are so many uninformed citizens in this nation. The only thing worse is the moronic "celebrities" that comment when they simply have no clue about anything in the real world.

 

This is also too funny: http://www.washingto...e-uncle-thomas/

 

Jesus, is Clarence Thomas really Clayton Bigsby? We all know Bigsby hated people of all color, because they stink... lol

[B-Man]

A Civil-Rights Victory

 

By John Fund

 

 

The Supreme Court’s decision today to overturn a small part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is actually a victory for civil rights. As the court noted, what made sense both in moral and practical terms almost a half century ago has to be approached anew.

 

Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act forced states that had poor minority registration or turnout numbers in the 1960s to remain in a permanent penalty box from which they were forced to seek Justice Department approval for the most basic of election-law decisions. Its consideration of state requests for election changes was often arbitrary and partisan, as witnessed by the recent smackdown that the DOJ got from a federal court when it tried to block South Carolina’s voter ID law.

 

 

The rest of the Voting Rights Act remains in place and will be used to ensure minority voting rights. Congress is free to come up with a different, updated coverage formula for pre-clearance, but given the DOJ’s current stained reputation Congressional action looks unlikely in the near future.

 

Clint Bolick, director of litigation for the conservative Goldwater Institute in Arizona, says the demise of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act will also reduce the balkanization of racial gerrymandering that has become so popular lately. “Voting districts drawn on racial or ethnic lines divide Americans,” he says. “This decision helps move us toward the day in which racial gerrymandering becomes a relic of the past.”

[Koko78]

“Voting districts drawn on racial or ethnic lines divide Americans,” he says. “This decision helps move us toward the day in which racial gerrymandering becomes a relic of the past.”

 

Racial gerrymandering will occur so long as ethnic groups vote for one party as a near-unified bloc. It has nothing to do with the color of their skin.

[Doc]

If you want to slam your head against a wall, go to Twitter and search #SCOTUS to see reaction to this ruling.

 

There are so many uninformed citizens in this nation. The only thing worse is the moronic "celebrities" that comment when they simply have no clue about anything in the real world.

 

This is also too funny: http://www.washingto...e-uncle-thomas/

In other news, water is wet.

[birdog1960]

Nope, that's pretty much it.

I find Ginsberg's dissent more eloquent than your summation. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/best-lines-ginsburg-dissent-voting-rights-act-decision

[B-Man]

Hilarious, over the top, end of the world, no other word for it than - ignorant, reactions from the left.

 

Ignorant and Confused Reactions to SCOTUS Voting Rights Act Decision

 

They cling bitterly to racial politics even though the decision was based on the Constitution and the change in society since 1965.

 

They certainly don’t understand the decision itself, and that discrimination as to voting rights still is illegal. All the decision did was do away with a remedial anachronism based on outdated facts as to the South.

 

Here’s a key portion of the decision:

Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in §2.

Here’s the ignorant and confused reaction:

President Obama blasts

#SCOTUS

on

#VRA

decision in a strongly worded statement, saying he's 'deeply disappointed':

http://t.co/FZJ8DO5wLh

— Business Insider (@businessinsider)

June 25, 2013

Obama on

#VRA

: "Today's decision is a setback, but not the end of our efforts to end voting discrimination."

http://t.co/DljPMGcNCI

— AALDEF (@aaldef)

June 25, 2013

AG Holder on Voting Rights Act: Congress needs to act so that every American has equal access to the polls.

@wdet

#VRA

— Jerome Vaughn (@jvdet)

June 25, 2013

Rep. John Lewis: Justices put "a dagger in the heart" of

#VRA

(VIDEO):

http://t.co/q3cuLceCZp

— Talking Points Memo (@TPM)

June 25, 2013

American citizens withstood beatings, firehoses and dogs to see the law passed. Some even gave their lives.

#VRA

is a vital tool. Agree?

— Donna Brazile (@donnabrazile)

June 25, 2013

Disappointed by the

#SCOTUS

#VRA

decision. Voting rights should be expanded, not limited.

— D Wasserman Schultz (@DWStweets)

June 25, 2013

 

 

and, we have a #Winner:

It'll be easier for

#Snowden

to vote than for poor Southern blacks.

— Harold Itzkowitz (@HaroldItz)

June 25, 2013

[birdog1960]

Hilarious, over the top, end of the world, no other word for it than - ignorant, reactions from the left.

 

 

 

 

so we"re to ignore Ginsberg's examples where the DOJ had to step in and undo blatantly racist actions in the states in question? are you ignorant to those cases?

[B-Man]

From Prof. Ann Althouse.

 

 

 

 

Justice Ginsburg says the "equal sovereignty" principle "is capable of much mischief" and brainstorms ideas for vexatious litigation.

 

In her dissenting opinion in Shelby County v. Holder (PDF), she frets about all the federal laws that treat states differently from each other and could be subjected to attacks based on the majority's "fundamental principle of equal sovereignty" among the states:

 

See, e.g., 28 U. S. C. §3704 (no State may operate or permit a sports-related gambling scheme, unless that State con­ducted such a scheme “at any time during the period beginning January 1, 1976, and ending August 31, 1990”); 26 U. S. C. §142(l) (EPA required to locate green building project in a State meeting specified population criteria); 42 U. S. C. §3796bb (at least 50 percent of rural drug enforcement assistance funding must be allocated to States with “a population density of fifty-two or fewer persons per square mile or a State in which the largest county has fewer than one hundred and fifty thousand people, based on the decennial census of 1990 through fiscal year 1997”); §§13925, 13971 (similar population criteria for funding to combat rural domestic violence); §10136 (specifying rules applicable to Nevada’s Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site, and providing that “[n]o State, other than the State of Nevada, may receive financial assistance under this sub­section after December 22, 1987”).

 

 

 

It seems to me that the "equal sovereignty" principle is an important structural safeguard in the federal legislative process, protecting us from the democratic dysfunctions of things like the "Cornhusker Kickback."

 

This is exactly the sort of thing that ought to shake judges out of the usual deference to Congress.

 

 

 

 

Justice Ginsburg "dormancy" example is beyond parody. It's akin to saying now that the firemen have put out the fire lets keep them on site I definitely in case another fire should occur. Then she goes on about group voting rights. Her mindset is such that it escapes her that our rights are individual rights not collective group rights.

 

.

[Doc]

Too bad it's about 8 months too late.

[birdog1960]

From Prof. Ann Althouse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Justice Ginsburg "dormancy" example is beyond parody. It's akin to saying now that the firemen have put out the fire lets keep them on site I definitely in case another fire should occur. Then she goes on about group voting rights. Her mindset is such that it escapes her that our rights are individual rights not collective group rights.

 

.

let's just say that for every scalia there's a ginsberg in the wings. parody all you want. but from my perch, it's much easier to parody scalia.

[KD in CA]

I find Ginsberg's dissent more eloquent than your summation. http://www.motherjon...ts-act-decision

 

But the quality of the content was pretty even.

 

A handful of accusations doesn't justify a permanent, blanket removal of rights for several entire states.

 

let's just say that for every scalia there's a ginsberg in the wings. parody all you want. but from my perch, it's much easier to parody scalia.

In other words, you have no defense for Ginsberg's idiocy.

[TakeYouToTasker]

The whole law is invalid. The court, as usual, is a mockery.

[DC Tom]

I find Ginsberg's dissent more eloquent than your summation. http://www.motherjon...ts-act-decision

 

If those were her "best lines," it was a really ****ty dissent. Two of those quotes, her logic is so convoluted that it provides equally valid support to the majority opinion. The only real argument she makes is that it should have been left to Congress to determine the law's sunset (which is not a point I necessarily disagree on). The rest is just demagoguery, of a type you'd only see celebrated on a site full of masturbatory self-validators like Mother Jones.

[3rdnlng]

I'm looking at the option of a BJ or responding to this drivel. See ya.