Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
So the ruling is that you can't selectively target states for preclearance? Well, I suppose that's not a total step backwards. If it's all or nothing, I say all.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
It's actually not even that bad
. It seems I was wrong: You can selectively target - but you just have to use a contemporary formula to do so, not one based on data from 1975. The principle that "the federal government can force all or specific states to preclear their voting arrangements with it" is still constitutional.
Don't get me wrong - this is still a very grave threat to the right to vote, since the chances of this Congress passing a gutsy modification to the original formula are miniscule. But the Voting Rights Act has not been "struck down" in totality - it has been defanged, but there will be ample opportunity in the coming years to re-fang it. For now, Americans for equality will have to fight it in other ways. Like I say, Godspeed.
edited 25th Jun '13 8:33:47 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiI think the ruling means, from what I've gathered:
Section 2 stands, which means you can go to court over a specific change in voting law in your state if you think it discriminates against minorities.
Section 5 stands, which means the federal government can require preclearance of changes in voting law in some states, based on discriminatory history.
However, Section 4 which outlines which states and how to apply preclearance is struck down, which renders Section 5 to have no effect unless Congress makes up new rules based on modern census data. I don't know what the new rules need to be like. Good luck getting Congress to agree on new rules. Also it's unlikely to mean they'll apply preclearance to every state, SCOTUS would strike that down as unjustified if it managed to pass.
edited 25th Jun '13 8:37:34 AM by occono
Dumbo"SCOTUS would strike that down as unjustified if it managed to pass. "
Sure?
(Didn't check the link length.)
Just waiting in the wings to introduce that, weren't you Texas? Champing at the bit, rarin' to go!
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yep, and likely to be struck down for that specific reason. Let's hope.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Pardon my ignorance of legal matters, but wouldn't Section 4 apply equally to all the states as it (in theory) holds them all to the same friggin standard?
Also, Louisiana just criminalized journalism.
Oh, good, another law that shouldn't withstand judicial scrutiny. Again, one hopes.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
Umm, no, Section 4 is aimed at specific states and counties that suppressed African-American voting.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
is the court decision.
edited 25th Jun '13 11:24:33 AM by occono
DumboMy understanding is that section 4 is also the list of things that would get a state on to that list, not just the list itself.
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen FryThe fucking Weather Channel is giving more coverage of Obama's speech about the environment than the cable news networks are.
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen FryRacism never died. It just went into hiding behind a veneer of polite tolerance. anyone with an ethnic background has known that for decades.
Its only "weakened" in the sense that now racists have convinced themselves that its not racist to mutter under their breath that that damned mexican should speak goddamn english.
edited 25th Jun '13 3:09:08 PM by midgetsnowman

How to salvage something of this:
The key part of this ruling is that it is constitutional to force states to preclear their voting arrangements with the federal government. It is not constitutional to force only some states to do it.
So, the best way it can be solved is: force all of America to do it.
In the interim, until the there is a properly social democratic administration and Congress, advocacy groups like SCLC, NAACP, and local Democrats will have to ensure that they get their vote out and registered.
On the bright side: equality faced down "Bull" Connor and George Wallace and won. Hopefully, the modern Republican Party won't detain it long.
edited 25th Jun '13 8:28:46 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei