SCOTUS To Review Voting Rights Act

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Here we go again. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear challenges to the Voting Rights Act of '65 that has be renewed four times since, the argument being that key provisions in the law are "obsolete", in particular those dealing with how certain states and districts can (and cannot) go about making changes to election procedures:

Supreme Court to hear key voting rights case - First Read

Pehaps in hearing the case the mostly CONSERVATIVE Court might consider actions on the parts of many (in this recent election) to undermine and disenfranchise the rights of millions of voters by changing the location of polling places, curtailing hours, removing voters from rolls for questionable reasons, and the like.

Though I must say I AM in agreement with ONE thing the law's challengers are saying - The Voting Rights Act IS outdated and DOES target some states and localities while ignoring others.

IMO, the act needs to be revamped so that it APPLIES TO EVERY STATE IN THE UNION. That, at least, should do away with some of the bases for their challenges to the law.
 

njitalian02

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Posts
266
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
103
Location
NJ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Actually, I don't think this a "conservative vs. liberal" SCOTUS case. Back in 2009 Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens (ret.), and Souter (the four uber liberal justices) also signaled that there could be 10th Amendment/Federalism concerns. I dont know how Ginsburg and Breyer (along with Kagan and Sotomayor) would vote in this case, but I think it says something that all liberal members of the Court back in 2009 said they were concerned about VRA.

Also, just so clear, striking down the VRA wouldn't make anything legal or illegal. It just would let State courts ajudicate the issues instead of federal courts. You still couldn't disenfranchise voters for example. The issue is really who hears the case, not whether these issues are constitutional
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male

Yes, saw it later in the above thread. I believe it deserves it's own thread, though.

Actually, I don't think this a "conservative vs. liberal" SCOTUS case. Back in 2009 Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens (ret.), and Souter (the four uber liberal justices) also signaled that there could be 10th Amendment/Federalism concerns. I dont know how Ginsburg and Breyer (along with Kagan and Sotomayor) would vote in this case, but I think it says something that all liberal members of the Court back in 2009 said they were concerned about VRA.

Also, just so clear, striking down the VRA wouldn't make anything legal or illegal. It just would let State courts ajudicate the issues instead of federal courts. You still couldn't disenfranchise voters for example. The issue is really who hears the case, not whether these issues are constitutional

The "issue" imo is whether the states can be trusted to make these decisions given not only historical precedence but considering numerous recent incidents (voter intimidation, voter id laws, removal of legitimate voters from rolls, etc.) over the last several years.

The bulk of the arguments (as I have read of it so far) seems much to do with whether the states under Sec. 5 of the Act are essentially as they were when the law was originally written (i.e. still in need of federal preapproval before making changes to their election laws).

The basis of the plaintiffs' objection is that they are no longer in need of this kind of scrutiny. As I proposed, that entire argument can be made moot if the law applied to all states.

As to the constitutionality of it and the ensuing questions of federalism, all of that seems to me to be a bit of a "red herring". The federal government has the right to make ANY laws necessary to enforce the Constitution, Amendments are part of the Constitution, and the 15th Amendment prohibits denying one the right to vote based on race.
 
Last edited:

njitalian02

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Posts
266
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
103
Location
NJ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
I dont understand the distinction. Potentially the VRA would be struck down b/c the preclearance requirements are no longer required/applicable to the current covered jurisdictions (i.e., times have changed and potentially preclearance would not longer be required). What youre saying is, even though the argument to strike down the VRA is based on the idea that it covers too many jurisdictions without a history of discrimination anymore, that the way to make it valid is to cover all jurisdictions even those without a history of discrimination?

Aren't there still federalism costs? Aren't there even more federalism costs? VRA preclearance has only been upheld b/c it has been necessary for those limited covered jurisdictions. I dont think 1) making all districts covered would be a good decision (i.e., b/c then that would require my local NJ town of 7,000 to get preclearance from teh federal government if we wanted to move a polling station from the high school to the middle school...kind of ridiculous) and 2) I think you're original post (and my original response) clearly was directed towards your idea that this was a conservative vs. liberal issue (see your first post where its "here we go again", " most conservative court"). It' not a conservative vs. liberal issue again b/c the four liberal justices in 2009 said this was a constitutional issue.
 

sillystring

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Posts
694
Media
0
Likes
66
Points
248
Gender
Male
The review of the VRA is a necessary one. The act is considered a violation of the 10th Amendment, even more so because it is selective of which States it is enforced upon.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are laws whose constitutionality are very much in question when they are written and enacted, but are for the greater good and serve to meet an immediate need. They are stop gaps....they are band-aids.

The VRA could not be retroactively applied to all the States. The States which value their 10th Ammendment rights would be up in arms, and having the VRA apply to only some of the States is a disparity.

The SCOTUS tends not to review controversial "greater good" laws until those laws appear to be obsolete.
 

slurper_la

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Posts
5,860
Media
9
Likes
3,687
Points
333
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Then maybe next time instead of making the thread title and your OP a bait and switch, you should just stick to the issue at hand.

b.c. did the right thing with the story.

firstly, mind your own business

secondly, there is no bait and switch in my positing a concept that Romney's loss could, possibly, be an orchestrated maneuver towards establishing a baseline for arguments against the continuing need for the VRA
 

AtomicMouse1950

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 30, 2011
Posts
2,968
Media
22
Likes
460
Points
218
Age
73
Location
Placerville , Ca.
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
The SCotUS, had a case similar to this about 3 years ago. They nearly then overturned the 1965 Voting Rights Act. However in their combined opinion, the Court left it up to Congress to update the Law. Since this election proved that there were problems with voting, in areas that were not the South, the law needs to be updated to reflect the entire U.S.A., not just the South. Congress needs to get a grip on this. But I have a feeling the SCotUS, will do something, that will prod the Congress to finally rewrite the law. I hope.
 

AtomicMouse1950

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 30, 2011
Posts
2,968
Media
22
Likes
460
Points
218
Age
73
Location
Placerville , Ca.
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Voting Rights Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The review of the VRA is a necessary one. The act is considered a violation of the 10th Amendment, even more so because it is selective of which States it is enforced upon.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are laws whose constitutionality are very much in question when they are written and enacted, but are for the greater good and serve to meet an immediate need. They are stop gaps....they are band-aids.

The VRA could not be retroactively applied to all the States. The States which value their 10th Ammendment rights would be up in arms, and having the VRA apply to only some of the States is a disparity.

The SCOTUS tends not to review controversial "greater good" laws until those laws appear to be obsolete.
 

sillystring

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Posts
694
Media
0
Likes
66
Points
248
Gender
Male
firstly, mind your own business

secondly, there is no bait and switch in my positing a concept that Romney's loss could, possibly, be an orchestrated maneuver towards establishing a baseline for arguments against the continuing need for the VRA

Firstly, be quiet and stop bitching that your thread was first and should be the end all be all.

Second, if it wasn't a bait and switch why did it take till page two for ANYONE to get what you were saying....after you prodded them. Your "theory" is about as dumb as a fake moon landing.
 

AtomicMouse1950

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 30, 2011
Posts
2,968
Media
22
Likes
460
Points
218
Age
73
Location
Placerville , Ca.
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
IF the VRA gets declared unconstitutional... And What that means for the individual states is this. IF there is some situation, where a group of people, or one individual gets their voting rights infringed upon, due to anything from, being purged, having their ballot thrown out, etc., then that person's/group/persons have only one recourse, and that is to sue. What needs to be done, is, for the Congress to reaffirm the law, and make it stronger, that it applies to all states, no matter if it's a midterm election, or a Presidential, or primaries. The President in his acceptance speech hinted, he wants to do something to make all elections going forward standardized. Or Federalized. In either case a right step going forward. Much of the free world, has little or no drama compared to our system, which seems to be somewhat corrupted. As evidence by all of the states under Republican rule. This year, however it backfired on them. But a voter, of any political persuasion, should not have to stand in a voting line for 6 to 12 hours just to make their preference known. This has to stop. Voting should only be political, as to make an individual statement as to who they'd like to see running their local or national representatives, not who should be allowed to vote. My first thought is to get rid of the computerized voting machines, and it's been proven, to be something short of a sham.
 

njitalian02

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Posts
266
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
103
Location
NJ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Techniically, the 2009 opinion didn't leave it to Congress to update. Indeed, it's wrong for SCOTUS to ever rewrite a law. They would affirm the law or strike it down. They simply never reached the constitutional concerns in that case b/c that specific question was not presented.

Again, I it sounds nice and sweet to say the VRA needs to cover all jurisdictions, but maybe that's true only if it's major changes. Again, an updated VRA that covers all jurisdictions would require every small town in America to go to DC to get approval to move polling places. How is that logical?

Also, again, just in the very design of the country, a universal system seems to avoid the concern the SCOTUS pointed out. B/c of federalism and the 10th Amendment, necessarily an all inclusive federal oversight of every election (from school board, to municpal, to county, to State, to Federal elections) naturally raises constitutional concerns that SCOTUS is worried about.
 

AtomicMouse1950

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 30, 2011
Posts
2,968
Media
22
Likes
460
Points
218
Age
73
Location
Placerville , Ca.
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
You can't just ignore what happened this election cycle. States who held a Republican majority, were the ones that were trying to craft the voting in their favor, by limiting who got to vote. This is egregious. Voting should not be held hostage to the whim of the political powers that be. Voting should be fair, and drama free. Voting should be transparent and above suspicion.
 

njitalian02

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Posts
266
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
103
Location
NJ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
You can't just ignore what happened this election cycle. States who held a Republican majority, were the ones that were trying to craft the voting in their favor, by limiting who got to vote. This is egregious. Voting should not be held hostage to the whim of the political powers that be. Voting should be fair, and drama free. Voting should be transparent and above suspicion.

Again, yes but you can't ignore that the federal government is limited. That the Tenth Amendment protect States from federal intrusion and individuality. Rights cannot be violated, but an overarching federal policy could just as well be wrong or illegal.
 

AtomicMouse1950

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 30, 2011
Posts
2,968
Media
22
Likes
460
Points
218
Age
73
Location
Placerville , Ca.
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
So it's time to tell the UK, and Canada, Australia that their method of casting votes, is wrong. Because it's worked for them for a very long, long time. It's time we take the drama out of our election process.



Again, yes but you can't ignore that the federal government is limited. That the Tenth Amendment protect States from federal intrusion and individuality. Rights cannot be violated, but an overarching federal policy could just as well be wrong or illegal.
 

njitalian02

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Posts
266
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
103
Location
NJ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
well, the UK, Canada, and Australia are different. Im not saying the way they cast votes is wrong. They do not our Tenth Amendment. They do not have our Federalism set up. That i what I'm talking about. I'm not saying there are not problems, but how you address them is particular to our system of law. My only concern is the US Constitution and following it. Take the drama out? Absolutely. Pass an amendment relating to universal voting schemes.

Also, if we want to look at Canada, maybe we should since in Canada they have voter ID laws for federal elections. If you're saying Canada has it right, then you must believe we need voter ID laws too.