Dissenting SJC Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg had the line of the day in describing the striking down of Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act:
“Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet,” Ginsburg wrote.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/voting-rights-act-supreme-court_n_3429810.html?utm_hp_ref=politic
The conservative majority seems convinced that discrimination by states and localities is just not the worry it once was, though they admit it still happens. However, they think that the most important discrimination is forcing the listed states-mostly, though not all southern states-in forcing them to have to get preclearance with the government first.
"The court’s conservative majority said that when Congress reauthorized the law in 2006 it did not have sufficient basis to re-adopt a formula that is essentially the same as the one used when the law was first passed in 1965."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-ruling-93324.html#ixzz2XG3gfwFj
The decision doesn't in principle end the preclearance requirement in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; however, by throwing out Section 4's mechanism by which to determine which states and localities should be on the preclearance list, it is de facto now neutered. What is needed is for Congress to come up with a new criterion that would meet the SJC's criteria of 'a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions.'
Current conditions have seen an avalanche of Republican states pass laws meant to weaken voter rights for minorities-South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Texas, the list goes on and on. Last year most of these efforts were beaten back. However, that was when voter rights advocates had the benefit of a fully functioning Section 5. Now its gutted waiting for the House GOP to put it back together again. I'm sure Darrell Issa will let his IRS witch hunt wait so that they can all hurry and pass this.
"The Brennan Center believes that the striking down of Section 5 will lead states to revisit voting restrictions that have been blocked, and will increase the odds that current pending restrictions will ultimately pass. The Brennan Center recently issued a reportdetailing a surprisingly large number of initiatives that could be revived or will more likely become law in states previously impacted by Section 5."
“If Section 5 is struck down, jurisdictions may seek to revive these and other previously-blocked election changes,” the Brennan report says. “We may see jurisdictions attempt to move forward with discriminatory voting changes that were abandoned, or never finally adopted, because the jurisdictions realized such changes would likely draw a Section Five objection.”
While this doesn't gut the VRA in entirety, it now places the burden of proof on victims of voter discrimination, whereas previously, states on the list had to get new voter laws cleared. The argument of the conservative SCOTUS majority makes no sense. The listed states and localities that have to get preclearance is continually updated-it has not stayed frozen in time for 40 years. I don't see teh relevance of the fact that the criteria for which states are on the list is the same. If it was an outmoded criteria why are so many states and localities still unable to pass it? As Josh Marshall points out, the way to get off the list is simply not to discriminate. Once the state or locality demonstrates this, they're off the list.
"There’s surprisingly little discussion today of the fact that a jurisdiction can get out of under the pre-clearance standard by simply demonstrating over a ten year period that they’re no longer abusing/discriminating against minority voters in the jurisdiction. And a substantial number of jurisdictions have been able to do that, especially with revisions to the law passed in the early 1980s. Here’s a piece on how New England got entirely out of under the VRA pre-clearances process (yes, there were covered areas) basically by not being racist."
http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/06/is_that_so_hard.php?ref=fpblg
DOJ's Attorney General Eric Holder has vowed to continue to protect voters 'with all available tools.'
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/06/holder-despite-ruling-doj-will-not-hesitate-to-protect-167014.html?hp=l1
However, some of the tools are now considerably blunted. Voters are surely going to need what protection they can get. The ink was barely cold in this regrettable decision and the GOP is already celebrating.
http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/06/bring_on_those_voter_ids.php?ref=fpblg
It's not clear what gave the SJC the impression that discrimination is not such a big problem anymore but surely they didn't arrive at that view by watching Texas and South Carolina.
“Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet,” Ginsburg wrote.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/voting-rights-act-supreme-court_n_3429810.html?utm_hp_ref=politic
The conservative majority seems convinced that discrimination by states and localities is just not the worry it once was, though they admit it still happens. However, they think that the most important discrimination is forcing the listed states-mostly, though not all southern states-in forcing them to have to get preclearance with the government first.
"The court’s conservative majority said that when Congress reauthorized the law in 2006 it did not have sufficient basis to re-adopt a formula that is essentially the same as the one used when the law was first passed in 1965."
”Congress — if it is to divide the States — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions. It cannot rely simply on the past,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-ruling-93324.html#ixzz2XG3gfwFj
The decision doesn't in principle end the preclearance requirement in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; however, by throwing out Section 4's mechanism by which to determine which states and localities should be on the preclearance list, it is de facto now neutered. What is needed is for Congress to come up with a new criterion that would meet the SJC's criteria of 'a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions.'
Current conditions have seen an avalanche of Republican states pass laws meant to weaken voter rights for minorities-South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Texas, the list goes on and on. Last year most of these efforts were beaten back. However, that was when voter rights advocates had the benefit of a fully functioning Section 5. Now its gutted waiting for the House GOP to put it back together again. I'm sure Darrell Issa will let his IRS witch hunt wait so that they can all hurry and pass this.
"The Brennan Center believes that the striking down of Section 5 will lead states to revisit voting restrictions that have been blocked, and will increase the odds that current pending restrictions will ultimately pass. The Brennan Center recently issued a reportdetailing a surprisingly large number of initiatives that could be revived or will more likely become law in states previously impacted by Section 5."
“If Section 5 is struck down, jurisdictions may seek to revive these and other previously-blocked election changes,” the Brennan report says. “We may see jurisdictions attempt to move forward with discriminatory voting changes that were abandoned, or never finally adopted, because the jurisdictions realized such changes would likely draw a Section Five objection.”
While this doesn't gut the VRA in entirety, it now places the burden of proof on victims of voter discrimination, whereas previously, states on the list had to get new voter laws cleared. The argument of the conservative SCOTUS majority makes no sense. The listed states and localities that have to get preclearance is continually updated-it has not stayed frozen in time for 40 years. I don't see teh relevance of the fact that the criteria for which states are on the list is the same. If it was an outmoded criteria why are so many states and localities still unable to pass it? As Josh Marshall points out, the way to get off the list is simply not to discriminate. Once the state or locality demonstrates this, they're off the list.
"There’s surprisingly little discussion today of the fact that a jurisdiction can get out of under the pre-clearance standard by simply demonstrating over a ten year period that they’re no longer abusing/discriminating against minority voters in the jurisdiction. And a substantial number of jurisdictions have been able to do that, especially with revisions to the law passed in the early 1980s. Here’s a piece on how New England got entirely out of under the VRA pre-clearances process (yes, there were covered areas) basically by not being racist."
http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/06/is_that_so_hard.php?ref=fpblg
DOJ's Attorney General Eric Holder has vowed to continue to protect voters 'with all available tools.'
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/06/holder-despite-ruling-doj-will-not-hesitate-to-protect-167014.html?hp=l1
However, some of the tools are now considerably blunted. Voters are surely going to need what protection they can get. The ink was barely cold in this regrettable decision and the GOP is already celebrating.
http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/06/bring_on_those_voter_ids.php?ref=fpblg
It's not clear what gave the SJC the impression that discrimination is not such a big problem anymore but surely they didn't arrive at that view by watching Texas and South Carolina.
No comments:
Post a Comment