Part of the rational of John Roberts' SJC striking down clause four of the VRA was that clause four at least was no obsolete and so now discriminatory against Southern states that the clause singled out.
That argument is shown to have holes in it by today's ruling of a federal court that found that Texas; voter id law is discriminatory:
"A federal appeals court on Wednesday found that Texas’ strict voter identification law violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, in a victory for civil rights groups who had challenged the law."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/texas-voter-id_55c25245e4b0d9b28f052fa2?kvcommref=mostpopular
But it's worse than that. Not only did those who struck down clause 4 falsely believe that there was no longer any need for it, but their striking it down directly led to Texas' reactionary law:
"Texas, which had originally been prevented from passing the law in 2011 under Republican Gov. Rick Perry, was able to quickly enact it in 2013 when the Supreme Court struck down Section 5 of the VRA, which required the state to submit any changes to its election laws to the federal government or in federal court."
"In October, a federal judge called the law an unconstitutional "poll tax” that was intentionally discriminatory and an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote. But the Supreme Courtallowed the law to be in effect for November’s midterm election, even though more than 600,000 Texans lacked a valid form of government-issued photo identification."
"On Wednesday, the federal appeals court said that while the purpose of passing the legislation was to protect the sanctity of voting and avoid voter fraud, it questions whether there were “impermissible motives” as well. It said it was “difficult” to evaluate the motives of dozens of people, but the opinion indicated that the court was surprised not to find any evidence of racial motives in private correspondence."
“While it is true that it is unlikely for a legislator to stand in the well of the state house or senate and articulate a racial motive, it is also unlikely that such a motive would permeate a legislative body and not yield any private memos or emails,” the court said.
This is an important victory then-though there is still far to go. We need the kind of voter law reform talked about by Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile the GOP won't even renew the VRA as the Robert's Court naively claimed they would.
"Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is one of those who claims the voting act is fine the way it is. But in the last five years, 21 states have put new restrictions on the vote in place. In 15 of those states, the rules — ranging from voter registration rollbacks to early voting cutbacks to voter ID requirements — will play a first-time role in a presidential election next year."
"That should rattle anyone who cares about voting participation and fairness."
"You may recall that just hours after the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling, then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott put into effect a strict and controversial photo ID lawthat had previously been blocked under the Voting Rights Act.
"The Justice Department and others have fought back, today winning at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. But none of that prevented the ID law from staying in place during the 2014 election. Until Congress acts, the only recourse is after the fact — long after winners and losers are tallied."
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20150805-editorial-congress-fails-to-deliver-vital-fix-as-voting-rights-act-turns-50.ece
That argument is shown to have holes in it by today's ruling of a federal court that found that Texas; voter id law is discriminatory:
"A federal appeals court on Wednesday found that Texas’ strict voter identification law violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, in a victory for civil rights groups who had challenged the law."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/texas-voter-id_55c25245e4b0d9b28f052fa2?kvcommref=mostpopular
But it's worse than that. Not only did those who struck down clause 4 falsely believe that there was no longer any need for it, but their striking it down directly led to Texas' reactionary law:
"Texas, which had originally been prevented from passing the law in 2011 under Republican Gov. Rick Perry, was able to quickly enact it in 2013 when the Supreme Court struck down Section 5 of the VRA, which required the state to submit any changes to its election laws to the federal government or in federal court."
"In October, a federal judge called the law an unconstitutional "poll tax” that was intentionally discriminatory and an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote. But the Supreme Courtallowed the law to be in effect for November’s midterm election, even though more than 600,000 Texans lacked a valid form of government-issued photo identification."
"On Wednesday, the federal appeals court said that while the purpose of passing the legislation was to protect the sanctity of voting and avoid voter fraud, it questions whether there were “impermissible motives” as well. It said it was “difficult” to evaluate the motives of dozens of people, but the opinion indicated that the court was surprised not to find any evidence of racial motives in private correspondence."
“While it is true that it is unlikely for a legislator to stand in the well of the state house or senate and articulate a racial motive, it is also unlikely that such a motive would permeate a legislative body and not yield any private memos or emails,” the court said.
This is an important victory then-though there is still far to go. We need the kind of voter law reform talked about by Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile the GOP won't even renew the VRA as the Robert's Court naively claimed they would.
"Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is one of those who claims the voting act is fine the way it is. But in the last five years, 21 states have put new restrictions on the vote in place. In 15 of those states, the rules — ranging from voter registration rollbacks to early voting cutbacks to voter ID requirements — will play a first-time role in a presidential election next year."
"That should rattle anyone who cares about voting participation and fairness."
"You may recall that just hours after the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling, then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott put into effect a strict and controversial photo ID lawthat had previously been blocked under the Voting Rights Act.
"The Justice Department and others have fought back, today winning at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. But none of that prevented the ID law from staying in place during the 2014 election. Until Congress acts, the only recourse is after the fact — long after winners and losers are tallied."
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20150805-editorial-congress-fails-to-deliver-vital-fix-as-voting-rights-act-turns-50.ece
No comments:
Post a Comment