Why isn't voter suppression illegal

[KT2000]

It is in the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution that state the right shall not be abridged. How could all those efforts survive a Supreme Court challenge?

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

[RKP5637]

1. I don't get it either. One would think all of this crap to stop votes would be way over the top of

illegal. And the US preaches to other nations about the right to vote, like the US is a bunch of saints. FFS, the BS in the US runs deep.

[Lithos]

2. Framing

Voter Suppression is an outcome. Intent creates outcome, but it is difficult to prove the actual intent was to create a specific outcome.

[canetoad]

4. Thank you

I was trying to frame a similar answer.

[unblock]

3. It's only as good as the Supreme Court lets it be

For the most part, if voter suppression isn't *explicitly* on the basis of race, then they say it's ok. So shutting down polling places would be a problem if there were a recording that they did it to make it hard for blacks to vote.

But if they say it's to save money or probably even to suppress the vote of *democrats*, then that's basically ok according to the Supreme Court, even though black people strongly align with the Democratic Party. At least, gerrymandering on the basis of party is ok, but on the basis of race is not.

Sucks but that's the current court we're dealing with.

[Budi]

5. Didn't McConnell vote down the renewal of the Voting Rights act?

Or not bring it to a vote for renewal maybe.

Repubs have been suppressing the right to vote for decades. Its truly the only way they ever win

I can't recall what caused it to lapse.
Have to research that info.

[beachbumbob]

6. takesd federal govt enforcement as well as federal judges, not going to happen until we rid our

country of GOP control and find a way to rid ourselves of Federal judges which takes 67 senate votes to do so.

[Martin Eden]

7. Because 7 years ago,in a 5-4 "conservative" majority decision

... the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act by removing a provision requiring states with a history of discriminating against minority voters to get federal permission before changing their voting rules.

[StarfishSaver]

10. Interestingly

The Court ruled that Congress had overstepped in requiring certain states to pre-clear voting changes to stop voter suppression, but last year decided that challenges to state legislatures' electoral maps are political questions that are not reviewable in federal court.

In other words, the Court struck down Congress' efforts to protect black voters' right to vote but wouldn't touch state legislatures' drive to suppress the black vote.

[Martin Eden]

12. "States Rights"

A rallying cry of the confederacy.

[StarfishSaver]

8. It is. The Voting Rights Act is the operating statute

But the Supreme Court eviscerated the pre-clearance provision, the primary enforcement section of the Act.

Under the pre-clearance provision, states and localities in designated states with a history of suppression were required to submit any proposed changes to any voting processes to DOJ for pre-approval. It was a tremendous prevention mechanism. But the Supreme Court invalidated Section 5 in 2013. Now the only way to enforce the Act is by proving suppression case by case and often after the fact.

Another reason we need to take back the Senate and keep the House - we need to restore the Voting Rights Act.

[Chainfire]

9. lawyers.

[StarfishSaver]

11. Not lawyers. Republucans

[crickets]

13. K&R for the post and the discussion.