Uh-oh! Supremes to hear challenge to Voting Rights Act

[theHandpuppet]

Wow -- didn't take them long, did it. This has me extremely worried.

Supreme Court to review key section of Voting Rights Act
Nov 09, 2012 08:41 PM EST
The Washington Post

The Supreme Court on Friday said it would decide the constitutionality of a signature portion of the Voting Rights Act.

The justices three years ago expressed skepticism about the continued need for Section 5 of the historic act, which requires states and localities with a history of discrimination, most of them in the South, to get federal approval of any changes in their voting laws.

It is the second important case involving race that the court has accepted this term. Last month, the justices heard a challenge to the University of Texas’s admissions policy that could redefine or eliminate the use of affirmative action in higher education.

The Section 5 requirements were passed during the darkest days of the civil rights struggle, paving the way for expanded voting rights for African Americans and greatly increasing the number of minority officeholders... MORE

[url] http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/supreme-court-to-review-key-section-of-voting-rights-act/2012/11/09/dd249cd0-216d-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_story.html [/url]

[LiberalLoner]

1. I am very worried that they will take away

Suffrage for minorities and women too
Can they do that, does anyone know?

[Indydem]

2. Do you even know what the court is?

No. They can't take away anyone's suffrage.

SMDH

[theHandpuppet]

3. You could answer without the snark

Just a suggestion.

[Indydem]

5. No, I can't.

The Supreme court is not some dictatorship. The idea that the really can "legislate from the bench" is GD ludicrous.

The VRA defines what states can and cannot do in regards to voting guidelines.

The SCOTUS isn't going to turn around and say "BTW, no one but white land owners can vote."

Get real. People who are so ignorant as to not understand how the court works make every single one of the members of the DU look stupid.

[WinkyDink]

12. Especially when the SCOTUS usurps a state's rights to vote recount.

[lonestarnot]

13. Then how the fuck do you explain that Citizen's United decision?

[Indydem]

15. Really?

They removed a restriction. They didn't add one.

Apples to Humus.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

4. Suffrage for minorities and women is enshrined in the Constitution, so no, they can't do that.

But if that portion of the VRA is struck down, it becomes easier for southern states to gerrymander their districts to effectively disenfranchise large blocs of minorities. I think it's probably impossible to gerrymander to disenfranchise women specifically.

[LiberalLoner]

9. Thank you.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

6. "The justices three years ago expressed skepticism . . ."

". . . about the continued need for Section 5 of the historic act."

Well, considering the number of times the DOJ has had to invalidate gerrymandering in several southern states in just the last two years, I'd say yes, there's a continued need.

[former9thward]

7. Gerrymandering is not covered by Section 5.

Section Five covers changes to voting qualifications or standards. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report saying that the DOJ objected to less than 0.1% of changes submitted to the DOJ by voting jurisdictions.

The VRA does not just cover "Southern States". Non-south states include New York, Michigan, Alaska, Arizona, South Dakota, California and New Hampshire.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

10. Good to know. I stand educated.

I had thought it was the section that required states with a history of discrimination to get pre-clearance from DOJ.

[former9thward]

14. It is that section that requires pre-clearance.

But it just covers changes in voter procedures (picture i.d for example) but it doesn't cover gerrymandering. Usually any gerrymandering challenge goes directly to the federal courts. The Supreme Court over the years (both liberal and conservative courts) has made it very tough to challenge gerrymandering. Usually it is only successful when the gerrymandering is done strictly on racial grounds. That is usually not the case.

[Scuba]

8. I predict a 5-4 decision.

[NYC Liberal]

11. I predict this will be upheld.