This Supreme Court Is a Disgrace

Pages

This Supreme Court Is a Disgrace

People are celebrating it today. But yesterday's voting rights call was one of the worst SCOTUS ones ever.

By Heywood Jabloeme

Law • June 2013 • Views: 2,216

Benefited from Civil Rights and Affirmative Action yet opposes them and his friend.

But this decision is yet more outrageous. The Constitution was specifically amended in the most explicit possible terms to allow Congress to pass precisely this sort of law, for this precise purpose. The 15th Amendment was enacted to give Congress the power to stop states from discriminating against racial minorities in regard to the right to vote.

So what we have here is a situation in which a war was fought in which 600,000 soldiers died, in large part so that the Constitution could be amended in such a way as to give Congress the power to force the slave states to treat black people like human beings. A century later, Congress gets around to actually using this power, and the law it passes is a remarkable success.

But according to the Roberts Five, it’s unconstitutional for Congress to enforce legislation specifically mandated by the Constitution, because it has carried out its legislative responsibilities too well.

More: This Supreme Court Is a Disgrace

Recent Pages by WinstonDodson (Heywood Jabloeme):
NSA Loophole Allows Warrantless Search for US Citizens' Emails and Phone Calls

Jump to bottom

45 comments

Skip Intro Wed, Jun 26, 2013 5:03:15pm

I read that Thomas’ vote should only count as 3/5ths of everyone else’s.

EPR-radar Wed, Jun 26, 2013 5:11:38pm

The whole point of pre-clearance in the VRA is that for a century after the civil war, every time a court bothered to look at some obviously rigged scheme to avoid compliance with the 15th amendment and knocked it out, the relevant jurisdictions would simply come up with some other way to reduce black voting.

After a while, they even started repeating plans that had been knocked out decades earlier.

Pre-clearance is the only known approach for dealing with this kind of obstinacy.

Dark_Falcon Wed, Jun 26, 2013 5:43:30pm

re: #2 EPR-radar

The whole point of pre-clearance in the VRA is that for a century after the civil war, every time a court bothered to look at some obviously rigged scheme to avoid compliance with the 15th amendment and knocked it out, the relevant jurisdictions would simply come up with some other way to reduce black voting.

After a while, they even started repeating plans that had been knocked out decades earlier.

Pre-clearance is the only known approach for dealing with this kind of obstinacy.

Yes, but pre-clearance itself wasn’t the issue here, since Section 5 of the VRA was held to be Constitutional. What was ruled was that Shelby County, AL, should not continue to be required to submit its election laws for pre-clearance based on a formula that measured the situation in the county 40-50 years ago.

There are almost certainly places in the US where pre-clearance is still needed. But a 1972 formula measuring data from the 1960’s is not accurate way to measure if Shelby County is still such a place in 2013.

EPR-radar Wed, Jun 26, 2013 5:48:50pm

re: #3 Dark_Falcon

Yes, but pre-clearance itself wasn’t the issue here, since Section 5 of the VRA was held to be Constitutional. What was ruled was that Shelby County, AL, should not continue to be required to submit its election laws for pre-clearance based on a formula that measured the situation in the county 40-50 years ago.

There are almost certainly places in the US where pre-clearance is still needed. But a 1972 formula measuring data from the 1960’s is not accurate way to measure if Shelby County is still such a place in 2013.

Can we at least agree that the Supreme Court killed section 4 as a way to effectively kill section 5 without being obvious about it?

As I understand it, there was a process by which a covered jurisdiction named on the original list of infamy can get off the list that involves establishing a record of not screwing with minority votes.

Unless this impression is completely incorrect, I have no sympathy for any jurisdiction that couldn’t be bothered to get off the list by acting decently for a span of time.

Dark_Falcon Wed, Jun 26, 2013 5:54:07pm

re: #4 EPR-radar

Can we at least agree that the Supreme Court killed section 4 as a way to effectively kill section 5 without being obvious about it?

As I understand it, there was a process by which a covered jurisdiction named on the original list of infamy can get off the list that involves establishing a record of not screwing with minority votes.

Unless this impression is completely incorrect, I have no sympathy for any jurisdiction that couldn’t be bothered to get off the list by acting decently for a span of time.

It wasn’t just ‘decently’, and counties in states covered entirely by the Sec. 4 formula were kind of hosed.

As for Section 5, that’s not what the majority did. They said a new formula is needed. If Congress drops the ball on passing on, then that is not the Supreme Court’s fault.

Heywood Jabloeme Wed, Jun 26, 2013 5:55:02pm

EPR - radar - you got it. that is Justice Robert’s MO. There are numerous documented cases of him opposing any form of afirmative action while an attourny in the JD. He is just much more subtle than the other moron calling for the end of aa.

he has exposed his hand - he is willing to sell the credibility of scotus by balancing bad decisions based on his agenda with good decisions based on jurisprudence.

he is a brillant manipulator.

EPR-radar Wed, Jun 26, 2013 5:58:55pm

re: #5 Dark_Falcon

It wasn’t just ‘decently’, and counties in states covered entirely by the Sec. 4 formula were kind of hosed.

As for Section 5, that’s not what the majority did. They said a new formula is needed. If Congress drops the ball on passing on, then that is not the Supreme Court’s fault.

That’s just a bit disingenuous. With this Congress, it is impossible to do anything like revisiting VRA section 4 for the foreseeable future, and even if they did, who is to say the Court would accept Congress’ new formula?

I’m convinced that if we had a normally functioning Congress, this majority on SCOTUS would have killed section 5 instead of section 4.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Wed, Jun 26, 2013 6:01:08pm

re: #3 Dark_Falcon

Yes, but pre-clearance itself wasn’t the issue here, since Section 5 of the VRA was held to be Constitutional. What was ruled was that Shelby County, AL, should not continue to be required to submit its election laws for pre-clearance based on a formula that measured the situation in the county 40-50 years ago.

There are almost certainly places in the US where pre-clearance is still needed. But a 1972 formula measuring data from the 1960’s is not accurate way to measure if Shelby County is still such a place in 2013.

Why is it the Supreme Court’s purview to decide the effectiveness of legislation? What section of the Constitution did they cite in deciding this case, and how did they square it with the 15th?

What method did they use to investigate the effectiveness of the mechanism and the extent of the problem?

EPR-radar Wed, Jun 26, 2013 6:06:09pm

re: #6 Heywood Jabloeme

EPR - radar - you got it. that is Justice Robert’s MO. There are numerous documented cases of him opposing any form of afirmative action while an attourny in the JD. He is just much more subtle than the other moron calling for the end of aa.

he has exposed his hand - he is willing to sell the credibility of scotus by balancing bad decisions based on his agenda with good decisions based on jurisprudence.

he is a brillant manipulator.

Agreed. Roberts didn’t have the votes to kill the ACA, but he did get a decision out of it that curtails the Commerce Clause power and regarded the ACA as constitutional only as a exercise in Federal Taxation power.

Not bad for being on the losing side of the SC vote. That commerce clause business is probably going to cause real trouble.

Dark_Falcon Wed, Jun 26, 2013 6:15:44pm

re: #8 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

Why is it the Supreme Court’s purview to decide the effectiveness of legislation? What section of the Constitution did they cite in deciding this case, and how did they square it with the 15th?

What method did they use to investigate the effectiveness of the mechanism and the extent of the problem?

I’ll let the Chicago tribune Editorial Board answer that:

The court, though, did not curb anyone’s right to vote. Nor did it free states from congressional or judicial scrutiny and reversal if they attempt to restrict voting rights.

The Voting Rights Act was renewed in 2006 with overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress and the signature of President George W. Bush. But constitutional experts warned at the time that that effort was on shaky legal ground because Congress made no effort to use current information to justify the continued restrictions on the nine states.

That’s exactly what the court majority argued in the Tuesday decision.

The court said Congress could come up with a new formula to single out states “on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions. It cannot rely simply on the past.” No justification based on current facts was established to subject the nine states to a higher standard than the rest of the country.

Penalizing those states for practices that occurred more than half a century ago was “irrational,” the court majority said. It placed those states under pre-emptive scrutiny they could not escape no matter how much they changed.

EPR-radar Wed, Jun 26, 2013 6:16:17pm

To consolidate issues on this thread, the question of how Scalia’s expansive view of Supreme Court power vs Congress in the VRA case can be reconciled (in a principled way) to Scalia’s very narrow view of Supreme Court power vs. Congress in the DOMA case remains open.

EPR-radar Wed, Jun 26, 2013 6:21:45pm

re: #10 Dark_Falcon

The tribune editorial (and majority opinion) like to pretend that no evidence of continued need of pre-clearance in covered jurisdictions was provided. That is false.

From the dissent:

In fact, Congress found there were more DOJ objections between 1982 and 2004 (626) than there were between 1965 and the 1982 reauthorization (490). 1 Voting Rights Act: Evidence of Continued Need, Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 172 (2006) (hereinafter Evidence of Continued Need).

Dark_Falcon Wed, Jun 26, 2013 6:33:14pm

re: #12 EPR-radar

Simple numbers don’t tell the story. One would have to look at what the DoJ was objecting to and examine some of the cases. Some of the ojections may well have just been DoJ overreach.

EPR-radar Wed, Jun 26, 2013 6:35:33pm

In the spirit of completeness, we also have Scalia’s enlightening thoughts on the subject of voting as a racial entitlement.

newyorker.com

Rather eager to legislate from the bench, is Mr. Scalia.

EPR-radar Wed, Jun 26, 2013 6:37:00pm

re: #13 Dark_Falcon

Simple numbers don’t tell the story. One would have to look at what the DoJ was objecting to and examine some of the cases. Some of the ojections may well have just been DoJ overreach.

But even the bare numbers effectively make the point that pretending that nothing has been looked at since the 60s or 70s is just a lie.

This is from the reauthorization that Congress did in 2006.

Dark_Falcon Wed, Jun 26, 2013 6:47:41pm

re: #15 EPR-radar

But even the bare numbers effectively make the point that pretending that nothing has been looked at since the 60s or 70s is just a lie.

This is from the reauthorization that Congress did in 2006.

I know, but I also know that Congress didn’t really examine the situation on the ground, only the politics. As a practical matter, it was impossible for the Republicans in Congress to propose a change to Section 4, because no matter what change they proposed they would have been attacked as racists. Given the additional internet rumor mongering that black people were going to lose their right to vote (don’t yell at me, because chain emails saying just that were circulating), the Congress ordered s narrative crafted to justify a political decision. It did not really evaluate the situation.

EPR-radar Wed, Jun 26, 2013 7:01:47pm

re: #16 Dark_Falcon

I know, but I also know that Congress didn’t really examine the situation on the ground, only the politics. As a practical matter, it was impossible for the Republicans in Congress to propose a change to Section 4, because no matter what change they proposed they would have been attacked as racists. Given the additional internet rumor mongering that black people were going to lose their right to vote (don’t yell at me, because chain emails saying just that were circulating), the Congress ordered s narrative crafted to justify a political decision. It did not really evaluate the situation.

I’m not going to deny that the VRA authorization is as political as it gets, and probably nobody wanted to really get into the weeds on this.

On the other hand, is SCOTUS really entitled to void acts of Congress because Congress allegedly didn’t show its work? Congress did build a record for the VRA reauthorization, to try to make everyone happy. Courts usually show considerable deference to such a record, but not in this case. Can’t imagine why.

Seems reasonable to me that the reason the GOP didn’t fight anything in Congress in 2006 was that the coordinated GOP anti-VRA strategy was to be a SCOTUS case, and a little bird told the Congressional republicans that the more the reauthorization of 2006 looked like a rubber stamp, the easier it would be for SCOTUS to kill the VRA. After all, this SCOTUS told all the world how to run this scam some years ago.

BTW, killing the VRA is not an exaggeration. In jurisdictions bound and determined to suppress the minority vote, an effective pre-clearance regime is the only option. Otherwise, it is a perpetual game of legal whack-a-mole.

Dark_Falcon Wed, Jun 26, 2013 7:06:23pm

re: #17 EPR-radar

BTW, killing the VRA is not an exaggeration. In jurisdictions bound and determined to suppress the minority vote, an effective pre-clearance regime is the only option. Otherwise, it is a perpetual game of legal whack-a-mole.

I actually agree with you on the bolded portion. But there’s good reason to believe that Shelby County is no longer such a place, and it really isn’t fair to them to be lumped in with jurisdictions that are.

The proper thing to do now would be for Congress to write a new formula. But that won’t be likely to happen till the House GOP gets out of honey badger mode.

klys Wed, Jun 26, 2013 7:12:26pm

re: #18 Dark_Falcon

I actually agree with you on the bolded portion. But there’s good reason to believe that Shelby County is no longer such a place, and it really isn’t fair to them to be lumped in with jurisdictions that are.

The proper thing to do now would be for Congress to write a new formula. But that won’t be likely to happen till the House GOP gets out of honey badger mode.

So in the meantime, what is wrong with applying for the ability to get out of preclearance, like several other districts have?

EPR-radar Wed, Jun 26, 2013 7:12:30pm

re: #18 Dark_Falcon

I actually agree with you on the bolded portion. But there’s good reason to believe that Shelby County is no longer such a place, and it really isn’t fair to them to be lumped in with jurisdictions that are.

The proper thing to do now would be for Congress to write a new formula. But that won’t be likely to happen till the House GOP gets out of honey badger mode.

Which is why I think it is profoundly cynical for this SCOTUS decision to punt the issue to Congress.

I would be content with requiring pre-clearance uniformly nationwide.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Wed, Jun 26, 2013 7:16:14pm

re: #10 Dark_Falcon

No, in your own words, please.

Particularly because nothing in that addressed what I asked in the fucking least.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Wed, Jun 26, 2013 7:16:38pm

re: #18 Dark_Falcon

I actually agree with you on the bolded portion. But there’s good reason to believe that Shelby County is no longer such a place, and it really isn’t fair to them to be lumped in with jurisdictions that are.

Then they can opt-out, using the mechanism provided.

EPR-radar Wed, Jun 26, 2013 7:17:36pm

re: #19 klys and whatnot

So in the meantime, what is wrong with applying for the ability to get out of preclearance, like several other districts have?

I still like the drunk driving analogy from the other day, where the SCOTUS VRA decision is like starting with a program where notorious drunk drivers are required to have an in-car breathalyzer to drive, and can get the in-car breathalyzers removed with enough good behavior over time.

Then we decide that this whole scheme is somehow unfair because the drunks who keep failing the in-car breathalyzers can never get the contraptions out of their cars.

I just can’t feel their pain.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Wed, Jun 26, 2013 7:17:55pm

re: #13 Dark_Falcon

Simple numbers don’t tell the story. One would have to look at what the DoJ was objecting to and examine some of the cases. Some of the ojections may well have just been DoJ overreach.

Those same places also lost court cases about discrimination. If you map the areas covered by preclearance and those that have settled or lost cases on discrimination, you get a pretty good overview.

Dark_Falcon Wed, Jun 26, 2013 7:18:02pm

re: #19 klys and whatnot

So in the meantime, what is wrong with applying for the ability to get out of preclearance, like several other districts have?

I’m not sure Shelby County could have done so, given that the entire state of Alabama was placed in the pre-clearance category. I don’t think there’s a provision for individual counties in such a state to ‘bail out’.

Note: ‘Bail out’ is what DoJ called that provision, so my use of it was not hostile.

EPR-radar Wed, Jun 26, 2013 7:26:22pm

re: #25 Dark_Falcon

I’m not sure Shelby County could have done so, given that the entire state of Alabama was placed in the pre-clearance category. I don’t think there’s a provision for individual counties in such a state to ‘bail out’.

Note: ‘Bail out’ is what DoJ called that provision, so my use of it was not hostile.

Which is probably why Shelby County brought the case against pre clearance per se, rather than seek to bail out on its own. Fair enough.

However, I remain convinced that the state government of AL, had it cared to put in some honest effort on the subject, could have built a record that would have sufficed to end its supervision under pre-clearance.

However, a sensible response to VRA pre-clearance was most likely not an option there.

dragonath Wed, Jun 26, 2013 7:37:47pm

re: #15 EPR-radar

But even the bare numbers effectively make the point that pretending that nothing has been looked at since the 60s or 70s is just a lie.

This is from the reauthorization that Congress did in 2006.

This. Damn, D_F, defending this is pretty low, especially as everybody’s fears about gerrymandering is borne out almost immediately.

This is not a healthy thing for democracy, and it’s going to cause more polarization going forward. What other 50 year old laws do you want to throw out?

EPR-radar Wed, Jun 26, 2013 7:38:30pm

BBL

Dark_Falcon Wed, Jun 26, 2013 7:40:15pm

re: #27 dragonath

So what was Chief justice Roberts supposed to do? Say “This formula is outdated and unfair, but we’re not going to throw it out because Congress has an attitude problem.”? He can’t do that.

Dark_Falcon Wed, Jun 26, 2013 7:40:50pm

re: #28 EPR-radar

BBL

I’ll make sure to check this thread again before I go to work tomorrow.

dragonath Wed, Jun 26, 2013 7:41:19pm

re: #29 Dark_Falcon

So what was Chief justice Roberts supposed to do? Say “This formula is outdated and unfair, but we’re not going to throw it out because Congress has an attitude problem.”? He can’t do that.

Describe how it is “outdated and unfair”. Most of the country wasn’t having any problem with it.

dragonath Wed, Jun 26, 2013 7:44:07pm

And obviously, it wasn’t considered outdated by congress in 2006.

klys Wed, Jun 26, 2013 7:48:38pm

re: #31 dragonath

Describe how it is “outdated and unfair”. Most of the country wasn’t having any problem with it.

Dark, I try really hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, but how is it “outdated and unfair”?

I won’t speak for everyone else here at LGF, but I think you are a decent person. I do. And so when you express support for the so-called ‘conservative’ principles, I find it confusing, because they a) aren’t conservative (in the sense that they support the right of individuals) and b) don’t seem to align with the other statements you have made here (agreeing with the right to individual freedom - see, oh, yesterday’s abortion mess that the TX TPGOP made for themselves).

Just trying to give you a window into the disconnect that a lot of us have between what principles you say you support and the party that you say you support.

dragonath Wed, Jun 26, 2013 7:56:09pm

Regarding that “outdated and unfair” formula, which was neither unchanging nor monolithic.

The formula for coverage under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act

Enacted in 1965, the first element in the formula was whether, on November 1, 1964, the state or a political subdivision of the state maintained a “test or device” restricting the opportunity to register and vote. The Act’s definition of a “test or device” included such requirements as the applicant being able to pass a literacy test, establish that he or she had good moral character, or have another registered voter vouch for his or her qualifications.

The second element of the formula would be satisfied if the Director of the Census determined that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age voted in the presidential election of November 1964. This resulted in the following states becoming, in their entirety, “covered jurisdictions”: Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia.

…

Voting changes adopted by or to be implemented in covered political subdivisions, including changes applicable to the state as a whole, are subject to review under Section 5.

In 1970, Congress recognized the continuing need for the special provisions of the Act, which were due to expire that year, and renewed them for another five years. It added a second prong to the coverage formula, identical to the original formula except that it referenced November 1968 as the relevant date for the maintenance of a test or device and the levels of voter registration and electoral participation. This addition to the formula resulted in the partial coverage of ten states, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Wyoming. Half of these states (Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, and Wyoming) filed successful “bailout” lawsuits.

…

In 1975, the Act’s special provisions were extended for another seven years, and were broadened to address voting discrimination against members of “language minority groups,” which were defined as persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage.” As before, Congress expanded the coverage formula, based on the presence of tests or devices and levels of voter registration and participation as of November 1972. In addition, the 1965 definition of “test or device” was expanded to include the practice of providing any election information, including ballots, only in English in states or political subdivisions where members of a single language minority constituted more than five percent of the citizens of voting age.

In 1982, the coverage formula was extended again, this time for 25 years, but no changes were made to it. In 2006, the coverage formula was again extended for 25 years. Section 4, along with those other sections that are dependent upon it, such as Section 5 and 8, will expire in 2031.

Dark, your veracity on this issue is extremely suspect, to say the least.

DO WINGNUT WORDS SHOW THEY EVOLVED BRAINS?11!! Wed, Jun 26, 2013 8:10:21pm

I’m still trying to figure out how these voting rights are “Unfair”?

122 Year Old Obama Wed, Jun 26, 2013 8:22:30pm

re: #35 DO WINGNUT WORDS SHOW THEY EVOLVED BRAINS?11!!

Republicans can’t win as easily when minorities can vote.

Timothy Watson Wed, Jun 26, 2013 9:05:39pm

It’s also worth noting that the 14th Amendment (§§ 2 and 5) gives amazingly broad authority to Congress when it comes to a state disenfranchising voters because of race, but somehow preclearance is over the line?

EPR-radar Wed, Jun 26, 2013 9:07:57pm

re: #29 Dark_Falcon

So what was Chief justice Roberts supposed to do? Say “This formula is outdated and unfair, but we’re not going to throw it out because Congress has an attitude problem.”? He can’t do that.

Congress provided evidence supporting the VRA extension in 2006.

The conservative block on SCOTUS has asserted that it is unfair that jurisdictions are singled out for pre-clearance according to a scheme which has been in place for decades, and which has regularly been revisited by Congress.

No evidence for the SCOTUS assertion is apparent (i.e., where is the beef related to this ‘unfairness’). Whose rights are being infringed? The right of Shelby County officials to revise election rules and laws without seeking blessing from the Feds? Please.

With respect to “outdated”, I could not possibly care less. Jurisdictions got onto the list in the first place because of 100 or so years of really crappy behavior that was also an unconstitutional violation of voting rights, so I’m not going to take any claim that the pre-clearance list is outdated seriously until about 2065 or so.

Finally, I do not believe that any SCOTUS justice simply follows the law and ends up wherever his or her reasoning leads, except on completely non-political cases (e.g., in patent law). For the hot button issues, the SCOTUS justices generally start from the intended result and work backward from there, and the present day conservative block of SCOTUS is no exception to this rule.

So I refuse to accept the frame that Roberts et al. are honestly concerned by the lack of due diligence by Congress in 2006. Instead, there were 5 votes to kill pre-clearance directly, but Roberts was clever enough to make it a decision that killed section 4 of the VRA instead (effectively killing pre-clearance for the foreseeable future). Pissing and moaning about the “unfairness” of the “outdated” VRA section 4 coverage provisions in the SCOTUS opinion is merely a cover story.

EPR-radar Wed, Jun 26, 2013 9:13:03pm

re: #37 Timothy Watson

It’s also worth noting that the 14th Amendment (§§ 2 and 5) gives amazingly broad authority to Congress when it comes to a state disenfranchising voters because of race, but somehow preclearance is over the line?

Amendment 15 is the one that prohibits race based voting discrimination.

Section 2 of amendment 14 says that if a state does disenfranchise part of its male population (e.g., on account of race), it loses seats in the House of Representatives accordingly.

dragonath Wed, Jun 26, 2013 9:24:38pm

Someone should look at the old election returns in the South. From the 1870s onwards. Most, if not all, of the most “black” counties in the South had overwhelming Democratic majorities, a pattern that remained unchanged until the late 1960s. That was almost 100 years- a period of outright fraud and duplicity that lasted almost twice as long as the enactment the of the modern Voting Rights Act to our time.

And the 60s were only a couple of generations ago.

I used to think that it was a conservative touchstone that human nature is unchanging, and that freedom requires the establishment of order. How easily these principles are abandoned to political gamesmanship.

Timothy Watson Wed, Jun 26, 2013 9:46:35pm

re: #39 EPR-radar

I’m aware, my point is that if Congress can deny a portion of state’s representative in Congress, how the heck is preclearance an undue burden on a state or locality?

goddamnedfrank Wed, Jun 26, 2013 11:28:36pm

re: #25 Dark_Falcon

I’m not sure Shelby County could have done so, given that the entire state of Alabama was placed in the pre-clearance category. I don’t think there’s a provision for individual counties in such a state to ‘bail out’.

Totally fucking wrong.

On September 22, 2010, the first two jurisdictions outside the state of Virginia—Kings Mountain, North Carolina, and Sandy Springs, Georgia—successfully “bailed out” from Section 5 Preclearance requirements.

Nothing in the bail out provision required it to be an all or nothing one state at a time deal. Jesus Christ, this kind of shit is so goddamned easy to research and figure out, so when you let your ignorance hold sway it really starts to appear like you’re deliberately using it as a crutch, hoping nobody corrects your completely backwards ass bullshit.

mr.JA Thu, Jun 27, 2013 1:44:02am

For what its worth, The Court has warned Congress before that it should re-look at the formula, because it might not be constitutional, it gave them a chance, and Congress didn’t do anything with it.
Quite a few legal scholars agreed that the law as it was had little merit, and that striking it down was (in a strict legal sense) the only solution.

Personally, I do not agree with it, but I can clearly see the reasoning behind it, especially because it was enacted for another 25 years, meaning that Congress effectively stuck to the ’60s for 20 more years.
I do expect a flurry of lawsuits over re-districting in 1,23…

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Thu, Jun 27, 2013 2:26:06am

re: #25 Dark_Falcon

I’m not sure Shelby County could have done so, given that the entire state of Alabama was placed in the pre-clearance category. I don’t think there’s a provision for individual counties in such a state to ‘bail out’.

Note: ‘Bail out’ is what DoJ called that provision, so my use of it was not hostile.

You’re wrong, though. Why are you wrong? Why haven’t you done the research? It’s right there in Wikipedia?

EPR-radar Thu, Jun 27, 2013 10:08:19am

re: #43 mr.JA

For what its worth, The Court has warned Congress before that it should re-look at the formula, because it might not be constitutional, it gave them a chance, and Congress didn’t do anything with it.
Quite a few legal scholars agreed that the law as it was had little merit, and that striking it down was (in a strict legal sense) the only solution.

Personally, I do not agree with it, but I can clearly see the reasoning behind it, especially because it was enacted for another 25 years, meaning that Congress effectively stuck to the ’60s for 20 more years.
I do expect a flurry of lawsuits over re-districting in 1,23…

Are these legal scholars merely more RW ideologues like the 4 nutjobs on the supreme court? BTW, the SC warning was from the same nutjobs on the court that gutted the VRA this week. It’s just part of the cover story, which gains credibility if there is this BS warning on record.

From wikipedia en.wikipedia.org

The term “bail out” refers to the process by which covered jurisdictions may seek exemption from Section 5 coverage. In order to bail out, a covered jurisdiction needs to obtain a declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia. Eighteen Virginia jurisdictions not covered by Section 5 Preclearance requirements have successfully “bailed out.”
Before August 1984, this process required covered jurisdictions to demonstrate that the voting test that they used immediately before coverage was not used in a discriminatory fashion. The 1982 amendment included two significant changes. First, Congress provided that where a state is covered in its entirety, individual counties in that state may separately bail out. Second, Congress completely redesigned the bailout standard. The post-1984 bailout standard requires that a covered jurisdiction demonstrate nondiscriminatory behavior during the 10 years prior to filing and while the action is pending and that it has taken affirmative steps to improve minority voting opportunities.
On September 22, 2010, the first two jurisdictions outside the state of Virginia—Kings Mountain, North Carolina, and Sandy Springs, Georgia—successfully “bailed out” from Section 5 Preclearance requirements. On November 15, 2012, New Hampshire sued to “bail out” from the requirements, which were originally imposed on ten towns that used a literacy test and had voting disparities when the Act was passed,[27] and prevailed on March 1, 2013.

There we have it. Prior to august 1984, there was an original sin component that made bailing out impossible for jurisdictions that had had discriminatory voting tests just prior to the VRA.

After August 1984, bailing out required a clean record for 10 years plus some honest effort to improve things. Congress did its job back in 1984 with respect to getting rid of the ‘original sin’ aspect of VRA pre-clearance.

The more I look at this VRA decision, the worse it stinks. It’s probably in the top 5 bad SC decisions on race, right up there with Plessy and Dred Scott.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!