Section 4 of voting rights act struck down

[PokerGuy]

This post is hilarious. You use voter turnout parity, an argument you already admitted was illogical,

Sigh. Are you really that dense or just yanking my chain? I never said turnout parity was illogical. I said using it the way you did to attack Robert's argument is illogical. The court simply used that as an example to illustrate the FACT that the data used from the 60's simply doesn't hold true anymore 50 years later.

then say you don't know what the other evidence is, and then accused others of not caring what the current reality is.

The only evidence you need to know is that 50 year old data was being used to drive decisions for current jurisdictions. That in and of itself is enough to throw out section 4. If congress comes back and uses current data to make some determination, then the court would likely not throw it out.

It's like trying to use the map of the US from 1900 to come up with a plan to upgrade our electric grid. It makes no sense, no matter what logical pretzel twisting the backers use to pretend it does.

 

[PokerGuy]

Or clearly, Congress did do the research and came to the conclusion that the existing formula was fine.

Baloney, congress members had to vote or commit political suicide. Research had nothing to do with it, or they would not be using 50 year old data for the formula leading to comical results.

Something being old does not mean it is wrong. If you have some better evidence as to why it was wrong (besides being old, which is not a good reason), please feel free to post it. I'll be waiting.

If you think racial attitudes and demographic data in the US have not changed in the past 60 years, then by all means you are free to think so. The more rational among us realize that things have changed just a smidgen in the meantime, which means the formula should be updated to reflect modern information.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Not true. If states do no wrong over time they are lifted from pre-authorization

Define "no wrong" and "over time".

I suggest you look at the blog Riparian linked to and the chart on voter registration from the Civil Rights era and now.

 

[werepossum]

You're still doing it, projecting your issues on to me. Look at my posts about Republicans and then yours about progressives and get back to me. You have some serious paranoid delusions. Go look at all the times you've described the nefarious progressive cabal, then compare your writings to the part i quoted. The resemblance is uncanny.

If you wish to feel that declaring Republicans are evil and Southerners are racist and ignorant is merely rational discourse but believing that progressives want to do what they say they want to do is a serious paranoid delusion, it's a free country.

 

[werepossum]

Section 2 challenges are after-the-fact challenges with this exception:

So, you would have to show discriminatory intent, and not just discriminatory effect, in order to prevent new voting laws from going into effect pre-election. Showing discriminatory intent is generally very difficult to do and if you're waiting until after the election to show discriminatory effect, then much of the damage has already been done. Disenfranchisement is not a small matter.

Additionally, here's the first example of the aftermath from today's decision:

http://www.kens5.com/news/Hours-after-SCOTUS-ruling-Abbott-declares-voter-ID-law-effective-immediately-212994191.html

And here's some more background information regarding why the voter ID law that was being proposed in TX was blocked by Section 5 initially:

http://projects.nytimes.com/live-dashboard/2013-06-25-supreme-court#sha=88a62b0c2

Perhaps you've missed all the Voter ID laws which have been blocked from taking effect in non-Southern states. And if you want to argue that voters should not have to produce ID in a nation with over 11 million illegals, most of whom are Hispanic, because “Hispanic registered voters are more than twice as likely as non-Hispanic registered voters to lack such identification,” I won't waste my time arguing with you. There is simply no point. I'll just say that federal voting laws and supervision should be the same in ALL states.

 

[Genx87]

Not true. If states do no wrong over time they are lifted from pre-authorization

If states are still on the list nearly 50 years later. What does it take to get off it?

And they didnt strike the bill down. They basically told Congress to use newer data to determine who falls under the tougher parts of the law. What is the problem with that?

 

[glenn1]

I now have gotten a chance to read the opinion (and the decent), and I am confident that this opinion by John Roberts will be remembered one of the worst in modern history, along with his opinion on Health Care Cases. I won't go into the details (you should be able to find such analysis elsewhere) but the opinion has almost no support from the Constitution or the court's precedents.

The whole opinion bases itself on invented notion of "equal sovereignty" of states (nothing in the Constitution says such) as well as on amorphous and malleable term "spirit of the Constitution." Understandably the opinion is extremely week on citation or evidence. It simply asserts the majority's political view on what the politics of today should be like.

Astounding judicial power grab, and unprecedent assault on such a monumental achievement in civil rights history. Roberts et al. will be judged in the history.

The "judicial power grab" ship has already sailed. Either you support the ability of SCOTUS to effectively make law or you don't; you can't clap about rulings like Roe v. Wade and getting angry when one like this goes against you. Live by the activist court, die by the activist court.

 

[fskimospy]

If states are still on the list nearly 50 years later. What does it take to get off it?

And they didnt strike the bill down. They basically told Congress to use newer data to determine who falls under the tougher parts of the law. What is the problem with that?

The judgment of congress? What else?

If you guys think that the courts should take a more activist role in determining public policy that's fine, but I have heard nary a peep from conservatives about this decision despite the fact that by their own definition this is a textbook example of judicial activism.

I personally have no problem with the concept of an activist court, but for a group of people who have repeatedly talked about how evil that is, this seems odd. It lends credence to the complaint that conservatives were never against judicial activism, just against losing.

 

[Genx87]

The judgment of congress? What else?

Are you claiming congress using outdated data to come to an agreement is fine in this case? Or are you complaining because the chances of congress fixing its error is nill? If that is your complaint then complain at congress, not the court.

If you guys think that the courts should take a more activist role in determining public policy that's fine, but I have heard nary a peep from conservatives about this decision despite the fact that by their own definition this is a textbook example of judicial activism.

I personally have no problem with the concept of an activist court, but for a group of people who have repeatedly talked about how evil that is, this seems odd. It lends credence to the complaint that conservatives were never against judicial activism, just against losing.

I dont speak for other conservatives. And I agree with you on judicial activism is only actvism when the decision goes against my belief. So I dont know what you want me to say?

 

[glenn1]

The judgment of congress? What else?

If you guys think that the courts should take a more activist role in determining public policy that's fine, but I have heard nary a peep from conservatives about this decision despite the fact that by their own definition this is a textbook example of judicial activism.

I personally have no problem with the concept of an activist court, but for a group of people who have repeatedly talked about how evil that is, this seems odd. It lends credence to the complaint that conservatives were never against judicial activism, just against losing.

You're right, conservatives aren't willing to lose. That's why now that the "activist court" genie is out of the bottle they'll employ it for all it's worth. And there's a shitload more progressive legislation that could be undone by a conservative SCOTUS than vice versa.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you claiming congress using outdated data to come to an agreement is fine in this case? Or are you complaining because the chances of congress fixing its error is nill? If that is your complaint then complain at congress, not the court.

I think you should go read up on the data that Congress used. The idea that their decision was simply based on 50 year old data is not accurate. In fact the data they used was far more comprehensive than the data that SCOTUS used to make their determination.

I dont speak for other conservatives. And I agree with you on judicial activism is only actvism when the decision goes against my belief. So I dont know what you want me to say?

You don't really have to say anything I guess, it was just a general note of the craven dishonesty employed by people in relation to the courts. I think this decision by the Roberts court was foolish and poorly supported, but I don't think they didn't have a right to make it.

If all goes well and Obama has one or even two more SCOTUS appointments I fully expect conservatives to jump back on the 'judicial activism' bandwagon with absolutely no memory that this decision ever happened.

 

[fskimospy]

You're right, conservatives aren't willing to lose. That's why now that the "activist court" genie is out of the bottle they'll employ it for all it's worth. And there's a shitload more progressive legislation that could be undone by a conservative SCOTUS than vice versa.

Out of the bottle? It was never 'in the bottle'. This is how courts have behaved for an extremely long time now.

 

[glenn1]

I think you should go read up on the data that Congress used. The idea that their decision was simply based on 50 year old data is not accurate. In fact the data they used was far more comprehensive than the data that SCOTUS used to make their determination.



You don't really have to say anything I guess, it was just a general note of the craven dishonesty employed by people in relation to the courts. I think this decision by the Roberts court was foolish and poorly supported, but I don't think they didn't have a right to make it.

If all goes well and Obama has one or even two more SCOTUS appointments I fully expect conservatives to jump back on the 'judicial activism' bandwagon with absolutely no memory that this decision ever happened.

Works for me, all this democratic process stuff is so tiring anyway. Why bother with incremental change, compromise, and consensus when you can have SCOTUS making decisions about complicated issues like slavery (Dred Scott v. Sanford), abortion (Roe v. Wade), etc. I mean, the SCOTUS certainly solved those problems for all time.

 

[fskimospy]

Works for me, all this democratic process stuff is so tiring anyway. Why bother with incremental change, compromise, and consensus when you can have SCOTUS making decisions about complicated issues like slavery (Dred Scott v. Sanford), abortion (Roe v. Wade), etc. I mean, the SCOTUS certainly solved those problems for all time.

You appear to misunderstand me. I think judges should rule according to what they think statute and constitution says, period. That's the beginning and end of it. Attempting not to be an 'activist judge' implies that you should substitute respect for precedent and deference to the other supposedly coequal branches of government for your own decision-making ability. I do not agree with this.

 

[werepossum]

You appear to misunderstand me. I think judges should rule according to what they think statute and constitution says, period. That's the beginning and end of it. Attempting not to be an 'activist judge' implies that you should substitute respect for precedent and deference to the other supposedly coequal branches of government for your own decision-making ability. I do not agree with this.

I agree with your definition, for once. Judicial activism to me is when courts look outside the USA for precedent or dictate what the statute and constitution must say - although the latter obviously can be a matter of opinion since a court may rule that a statute MUST say this because of a Constitutional requirement. If a law is contrary to a Constitutional requirement, then striking down that law cannot be judicial activism.

 

[Riparian]

I don't know specifically what congress did or didn't look at when renewing the act, but I do know that a formula based on 50 year old data is used to determine which jurisdictions are covered. As was made clear at trial, the end result of this archaic formula is that areas with parity in voter turnout are subject to additional scrutiny, while other areas where there is a great gap between turnout are not. Basically, it comes down to people like eskimospy who say "I don't care what the current reality is, I think you're all a bunch of racist rednecks and always will be, so you need my OK before making any changes". The court correctly tossed that notion.

Further, the information about percentage of cases that occur in areas covered by section 5 is complete crap because those areas are automatically subject to pre-clearance and thus more likely to have violations compared to other areas where a lot of changes are simply not challenged.

That blog is worthless, nice try tough.

Well, at least you have confirmed that you don't really read anything people post and have your mind made up without any possibility of having it changed. I will leave this quote from that same blog here:

First, 90 percent of the 4,141 incidents and 93.4 percent of the 3,775 “successful” incidents – those that resulted in changes to election law that advanced minorities’ voting rights – took place in the jurisdictions covered by Section 5. This may not be surprising, since 2,368 of the incidents were Section 5 objections or enforcement actions, or “more information” requests. These, by definition, can take place only in covered jurisdictions.

More instructive is the portion of the 1,256 successful Section 2 cases that arose in jurisdictions subject to oversight: 83.3 percent. Section 2 cases can be filed anywhere in the country. The number of successful Section 2 cases is far larger than that in the much-cited database compiled by Ellen Katz, a law professor at of the University of Michigan (which is subsumed in my list), and the proportion from covered jurisdictions is considerably higher than Katz found in published cases. This is because I included many unpublished cases that resulted in settlements, either in-court or out-of-court.

The first paragraph specifically addresses what you thought was necessary to repeat in your post. Strange how you skipped right over the second paragraph. Whatever the case, your mind is made up, so there's no need for you to bother responding to this post as I am done responding to yours.

Perhaps you've missed all the Voter ID laws which have been blocked from taking effect in non-Southern states. And if you want to argue that voters should not have to produce ID in a nation with over 11 million illegals, most of whom are Hispanic, because “Hispanic registered voters are more than twice as likely as non-Hispanic registered voters to lack such identification,” I won't waste my time arguing with you. There is simply no point. I'll just say that federal voting laws and supervision should be the same in ALL states.

Did you miss the fact that two panels in the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington ruled that the voter ID restrictions enacted by Texas (a 2012 and 2011) had discriminatory purposes and effects? Since this thread is not about the validity of voter ID requirements for elections, I won't delve into it; however, to address your point that all states should have the same supervision, I refer back to an earlier post in this thread that provided the example of a classroom with particular students within that classroom who repeatedly misbehave. We will see if Texas tries to push through the redistricting map that was determined to have a discriminatory effect now that section 5 is inoperative.

 

[BlueWolf47]

While i agree the voting rights acts should not apply to just southern states it is apparent that we still need the law to be enforced. It should however apply to every state.

 

[simpletron]

Well, at least you have confirmed that you don't really read anything people post and have your mind made up without any possibility of having it changed. I will leave this quote from that same blog here:



The first paragraph specifically addresses what you thought was necessary to repeat in your post. Strange how you skipped right over the second paragraph. Whatever the case, your mind is made up, so there's no need for you to bother responding to this post as I am done responding to yours.

you may wish to read the next paragraph:
In other words, five-sixths or more of the cases of proven election discrimination from 1957 through 2013 have taken place in jurisdictions subject to Section 5 oversight ‑ which would mean very skillful targeting for any government program.

I don't think this really counters his main argument of old data/outdated formula.

Follow that paragraph with the graph, where section 5 objections and cases was below ten for most years from ~1995 to 2006, and you're practically supporting the argument of old data/outdated formula.

Until you post something for a data pool covering say 1995 to 2005(the ten years prior to the last renewal) or just post-2000 data. You're not going to convince people the 1965 formula is still relevant.

Did you miss the fact that two panels in the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington ruled that the voter ID restrictions enacted by Texas (a 2012 and 2011) had discriminatory purposes and effects? Since this thread is not about the validity of voter ID requirements for elections, I won't delve into it; however, to address your point that all states should have the same supervision, I refer back to an earlier post in this thread that provided the example of a classroom with particular students within that classroom who repeatedly misbehave. We will see if Texas tries to push through the redistricting map that was determined to have a discriminatory effect now that section 5 is inoperative.

I wouldn't be surprised if texas fell back under the preclearance requirements using section 3c of the VRA.

 

[zinfamous]

While i agree the voting rights acts should not apply to just southern states it is apparent that we still need the law to be enforced. It should however apply to every state.

well, it does. The argument against is that various states get more attention and regulation, because they are the biggest offenders. It has always applied equally to every state.

what this boils down to is a handful of states repeatedly violating provisions of the Act every single year, then claiming that they are getting unfair treatment...because they constantly need to be hand-held through this process--well, of course you are asshats! Stop violating it and fall in line with the rest of the 20th, 21sts century.

The ruling is basically thus: The Act has worked well and done exactly what it was intended to do for the previous 5 decades. In fact it has worked so well, that we now need to abolish it!

This type of logic is only valid to third graders.

 

[Riparian]

you may wish to read the next paragraph:
In other words, five-sixths or more of the cases of proven election discrimination from 1957 through 2013 have taken place in jurisdictions subject to Section 5 oversight ‑ which would mean very skillful targeting for any government program.

I don't think this really counters his main argument of old data/outdated formula.

Follow that paragraph with the graph, where section 5 objections and cases was below ten for most years from ~1995 to 2006, and you're practically supporting the argument of old data/outdated formula.

Until you post something for a data pool covering say 1995 to 2005(the ten years prior to the last renewal) or just post-2000 data. You're not going to convince people the 1965 formula is still relevant.

I am not sure why you believe it does not counter the "old data" argument that people keep putting forth. We already know that there were 15,000 pages of Congressional Record on the subject and without sifting through those 15,000 pages, I would imagine that the various federal cases alleging VRA violations would be among those 15,000 pages of discussion, witness hearings, and debates about amendments to section 4 and 5 that were ultimately rejected.

You also point to the graph in that blog, to which I have a couple of points to make. First, the graph and article address the drop in cases due to the Shaw v. Reno, which made it more difficult to object to discrimination. Secondly, even at its peak, there were less than 90 cases a year. From the information on that graph, I would gather that there are a limited amount of voting changes in any particular jurisdiction at any given time.

Lastly, I would point out that the VRA had a bailout provision for those jurisdictions that could demonstrate that they were no longer under the purview of section 5. The rules for bailout are as follows:

The successful "bailout" applicant must demonstrate that during the past ten years:

(1) No test or device has been used within the jurisdiction for the purpose or with the effect of voting discrimination;
(2) All changes affecting voting have been reviewed under Section 5 prior to their implementation;
(3) No change affecting voting has been the subject of an objection by the Attorney General or the denial of a Section 5 declaratory judgment from the District of Columbia district court;
(4) There have been no adverse judgments in lawsuits alleging voting discrimination;
(5) There have been no consent decrees or agreements that resulted in the abandonment of a discriminatory voting practice;
(6) There are no pending lawsuits that allege voting discrimination; and
(7) Federal examiners have not been assigned;
(8) There have been no violations of the Constitution or federal, state or local laws with respect to voting discrimination unless the jurisdiction establishes that any such violations were trivial, were promptly corrected, and were not repeated.

For a listing of jurisdictions that have been bailed out who were once under the purview of section 5:

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/misc/sec_4.php#bailout

Taking the fact that a clear majority of discriminatory voting laws are being enacted in jurisdictions under the purview of section 5 and that these same jurisdictions have had 40 years to show that they are no longer in violation of the VRA in order to remove themselves from the purview of section 5, I do not see the point of giving these same jurisdictions a free pass to get out of section 5 purview. Even if the test to be placed under section 5 pre-clearance is from 1972, there were clear rules to allow for these jurisdictions to exit that purview. Once exited, it would be difficult for them to be placed back under section 5 purview if, as these jurisdictions claimed, the section 4 rules were outdated (since most of these jurisdictions would not satisfy the requirements set forth by section 4).

 

[werepossum]

Did you miss the fact that two panels in the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington ruled that the voter ID restrictions enacted by Texas (a 2012 and 2011) had discriminatory purposes and effects? Since this thread is not about the validity of voter ID requirements for elections, I won't delve into it; however, to address your point that all states should have the same supervision, I refer back to an earlier post in this thread that provided the example of a classroom with particular students within that classroom who repeatedly misbehave. We will see if Texas tries to push through the redistricting map that was determined to have a discriminatory effect now that section 5 is inoperative.

Your argument appears to that although separate but equal is bad for people, it's perfectly okay for states. Seems to me that states/districts repeatedly violating voting laws can be repeatedly sanctioned under the same laws that apply equally to everyone. That IS how other laws work, no?

 

[fskimospy]

Your argument appears to that although separate but equal is bad for people, it's perfectly okay for states. Seems to me that states/districts repeatedly violating voting laws can be repeatedly sanctioned under the same laws that apply equally to everyone. That IS how other laws work, no?

No, his argument is that you can treat states and people differently based on their past behavior. We do this at all levels of society and have done so for basically the entirety of human existence.

 

[werepossum]

No, his argument is that you can treat states and people differently based on their past behavior. We do this at all levels of society and have done so for basically the entirety of human existence.

Not to that degree. For instance, Chicago is notorious for voter fraud. Where is the federal oversight committee for Chicago?

EDIT: To piggyback on TechboyJK's thread, where is the federal oversight committee for the Chicago school system? Or for Detroit's?

 

[chucky2]

Not to that degree. For instance, Chicago is notorious for voter fraud. Where is the federal oversight committee for Chicago?

I bet there is one. Run by Dems, oversight by trusted union police, etc. It's Chicago dude, you know they've got their fixes covered up good...

 

[ivwshane]

Not to that degree. For instance, Chicago is notorious for voter fraud. Where is the federal oversight committee for Chicago?

EDIT: To piggyback on TechboyJK's thread, where is the federal oversight committee for the Chicago school system? Or for Detroit's?

Lol, what does voter fraud have to do with the VRA?