Skip to main content

View Diary: Court strikes down part of Voting Rights Act (341 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  that's because Congress decided to take into (3+ / 0-)

    account were there was a history of vote suppression, in order to infer which counties and states were likely to backslide.

    And even if that weren't the case, Shelby County would be about the last place ever to get exempted from any formula.

    Why this was heard as a facial challenge just confirms that the Court is acting like the third branch of Congress, and what you cite is nothing more than a policy justification.  That's a reason for a member of Congress to amend the formula, not for the court to hold that it's unconstitutional in all of its applications.

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 09:03:24 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I think this is what was disputed (0+ / 0-)
      Congress decided to take into account were there was a history of vote suppression, in order to infer which counties and states were likely to backslide.
      According to the way the majority is written, if there was some indication that Congress was re-evaluating which states/counties deserved to be on the pre-clearance list (if the list had changed at all over the last 40 years) the majority says that would be a different story.

      The majority says they were basing the ruling on the fact that, for all Congress said it was re-evaluating, the affected states/counties didn't change over the last 40 years.  The majority seems to think Congress said, ok, we have all this new data, but we're just going to re-enact the same list.  

      Whether the majority is being honest in what they would have done if Congress had say, slightly changed the list of affected states/counties over the lasat 40 years, I can't say.  

      •  these cats cite legislative history now? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SueDe

        even if this were right, it wouldn't have affected Shelby County's claims, and the decision would remain fundamentally political.  (Like Ginsburg said, the proof the law works is the proof it's unconstitutional.  Or, herp = derp.)

        I think it's valid to infer that jurisdictions that can't or won't achieve the bailout requirements deserve to have show-cause requirements for voting rights changes.

        I'm also not sure how it is that states have "rights" under a section of the Constitution explicitly upending federal/state balance.

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 09:25:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site