Skip to main content

View Diary: Can anyone tell me? (21 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In short, (6+ / 0-)

    They said the VRA is legal, but the map used to say who can be monitored and who can't is not.  Which means, in short, that until Congress draws up a new map, the VRA is unenforceable.

    And, of course, this Congress will not draw up a new map.  They have too many vested interests in in keeping anyone not a member of their club from voting.

    So - this was a very clever way of doing an end run around the VRA, and making it nothing more than just words.

    And, of course, many states are already jumping on this, and planning on how to restrict voting to only those they like.

    This will increase gerrymanders, altered voting districts, ballots, voting tests, ID laws, and the like.

    What to do?  Get these bastards out of office while you can.

    I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

    by trumpeter on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 02:47:48 PM PDT

    •  Not entirely (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      trumpeter, Adam B, ladybug53, CwV

      in essence, it shifts the burden of proof.  The DOJ has always had the ability to bring a case alleging voter rights violations in areas outside the map.  Now the DOJ has to prove the violations across the board.

      The law is still in effect, but now the the burden of proof has shifted from the DOJ to the states.

      Its really fucking bad, but not completely gutted bad.

      "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

      by Empty Vessel on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 02:52:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's gutted bad. (9+ / 0-)

        Judge Ginsburg addressed this in the dissent:

        “Voting suits are unusually onerous to prepare, sometimes requiring as many as 6,000 man-hours spent combing through registration records in preparation for trial. Litigation has been exceedingly slow, in part because of the ample opportunities for delay afforded voting officials and others involved in the proceedings. Even when favorable decisions have finally been obtained, some of the States affected have merely switched to discriminatory devices not covered by the federal decrees or have enacted difficult new tests designed to prolong the existing disparity between white and Negro registration. Alternatively, certain local officials have defied and evaded court orders or have simply closed their registration offices to freeze the voting rolls.”
        Judge Ginsburg includes:
        Whenever one form of voting discrimination was identified and prohibited, others sprang up in its place. This Court repeatedly encountered the remarkable “variety and persistence” of laws disenfranchising minority citizens. Id., at 311. To take just one example, the Court, in 1927, held unconstitutional a Texas law barring black voters from participating in primary elections, Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536, 541; in 1944, the Court struck down a “reenacted” and slightly altered version of the same law, Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649, 658; and in 1953, the Court once again confronted an attempt by Texas to “circumven[t]” the Fifteenth Amendment by adopting yet another variant of the all-white primary, Terry v. Adams, 345 U. S. 461, 469.
        It's effectively gutted.
    •  trumpeter - one nit (5+ / 0-)

      Until they draw a new map Section 5, the pre-clearance provision, of the VRA is unenforceable. However, as the Attorney General, Eric Holder, said this morning in his statement every state is subject to the provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which is still in full force and effect, and the DoJ will vigorously enforce it.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 02:56:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site