Skip to main content

View Diary: What if the Voting Rights Act applied to everyone? (25 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Would that require legislation? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The executive branch is supposed to act to enforce laws. It seems unlikely that there's a law that authorizes preclearance for, say, Massachusetts.

    Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

    by Dogs are fuzzy on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 03:19:39 PM PDT

    •  My understanding is that (0+ / 0-)

      the law is flexible enough to allow states/counties to be added or dropped based on the data (the bail-ins/bailouts). If the DoJ had the authority to add New Mexico, Hawaii, and parts of California and New York in the 70s (when non-English-speaking citizens were being discriminated against), I don't see why Massachusetts or any other state would be any different.

      Moral relativism is OK if you're a Republican.

      by yulooloo on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 03:23:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dogs are fuzzy - it would require legislation (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Congress would have to prepare a new Section 4 map with all states and counties included and pass legislation making Section 4 universal. The challenge is that no state or county wants to be on the Section 4 list and their Reps in the House know this.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 05:40:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Plus, although pre-clearance may SOUND ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        like a good idea to some right now, would they see it the same way if a Republican White House were in power?  And they will be, some day; it's inevitable.  Then what?  I'm certain there are many ways such a broad power could be abused; thinking it through before jumping on that wagon would be the intelligent first step.

        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

        by Neuroptimalian on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 06:56:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  One of the problems with this is that what SCOTUS (0+ / 0-)

          will not permit is a general federal rule because there is some history, and two constitutional provisons about how to elect, and changing the method of electing senators. It took a constitutional amendment to take that away from state legislatures.

          The real problem will be holding the hearings and determining which conduct or condition will require preclearance. And it probably will require a national election or two to demonstrate the drop in participation which results from suppression method A vs. method B, and how to demonstrate and when it can be done that a state is putting impossible numbers of voters and hopelessly insufficient voting devices in tghe same places, and lots of equipment and only a smaller number of voters in others, and gee whiz, look which groups got which option. Ditto for which sorts of ID and how much must be presented in order to vote, and what to do about those who have a previous record of being allowed to vote. A  separate effort will be needed to get rid of the Michigan horrors, where the right of people of a jurisdiciton are flat out eliminated on the sayso of a political official.  It's a bit of work, but that seems to be what is required.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site