I'm curious as to what a progressive outcome could possibly be in this case: Shelby County AL v. Holder. It was apparent during argument that the Fab Feudal Five on the SC bench don't think its right to single out certain states for compliance with §5. §5 requires that certain Southern States must prove that their election laws are not discriminatory thanks to their history of Jim Crow laws. Is there anyone who would have a problem with the Supreme Court mandating that all states adhere to §5?
Is that a possible result at all?
If it was, that would be my first choice for how this case is resolved. VRA §5 from the beginning only applied to Southern states because that's where Jim Crow was established, but wouldn't it be a progressive victory if every state had to comply by the same rules to prohibit discriminatory voting laws?
With what's happened in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio, isn't it obvious that a §5 covering the Confederacy exclusively has become obsolete? Even in my home state of Montana, the GOP legislature is trying to ram through laws that would clearly be prohibited if VRA §5 applied to our Voting System.
I don't know if this is even in the realm of possibility, but my preferred outcome for Shelby County, AL v. Holder would be for the Supreme Court to acknowledge the positive impact of §5, but say that it must apply to all states or none.
Is that even within the realm of possibility? I don't know. That's why I'm asking you guys to fill me in on what your best case result of this judgment is.
Thanks and stay strong. We're winning. Never forget it.