Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Supreme Court to hear Shelby County challenge to part of Voting Rights Act
11-09-2012, 05:45 PM
Post: #1
Supreme Court to hear Shelby County challenge to part of Voting Rights Act
Supreme Court to hear Shelby County challenge to part of Voting Rights Act
The Associated Press By The Associated Press
on November 09, 2012 at 4:07 PM, updated November 09, 2012 at 5:19 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court said Friday it will consider eliminating the government's chief weapon against racial discrimination at polling places since the 1960s.

Acting three days after the election, the justices agreed to hear a constitutional challenge to the part of the landmark Voting Rights Act that requires all or parts of 16 states with a history of discrimination in voting to get federal approval before making any changes in the way they hold elections.

The appeal from Shelby County, Ala., near Birmingham, says state and local governments covered by the law have made significant progress and no longer should be forced to live under oversight from Washington.

The high court considered the same issue three years ago but sidestepped what Chief Justice John Roberts then called "a difficult constitutional question."

http://democratsforprogress.com/forum/ne...php?fid=37

This makes me sick after all the suppression that went on in this election. How they can overlook it is wrong. Any state that tried to suppress voters should be added to the list instead of taking states off of it.

[Image: haironfire.jpg]
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil
is for good men to do nothing. ~Burke
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply Return to top

Post Reply 
Messages In This Thread
[*]
11-09-2012, 06:08 PM
Post: #2
RE: Supreme Court to hear Shelby County challenge to part of Voting Rights Act
Breaking News: Supreme Court To Consider Constitutional Challenge to Voting Rights Act; Reading Between the Lines in The Cert Grant
Posted on November 9, 2012 2:17 pm by Rick Hasen

The Supreme Court’s order today (coming, probably not coincidentally right after, rather than right before the election), was hardly unexpected. We’ve all been expecting the Court to take this case, and, I suspect use it as a vehicle to strike down the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act. Here’s what I wrote last month on SCOTUSBlog:

The Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in NAMUDNO v. Holder was an invitation to Congress to go back and make changes to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to keep the Court from striking down the provision as an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional power. At oral argument, both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy – believed to be the key votes in this case – expressed considerable skepticism about requiring only some jurisdictions (mostly in the South) but not the rest of the country to get permission from the federal government for all changes in their voting rules, from redistricting to voter id to moving a polling place. NAMUDNO was in effect a remand, perhaps an act of statesmanship by Roberts, Kennedy, or both, to give Congress more time to rework the Act. Yet Congress did not respond, and now the Court seems almost certain to take either the Shelby County v. Holder case or another case soon, and likely to strike down the Act. In this post I ask, why did Congress fail to act to fix the Act after NAMUDNO?

What’s especially notable about today’s cert grant is that the Court mildly rewrote (adding in the 14th amendment question) and limited the question presented to the following: “”Whether Congress’ decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.”

This means that the Court will focus specifically on the question whether Congress exceeded its power in not updating the coverage formula—states and parts of states are covered based on voter turnout and the use of a test or device in 1964, 1968, or 1972. The argument is that Congress couldn’t use those proxies anymore to identify states which still need additional federal oversight. It is exactly the argument which Chief Justice Roberts latched onto at the oral argument in NAMUDNO. Further, the references to the 10th amendment power of the states and the republican form of government clause show a great concern about federalism and states rights, a high concern of Kennedy. Kennedy and Roberts are likely the swing Justices here—if they swing at all, it is only for prudential reasons about what it would mean politically to overturn the Act.

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=43966

Good read, tells how he thinks the court will decide.

[Image: haironfire.jpg]
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil
is for good men to do nothing. ~Burke
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply Return to top
11-10-2012, 08:56 AM
Post: #3
RE: Supreme Court to hear Shelby County challenge to part of Voting Rights Act
Rachel Maddow - Supreme Court to hear Voting Rights Act challenge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...EWLGclqfNM
Published on Nov 9, 2012 by Licentiathe8th

Nov 9, 2012

[Image: haironfire.jpg]
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil
is for good men to do nothing. ~Burke
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply Return to top
11-10-2012, 10:40 AM
Post: #4
RE: Supreme Court to hear Shelby County challenge to part of Voting Rights Act
It should be expanded to all states. That would have stopped Illinois from it's stupid fight against motor voter during the Jim Edgar administration.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply Return to top

Post Reply 

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)