Will the John Lewis Voting Rights Act be Upheld by the Supreme Court?

[Frodo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Voting_Rights_Act

[NewYorkExpress]

It's certainly possible Thomas joins the liberals here, but even then, there's still probably five votes to overturn it on the current court (assuming Roberts's history on voting rights continues into present decisions).

[SnowLabrador]

Unless the Democrats add four new justices, no way in hell.

[brucejoel99]

It's certainly possible Thomas joins the liberals here, but even then, there's still probably five votes to overturn it on the current court (assuming Roberts's history on voting rights continues into present decisions).

That's potentially a bold assumption to make, given that one of Roberts' problems with the old pre-clearance provisions was that they only applied to a few states, whereas the John Lewis V.R.A.'s pre-clearance provisions would apply to all 50.

[NewYorkExpress]

It's certainly possible Thomas joins the liberals here, but even then, there's still probably five votes to overturn it on the current court (assuming Roberts's history on voting rights continues into present decisions).

That's potentially a bold assumption to make, given that one of Roberts' problems with the old pre-clearance provisions was that they only applied to a few states, whereas the John Lewis V.R.A.'s pre-clearance provisions would apply to all 50.

Even then, Roberts is still only four votes if they can't convince another Conservative (I'd assume that person would be Thomas, being an African-American Justice, would be the next most likely to uphold the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.)

[Geoffrey Howe]

It's certainly possible Thomas joins the liberals here, but even then, there's still probably five votes to overturn it on the current court (assuming Roberts's history on voting rights continues into present decisions).

That's potentially a bold assumption to make, given that one of Roberts' problems with the old pre-clearance provisions was that they only applied to a few states, whereas the John Lewis V.R.A.'s pre-clearance provisions would apply to all 50.

Even then, Roberts is still only four votes if they can't convince another Conservative (I'd assume that person would be Thomas, being an African-American Justice, would be the next most likely to uphold the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.)

What’s that got to do with this?
Fwiw, he’s thought of as the most ‘conservative’ Justice and he wrote a wider concurrence arguing that they should have struck down preclearance in its entirety.

[Sir Mohamed]

More likely it doesn't come to that, as the GOP is blocking the act from becoming law in the 1st place.

[Greedo punched first]

If Roberts votes to uphold national preclearance, are there still five votes to strike it down?

[Geoffrey Howe]

If Roberts votes to uphold national preclearance, are there still five votes to strike it down?

Thomas has come out against it, Alito and Gorsuch will probably be against. Don't know about Barrett or Kavanaugh. What about your clairvoyance?

[brucejoel99]

If Roberts is open to upholding & can get Kavanaugh to flip to as well, then it's 5-4 to uphold. If not, then it's 6-3 to strike it down with Roberts assigning the opinion to either himself or Kavanaugh in order to make it much more tame than it'd otherwise be in the hands of a Thomas or an Alito. Y'know, like basically every high-profile case from here on out will be.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's impossible to say since we don't even know what this bill will look like once it's been through committee, so one can't predict on what basis there would be a Court challenge.  The specifics of the preclearance requirement could be important.  If the Democrats rewrite the rule in such a way as to exempt CA and NY from it, for example, that makes it more vulnerable to the argument that it is arbitrary and partisan.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Congress has extremely broad explicit powers over federal elections, but John Roberts really, really hates voting rights.
So I legitimately don’t know.

[Frodo]

What does everyone think of this idea that (if adopted) might enable the John Lewis Voting Rights Act to pass muster with the current Supreme Court?

(...) there is another way forward - a compromise between the excess of national pre-clearance and the dated nature of the old formula. If the list of jurisdictions subject to pre-clearance was amended to include any state that has had two or more statewide voting rights violations in the last 25 years, one ends up with a large, diverse pool of states that reflects contemporary voting rights concerns.

Under this updated formula, the states subject to pre-clearance would be: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia.

What's notable about these states is that they reflect both political and regional diversity.

This formula would meet both the Supreme Court's concerns and protect voting rights. It treats all states equally; it's aimed at eliminating real, current discrimination by state actors, and the constantly evolving 25-year period means that states have a real chance of exiting pre-clearance.

Would it work?

[NewYorkExpress]

What does everyone think of this idea that (if adopted) might enable the John Lewis Voting Rights Act to pass muster with the current Supreme Court?

(...) there is another way forward - a compromise between the excess of national pre-clearance and the dated nature of the old formula. If the list of jurisdictions subject to pre-clearance was amended to include any state that has had two or more statewide voting rights violations in the last 25 years, one ends up with a large, diverse pool of states that reflects contemporary voting rights concerns.

Under this updated formula, the states subject to pre-clearance would be: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia.

What's notable about these states is that they reflect both political and regional diversity.

This formula would meet both the Supreme Court's concerns and protect voting rights. It treats all states equally; it's aimed at eliminating real, current discrimination by state actors, and the constantly evolving 25-year period means that states have a real chance of exiting pre-clearance.

Would it work?

I don't think there's any solution that would survive the Supreme Court. A "liberal" Supreme Court would strike it down (as would I) because it allows states to exit preclearance, while a "conservative" Supreme Court would strike it down because it benefits Democrats.

[Greedo punched first]

If the John Lewis Voting Rights Act has jurisdiction stripping added to prevent SCOTUS from hearing cases about it; will SCOTUS not hear any cases involving it, or would SCOTUS grant cert and award itself jurisdiction despite being stripped of it?

[brucejoel99]

If the John Lewis Voting Rights Act has jurisdiction stripping added to prevent SCOTUS from hearing cases about it; will SCOTUS not hear any cases involving it, or would SCOTUS grant cert and award itself jurisdiction despite being stripped of it?

If the courts were truly determined to hear the case, then they'd find that the Constitution itself gives them the jurisdiction or something along those lines. Of course, this is never gonna happen, just like the rest of your hare-brained scenarios.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We're not gonna know, Sinema already joined the enemy Cornyn and said she won't repeal Filibuster it's moot

Biden is going Philly instead of AZ to campaign for VR, he should go to Phoenix

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

John Roberts will find some middle road, AZ was a state case not a Federal case, he doesn't want to give ammunition to Cry packing.

VR can be upheld but the NON Gerrymandering districts in HR 1 isnt favorable to this Crt