Would you flip the VRA and DOMA rulings?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Option 2 for me. I'm certainly glad about today's decision, but it's pretty derisory to see marriage rights progress when the infinitely more important voting rights have been dealt a fatal blow.

[Supersonic]

VRA (Sec4) and DOMA struck down would have been the best outcome, and I got it.

[Bacon King]

I'm reasonably content. The requirements for preclearance were incredibly arbitrary and as we've seen recently even a Democratic Justice Department didn't really use the authority very well at all. I mean, I'd have preferred to see it kept I suppose, but it's not very much of a big deal at all.

[afleitch]

It's not a competition.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Option 5: Section 4 of VRA and DOMA both struck down (I)

Other than some disagreements with Kennedy on the reasoning he used in the DOMA case, I'm pleased with the results in both.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Both should have been affirmed for minorities. The CRT is clearly justifying both decisions in states rights. But voting rights affirmed by the radical republicans and secular congress in defining the 15th amendment intended voting rights to be a federal issue.

[DemPGH]

It's really like this SCOTUS, IMO. You can sleep with who you want, but you are at the complete mercy of every other institution from your employer to the police to the VRA thing. I'm just worried as to what states with solid GOP leadership will do to affect turnout in their favor. No, I would not want to see DOMA upheld, but the tide of gay rights is finally really rising in this country and I'm not sure that it can stopped at this point. I side with personal freedoms, so I want VRA upheld and DOMA struck down.

[TNF]

Option 2.

[H. Ross Peron]

Option 1

[Blue3]

No way.

Striking down DOMA is big.

The part struck down in the VRA just slightly changes how to deal with any troublesome laws from preventative to reactionary. And that's even if they never approve a new formula.

[Goldwater]

Option 3.

[traininthedistance]

This is a toughie.  Voting rights is more important than gay marriage (and the gay rights movement really should be making more progress vis-a-vis workplace discrimination anyway), but just striking Section 4 is not quite the apocalypse that many on the left fear it is.

Honestly, if I could change one decision this term, I'd actually change Koontz v. St. John's River Water Management District.  That is absolutely the worst decision handed down this term, yes really.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/opinion/a-legal-blow-to-sustainable-development.html

[nolesfan2011]

Option 2 for me. I'm certainly glad about today's decision, but it's pretty derisory to see marriage rights progress when the infinitely more important voting rights have been dealt a fatal blow.

Yep, the fact is gay marriage is going to happen federally (50 state) at some point in the not to distant future, the demographics alone just assure it, the battle is already over regardless of how many votes and legal cases they continue to have over it, the tide will not reverse, no reason for it to do so. Nobody under 40 cares if gay people get married or not (except a small minority evangelical/salafist group that will always exist). DOMA could go away today, or go away in a year, doesn't matter that much long term.

On the other hand the VRA thing is far more damaging and I don't see us getting voting rights protections back like they were given the current congress and the divide with both parties, the will and the agreement just isn't there. The entire GOP caucus in the South was throwing a parade over it, it is sickening, and they will go right back to disenfranchising voters and be shameless about it, they truly don't care, they will go back and pass laws saying only property owners can vote or something.

Dems meanwhile are too lazy and bigoted about the south to care, probably willing to let it slip away, since they want the south to secede anyway.

[nolesfan2011]

Also, people should realize section 2 of the VRA is basically invalid until Congress (if they ever) creates new parameters of enforcement (section 4). Section 2 more or less doesn't apply anywhere.

[traininthedistance]

Also, people should realize section 2 of the VRA is basically invalid until Congress (if they ever) creates new parameters of enforcement (section 4). Section 2 more or less doesn't apply anywhere.

I thought it was Section 5 that was rendered de facto invalid by the decision, and Section 2 is still doing (relatively) fine?

[nolesfan2011]

Also, people should realize section 2 of the VRA is basically invalid until Congress (if they ever) creates new parameters of enforcement (section 4). Section 2 more or less doesn't apply anywhere.

I thought it was Section 5 that was rendered de facto invalid by the decision, and Section 2 is still doing (relatively) fine?

maybe I'm confused then

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, people should realize section 2 of the VRA is basically invalid until Congress (if they ever) creates new parameters of enforcement (section 4). Section 2 more or less doesn't apply anywhere.

I thought it was Section 5 that was rendered de facto invalid by the decision, and Section 2 is still doing (relatively) fine?

maybe I'm confused then

You're confused.

Section 2 allows Federal lawsuits over whether certain electoral practices are discriminatory and is unaffected.

Section 5 was largely gutted by the striking down of Section 4.  Section 5 provides for Federal preclearance of changes to voting laws.  Section 4 specified certain jurisdictions that would be by default be subject to preclearance.  However, Section 5 is not a dead letter, even after the decision handed down last Wednesday.  Section 3 provides an alternative means by which jurisdictions can become subject to Section 5 preclearance if they are found to have engaged in actual discriminatory practices, yet which were not subject to preclearance under the section 4 formulas.  Indeed, there a couple of South Dakota counties which are still for the moment subject to section 5 preclearance due to discrimination to Indian voters.

So what Obama and Holder need to do is to be prepared to aggressively file Section 3 cases if any of the jurisdictions previously covered under section 4 abuse no longer being subject to it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also, people should realize section 2 of the VRA is basically invalid until Congress (if they ever) creates new parameters of enforcement (section 4). Section 2 more or less doesn't apply anywhere.

I thought it was Section 5 that was rendered de facto invalid by the decision, and Section 2 is still doing (relatively) fine?

maybe I'm confused then

You're confused.

Section 2 allows Federal lawsuits over whether certain electoral practices are discriminatory and is unaffected.

Section 5 was largely gutted by the striking down of Section 4.  Section 5 provides for Federal preclearance of changes to voting laws.  Section 4 specified certain jurisdictions that would be by default be subject to preclearance.  However, Section 5 is not a dead letter, even after the decision handed down last Wednesday.  Section 3 provides an alternative means by which jurisdictions can become subject to Section 5 preclearance if they are found to have engaged in actual discriminatory practices, yet which were not subject to preclearance under the section 4 formulas.  Indeed, there a couple of South Dakota counties which are still for the moment subject to section 5 preclearance due to discrimination to Indian voters.

So what Obama and Holder need to do is to be prepared to aggressively file Section 3 cases if any of the jurisdictions previously covered under section 4 abuse no longer being subject to it.

Good to know Section 3 is not entirely dead. Hopefully the worst abuses will be prevented regardless.

Still a vile decision, though.

[politicallefty]

Given the options in the poll, I'd keep things the way they were. If the Court went after Section 5 or the entirety of the VRA, it might be a different story. But, as it stands, preclearance remains constitutional with Section 3 fully intact and the ability of Congress to amend and update Section 4.