Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I haven't read the entire opinion yet, but from what I have read of it, this was a good, correct legal decision.

There's no desire to go back to Jim Crow, and comments like that are trolling, pure and simple.  To call the Court racist is even more absurd.

[perdedor]

Exactly what was the criteria for determining what areas should be subject to Section 5? "A history of discrimination" is too vague and susceptible to petty semantic arguments. Overall, it has a half baked law that should have been modified a long time ago.

I would rather Section 5 be reformed as a probationary period or punishment for offending states rather than a blanket regulation for every county in America with historically racist residents.

[Badger]

Nobody wants the VRA struck down, Link, particularly Pubs, who benefit from the law overall from a partisan standpoint. The law thinks that arbitrary and capricious laws applied unequally, smacks of a lack of equal protection, and what makes it worse here, is that substantive rules under Section 5 are different than Section 2, so it is not just a procedural inequality.

Don't be so sure of that, Torie. In PAST the VRA was a boon to Republicans by greater consolidation of black votes in fewer minority-majority districts, which allowed the GOP to pick off numerous white blue dog Dems whose constituencies were now significantly whiter. This, however, was from an era where there were still substantial (but steadily decreasing) numbers of white Democrats outside major southern cities.

Nowadays the southern vote, especially outside large cities, is so polarized along racial lines that the GOP being allowed to play crack-and-pack with current minority-majority districts would further marginalize Democratic House numbers.

Seriously, how many blue dog congressman outside John Barrow are left who could be hurt by further reduction of their African-American constituency? The creative boundry drawers at the RCCC would probably love to re-write the district lines without the VRA at this point.

[pbrower2a]

Disgusting. It's been the long-term goal of the Republican party to reinstate Jim Crow, and it looks like today they've achieved that.

The Republican Party has already marginalized the statewide power of African-Americans in politics in most of the South through the Southern Strategy.

[muon2]

Disgusting. It's been the long-term goal of the Republican party to reinstate Jim Crow, and it looks like today they've achieved that.

The Republican Party has already marginalized the statewide power of African-Americans in politics in most of the South through the Southern Strategy.

One problem in the last round was that there were many instances such as in SC and LA where it would have been easy to draw 2 black-majority districts. Many observers were counting on the DOJ to expand representation which didn't happen. The Sect 5 states are still subject to Sect 2 and this ruling should encourage direct suits against states where minorities may have been given short shrift, rather than hope that DOJ will do the work instead.

[© tweed]

Disgusting. It's been the long-term goal of the Republican party to reinstate Jim Crow, and it looks like today they've achieved that.

it's been a perfectly bipartisan effort, the cornerstone of which is the drug law and penal industry, which the Democrats at best have done nothing to oppose.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You know the shame of it is that those who purport the mischaracterization of the ruling no perfectly well what the ruling is about, but instead will willingly mislead and distort as part of the grand strategy to replicate Presidential turnout levels among certain voting groups in 2014.

It is also a shame that many smart partisans will join in the effort or even willingly delude themselves into believing factual innaccuracies to be the truth. If you want an independent judiciary, then you are going to not get your way all the time, that is the point. To set the boundaries and say, "This goes to far". Might be the most wonderful thing in the world that they are saying no to because of all important "how", but it is their job and the difference is I at least applaud them as opposed to denigrating them for doing their jobs. I said the same thing when the right was railing against the court and calling for term limits last summer after the Obamacare ruling, even though I thought it to be a flawed ruling myself.

The people to blame for this is Congress, they were even warned in 2009 that the standard was outdated and did nothing. I read through posts, by Torie and others in the Demographics board abotu how that county in CA is on the list because its numers were messed up by the troops present on their way to being deployed in Vietnam. But those present were counted by the census and thus their registration numbers were artificially lowered, so forty years later they are still on the list.

[Torie]

Nobody wants the VRA struck down, Link, particularly Pubs, who benefit from the law overall from a partisan standpoint. The law thinks that arbitrary and capricious laws applied unequally, smacks of a lack of equal protection, and what makes it worse here, is that substantive rules under Section 5 are different than Section 2, so it is not just a procedural inequality.

Don't be so sure of that, Torie. In PAST the VRA was a boon to Republicans by greater consolidation of black votes in fewer minority-majority districts, which allowed the GOP to pick off numerous white blue dog Dems whose constituencies were now significantly whiter. This, however, was from an era where there were still substantial (but steadily decreasing) numbers of white Democrats outside major southern cities.

Nowadays the southern vote, especially outside large cities, is so polarized along racial lines that the GOP being allowed to play crack-and-pack with current minority-majority districts would further marginalize Democratic House numbers.

Seriously, how many blue dog congressman outside John Barrow are left who could be hurt by further reduction of their African-American constituency? The creative boundry drawers at the RCCC would probably love to re-write the district lines without the VRA at this point.

Without the VRA, the specter looms in theory that some black congresspersons would be dumped, to elect two white Dems for each black so jettisoned. That is why the GOP loves the VRA. Even if the Dems get the trifecta, they are leashed from doing something that is thermonuclear. And when they don't, the VRA is a nice way to jettison otherwise good redistricting principles, to get a black elected, along with a white Pub - c.f. the St. Louis area CD's.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Completely shameful.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Completely shameful.

I'm surprised that you think they should have struck down Section 5 as well.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Completely shameful.

I'm surprised that you think they should have struck down Section 5 as well.

When did I say that?

[politicallefty]

This isn't the result I wanted to see, but it was fully expected. Congress has had plenty of time to update Section 4 since NAMUDNO in 2009. It's classic John Roberts for him to go after that instead of Section 5. However, I'm not 100% sure that Section 5 is completely safe either, but that obviously may be a moot point. The Court simply chose not to rule on Section 5 (whereas Section 2 was pretty much explicitly mentioned to be safe). However, I don't think this is the end of the world as many on the left seem to think. Most of the country has never been subject to preclearance anyway. And, in the areas that no longer have Section 5 coverage, the burden of proof was essentially moved from the states to the plaintiffs. The entire country is still subject to Section 2. Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped voter suppression efforts throughout most of the country.

I did read something quite noteworthy on SCOTUSblog:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Devils30]

This decision honestly has very little practical effect. Most of the states in it have little chance of any Democrat winning anything in the near future. Even in Virginia it's not like DOJ saved the Dems from an awful congressional map! That state should still keep moving blue as will NC.
 
Also, remember that Florida is not even covered by §5 for the most part. It was kind of difficult to explain why Tampa deserved to be covered by §5 while the entire historically Jim Crow panhandle was not. In 2013 this simply makes no sense.

Even if §2 was eliminated this would probably not change things because the GOP would be scared to unpack the 80% Obama minority districts. By doing that they would open up chances for white moderate Dems that they have already eliminated more or less.

[Ogre Mage]

Awful decision.  How convenient that in order now for preclearance to be in effect, Congress has to craft a new map!  The GOP House majority cannot even count properly to pass their own f**king farm bill and this is going to get done?  No surprise that this was a 5-4 decision either.

I am not so sure that this decision will have little effect.  Reid Wilson at National Journal writes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/voting-rights-decision-means-republicans-could-control-house-for-decades-20130625


On an unrelated note, Justice Alito sounds like an a$$hole.  The fact he could not even keep his expressions to himself when he was on the winning side (on a workplace discrimination case no less) does not speak well of his judicial character.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/samuel-alito-rolls-eyes_n_3492704.html

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Completely shameful.

I'm surprised that you think they should have struck down Section 5 as well.

When did I say that?

There are those who think it is shameful that the court didn't strike down Section 5 and your comment was brief enough to think you could be one of them.

[Link]

Nobody thinks that the localities that were subject to Section 5, and those not, were at this juncture arbitrary and capricious?  Monterey County, CA needs special scrutiny?  Really?  All SCOTUS did was toss the arbitrariness and capriciousness.

Here is what Torie doesn't want you to know...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/supreme-court-strikes-down-current-coverage-formula-voting-rights-act

How is that "arbitrary"?

[Badger]

Nobody wants the VRA struck down, Link, particularly Pubs, who benefit from the law overall from a partisan standpoint. The law thinks that arbitrary and capricious laws applied unequally, smacks of a lack of equal protection, and what makes it worse here, is that substantive rules under Section 5 are different than Section 2, so it is not just a procedural inequality.

Don't be so sure of that, Torie. In PAST the VRA was a boon to Republicans by greater consolidation of black votes in fewer minority-majority districts, which allowed the GOP to pick off numerous white blue dog Dems whose constituencies were now significantly whiter. This, however, was from an era where there were still substantial (but steadily decreasing) numbers of white Democrats outside major southern cities.

Nowadays the southern vote, especially outside large cities, is so polarized along racial lines that the GOP being allowed to play crack-and-pack with current minority-majority districts would further marginalize Democratic House numbers.

Seriously, how many blue dog congressman outside John Barrow are left who could be hurt by further reduction of their African-American constituency? The creative boundry drawers at the RCCC would probably love to re-write the district lines without the VRA at this point.

Without the VRA, the specter looms in theory that some black congresspersons would be dumped, to elect two white Dems for each black so jettisoned. That is why the GOP loves the VRA. Even if the Dems get the trifecta, they are leashed from doing something that is thermonuclear. And when they don't, the VRA is a nice way to jettison otherwise good redistricting principles, to get a black elected, along with a white Pub - c.f. the St. Louis area CD's.

I think you vastly underestimate the creative district lines that could be drawn to sufficiently dilute the black vote over enough districts to replace black Dems with white Reps. There are still some areas that can't feasibly happen (e.g. metro Atlanta will likely still wind up with at least one black Dem), but don't doubt for a second slicing and dicing VRA-protected minority-majority districts can't or won't result in a several seat gain for the GOP.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yeah, it would be fairly easy to draw 7 GOP districts in South Carolina and kick Clyburn to the curb.  They'd even be fairly reasonably looking districts for the most part, altho several of the seats would be vulnerable in years when the GOP is weak.

[jimrtex]

Nobody thinks that the localities that were subject to Section 5, and those not, were at this juncture arbitrary and capricious?  Monterey County, CA needs special scrutiny?  Really?  All SCOTUS did was toss the arbitrariness and capriciousness.

Here is what Torie doesn't want you to know...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/supreme-court-strikes-down-current-coverage-formula-voting-rights-act

How is that "arbitrary"?

Merced County, California was covered because (1) California had a literacy test; and (2) at a particular election it had low voter turnout.  

The California Supreme Court had previously overturned the literacy test because it was only in English, and it was formally repealed 6 days after the trigger date for Merced County's coverage.

It had low voter turnout because it had an air force base (Merced AFB) which has since closed.  At that time, military personnel were encouraged to vote in their home counties.  Plus, since they were transitory and young, they were less likely to vote (this was 1972, the first election after passage of the 26th Amendment).  When the formula was being defined there had been an explicit provision excluding military personnel, but the Census Bureau said that they couldn't separate that population out.  There was a provision that voters could fax that they had voted elsewhere, but how many 19 YO airmen are going to bother so Merced County doesn't trigger?

And the Census Bureau may have incorrectly estimated the number of citizen adults, since it assumed that all estimated growth between 1970 and 1972 were citizens.

In 1992, the USDOJ objected to a plan that was not sufficiently racially gerrymandered.  Rather than wasted money fighting the administrative edict, they agreed to a consent order which drew a looping district that bypassed a city.  That form of racial gerrymandering was later ruled unconstitutional.  But Merced County had the demerit, not the USDOJ, and meant that they could not seek bail-out for another 10 years.

The only other complaints were in 2003 when an effort was made to use Merced County as a way to block the recall of Grey Davis, and another effort in 2006 which ultimately was based on whether Merced County had sought preclearance for some polling place changes before 1976.

Merced ultimately spent a million bucks over a decade complying with and getting bailout from Section 5.