Poll: Most Americans disapprove of SCOTUS decision on Voting Rights Act

[RobDownSouth]

NO, IT DIDN'T!!

The "bad behavior" were the literacy tests and specific discriminatory devices such as poll taxes and good character references. The proof of that bad behavior was the lower than average minority voter registration and participation.

At some point Congress outlawed literacy tests and the other devices. When the minority voting stats eventually matched or in several cases exceeded the national average, that was evidence that the once shameful states had finally accepted the inevitable and were finally resigned to displaying civilized behavior.

You don't keep punishing people for transgressions they have long ago abandoned.

My understanding of the law, and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, was that Congress provided a mechanism whereby affected entities could petition to be dropped from preclearance rules by showing demonstrable results, and that a few entities (mainly in the northeast?) already had.

An imperfect analogy would be the law was a school and the supreme court (the principal) gave up on an unrepentant delinquent (the Old Confederate states) and gave them a "social promotion" even though no passing grade was ever made.

 

[hotmama80]

If you read the syllabus of the case (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf), you will see that only the Sec. 4 formula was ruled unconstitutional.



Sec. 5 remains in effect in theory should there ever again be conditions like the Sec. 4 formula targeted.

Since you obviously refuse to believe any of the five or six comments I've posted on this subject, I will once again refer you to the statement in the above syllabus, to wit: Section 4’s formula is unconstitutional in light of current conditions. "In light of current conditions" simply means that discriminatory literacy tests and the low voter registration and turnouts by minorities which were the two elements at the heart of Sec. 4 no longer exist.

Since these two primary elements no longer exist, it is "unconstitutional" to use them as the current basis for invoking the enforcement mechanism popularly known as "preclearance." This is precisely what Congress was doing each time it "renewed" the VRA while keeping the Sec. 4 formula intact.

The reason the Court did not reference a specific Amendment or other language within the Constitution is because the "presumption of innocence" and the "burden of proof" required to reverse that very presumption is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. Only a fool, however, would deny their centrality to our system of jurisprudence.

It is a principle steadfastly affirmed by the remaining sections of the VRA itself. In all other alleged violations of the Act (other than those states covered by Sec. 4 and 5), the Department of Justice files suit in federal court and therein assumes the role of plaintiff encumbered with the burden of proof against the accused state or political subdivision in its role as defendant.

That is the way our legal process is supposed to work.

Well put... Thank you...

 

[Colonel Hogan]

My understanding of the law, and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, was that Congress provided a mechanism whereby affected entities could petition to be dropped from preclearance rules by showing demonstrable results, and that a few entities (mainly in the northeast?) already had.

An imperfect analogy would be the law was a school and the supreme court (the principal) gave up on an unrepentant delinquent (the Old Confederate states) and gave them a "social promotion" even though no passing grade was ever made.

Okay, I know where you're coming from now. You're referring to the "bailout" provision. Far from rewarding bad behavior, the Sec. 4 bailout provision allowed the possibility of smaller political subdivisions of a covered state to "bailout" from the preclearance mandate imposed on the rest of the state, if the political subdivision could demonstrate impeccable non-discriminatory behavior over a specific time period. I don't know what it was originally, but the VRA was amended in 1984 to require the non-discriminatory period to be 10 years from the date of the filing of the bailout application. A successful bailout is contingent upon a declaratory judgment from U. S. District Court.

I haven't paid much attention to the bailout provision of Sec. 4 in our discussions here primarily because it has been used so rarely. The map below (current through September 2010) shows that up until that time, only 15 Virginia counties had successfully bailed out. Since then, Kings Mountain, North Carolina, and Sandy Springs, Georgia have successfully bailed.

In 2009, SCOTUS ruled that a small Texas utility district that was run by a publicly elected board (Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder) could bail out because it had no part in actually registering voters.

The state of New Hampshire's bail out application was filed in November of last year and approved just this past March.

Bailouts are essentially a confusing sub-plot to this whole story and have no significance whatsoever thanks to the recent SCOTUS ruling. But the map is kind of interesting.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/Us_s5_cvr08.PNG

 

[John Doe]

Discussions of this nature and quality are why I keep returning to Lit.

Well...that and the porn.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Only certain states are included. I would think that feeling like everyone should be created equal, the LAST thing you would want was laws not equal for every state.

An article today noted former Justice John Paul Stevens went on record about the whine about "only certain states are included"....

In view of the changes that have occurred in the South, the majority concluded that the current enforcement of the preclearance requirement against the few states identified in the statute violates an unwritten rule requiring Congress to treat all of the states as equal sovereigns.

In other words, Justice Stevens is lamenting the judicial activism from the bench, the same judicial activism that Hogan said didn't exist. It should be noted for the record, however, that Stevens is merely a retired Supreme Court Associate Justice while Col Hogan is a member of the bar, presumably in good standing.

 

[imalickin]

True. At least in theory. In practice if the Constitution doesn't mention it then it's not a right in the strictest sense of the word.

Bullshit. What it means is that the X Amendment kicks in. You know the one. Where the right reverts to the states or the people, if it's not specifically given to the fed.

The right to vote is determined by the states, with the caveat that they can't restrict voting because of race or sex.

And I suggest that anyone who posts on a porn board about politics be barred from voting all together.

 

[Dazzle1]

Only 33% approve of the decision, 51% disapprove. Also most Americans agree with the same sex marriage decisions... And the GOP slips even further out of touch with America.

http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1144a24SCOTUSDecisions.pdf

Most voters support voter ID laws

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/18/fox-news-poll-most-think-voter-id-laws-are-necessary/

 

[Colonel Hogan]

An article today noted former Justice John Paul Stevens went on record about the whine about "only certain states are included"....



In other words, Justice Stevens is lamenting the judicial activism from the bench, the same judicial activism that Hogan said didn't exist. It should be noted for the record, however, that Stevens is merely a retired Supreme Court Associate Justice while Col Hogan is a member of the bar, presumably in good standing.

Your attempt to artificially construct a legal credibility mismatch between me and Justice Stevens is shamefully transparent. Justice Stevens' fight is with Chief Justice Roberts and the Court majority in Shelby County. It is not with me.

I developed an interest in Constitutional law as an undergraduate in college. I was impressed at how well-reasoned, persuasive opinions could be articulated for both sides of an issue and how the rational foundation for a decision might, upon deeper investigation, be significantly different than what one might first suspect.

Since most people (like yourself) seem far more comfortable with analyzing Constitutional law based on their partisan political assumptions rather than the deeper investigation that a full reading of a case might entail, I often take it upon myself to contrast those assumption with the actual legal rationales which the Court applied.

This takes no great talent or insight on my part other than conscientiously reporting what the Court said it did and the reasons it gave for doing it. That's all I'm trying to do here. It's hardly surprising that any number of people in the legal community, most particularly active and retired members of the Supreme Court might disagree with each other.

As for your interpretation that Justice Stevens' critique about an "unwritten rule" with respect to state sovereignty implies an endorsement of your allegation regarding "judicial activism" by the majority in Shelby County, I doubt that is precisely what he meant. I will try to find some prior SCOTUS opinions under his authorship that might clarify his position.

In the meantime, it seems to me that a federal government whose own sovereignty is restricted to its "enumerated powers" must necessarily be mindful not to infringe upon those rights "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If not, then what was all that 18th century clamoring surrounding the Federalist Papers all about?

In fact, we see the Court struggle to balance respective rights, powers and privileges in almost every case they accept for review.

If states have NO sovereignty under the law, then why do we need or needlessly endure their pointless imposition between us and the federal government to which all submission is due?