Antiquated racial entitlement about to get hacked by the SCOTUS

I think a legal and empirical analysis of preclearance would blow your mind to be honest, but seeing as I am against it (at least in the way it is currently constructed) and you are too (though for what reason other than the fact that you would love to ride Scalia's ride is beyond me), I won't even bother delving into the details too much. I'm not quite sure you know what you're dealing with, but I thought you would want to save some of that mirth though, it's good to be in good spirits.

But I would like to point out the formula itself is based on historical anecdotal precedent. There are ways to test for which districts are systematically trying to disenfranchise minorities without relying on rote memory of which districts used to in the 1950s. Much along the lines of laws having to change with time, methods do too---and they have.

Roberts brings up a good point of the division of North v. South. There are some Northern districts (overwhelmingly inclined towards Republican control) that would be intresting to test for racial discrimination. America shouldn't focus on voter discrimination based on history, it should focus on voter discrimination in the here and now.

 

This is why I keep coming here. I have never read any of the Voter Rights Act before this thread. Now I am amazed that people want to keep this crap. It's really just a wedge between sides and it's keeping something from actually being accomplished while people argue over a dinosaur.

 

Yeah, at the risk of sounding like I agree with bigtexxx (which I don't), I'm not comfortable with the selective nature of preclearance requirements. If you're going to require it of historically racist and corrupt states, require it of everybody. Or nobody. But saying Virginia needs preclearance and Illinois does not is unjust to the sovereignty of the states. I don't really care so much which way they go to resolve it, so long as there is some uniformity.

 

I agree.

Section 4's formula for coverage under the Voting Rights Act is outdated. I also think its important to note that for 30 years, there has been poor enforcement of the VRA as is.

President Obama is the first Democratic president to be around during a census redrawing of districts. Both Bush's, Reagan and Nixon were around for the previous redistricting efforts and really did little to use preclearance. In fact most challenges weren't from the Justice Department. Usually they came in the form of court challenges (like the Texas redistricting challenge to the 2003 redistricting plan that resulted in a court ordered remapping of 2 districts).

In fact this round of challenges in 2010 were the first time in years you saw significant executive action to strike down new legislation. We've had 40 years of neglect until now. The DC circuit court is much slower without preclearance to speed up lawsuits. (All of the bills struck down by the Justice Department would be in court anyway, its just that it would take longer and there wouldn't be a guarantee that a court would issue an injunction) Preclearance functions as an injunction since every state appeals the decision anyway.

But as unhappy as I am that we're probably losing preclearance, we were basically living without it for years. I do think that preclearance is the reason why Tarrant County had a majority-minority district for this past election. If it hadn't existed, groups would have to go through the courts and it wouldve been at least 1 additional election cycle before a court ordered redrawing would have occurred. I think that would have been disappointing.

If it were up to me, I'd say expand the VRA to all 50 states. This picking and choosing of states is pretty silly. (Particularly if you look at places like Philadelphia where racial gerrymandering occurs in ways that are sometimes worse than areas in the South)

Unfortunate ruling overall but we'll be ok. That said, we need actual federal voter rights legislation in regards to early voting, vote by mail, waiting lines at polls, and ensuring proper levels of funding for polling locations.

 

I have a question that may or may not be an interesting topic in it's own thread.

Should voting be easy? So, with technology we could probably register everyone's fingerprint and basically every vote would come to your phone and you could vote with your fingerprint on your phone.

So if everyone could vote as easily as they send text messages would that be a good or bad thing? A truely democratic society.

IMO a society like that would crumble in a matter of years.... maybe sooner.

 

I think that's the problem with the law as written. A law renewed in 2006 should not be using data from the 1960s to determine which states need pre-approval.

 

I agree. Scalia's comments are stupid, and I really don't understand what he was trying to say. But I understand why some people would be unhappy with the VRA, and I do think it should be expanded to all 50 states.

 

I hate to bump BigTexxx's terribly titled thread but it is relevant.

The Supreme Court just struck down the formula for preclearance. To be clear, they did not strike down the Justice Department's ability to reject state redistricting plans. Instead, they concluded that the formula was outdated.

That said, there's zero chance Congress will ever fix this and provide an updated formula so for all intents and purposes, preclearance is dead.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-voting-rights-alabama-congress-race/2116491/

 

Intents and purposes.

 

or is it now universal?

How would you ever get Congress to agree on a new map designating certain constituencies as racist?

 

Damn it!

 

I think it's possible, though unlikely - I think they were close to coming up with a new formula the last time it was up for renewal. You'd need to use formulas (minority participation rates, etc) instead of picking particular states, and you'd have to reduce the number of states that are hit by the new requirement. If that happens, you could get enough Congresspeople together to pass it in, at least in theory - the states that are getting off the list would be tempted to support in order to prove to the world they are not racist anymore, so you could potentially pull in their support. Most of the states affected would be relatively small southern states, so in the House, they have relatively little representation.

Realistically, it doesn't likely happen with the current composition of Congress, but if Congress reshapes in 5-10 years, it could happen then.

 

It isn't universal now. Congress has to write the formula. The Supreme Court struck down the current formula (which is section 4 of the VRA) Section 5 (preclearance) doesn't work without a formula to guide when preclearance is acceptible. To have universal preclearance requirements would require Congress to legislate a formula that encompasses everyone.

Also a universal formula would be struck down as arbitrary. (much like the current formula was struck down) The Supreme Court has asked that Congress write a formula that is tailored to the current racial makeup of the US. There's no way Congress will write such a formula. Legislators would revolt against subjecting new constituencies to preclearance. (since racial makeups have shifted)

 

Horrible decision. Politically, it is obvious, but it is horrible legally and logically as well. SC says determinations should be made on curent conditions, but Congress, with support from a Repub administration, reauthorized the act in 2006, implicitly stating that the previous conditions were still current. The decision, like many recent ones from our black-robed salons, twists reasoning to get a pre-arrived political position: if you are going to leave it up to Congress, but control the decision space with non-defined parameters, you're not really leaving it up to Congress but rather, you are legislating from the bench.

This decision pays no deference to precedence either. The SC ruled on this matter in 1999 and two times previously. Having a black president elected without much assistance from the states this affects is hardly conclusive proof that times have changed so much that the conditions have changed as well.

This just gave carte blanche to Repubs throughout the land to make minorities and Democratic Party strongholds suffer through onerous requirements and substandard access to voting.

The South just won the latest battle in the Civil War.

 

minority participation rates is dubious evidence of discrimination imo

I imagine that would capture jurisdictions that have no history of discrimination.

 

What a shame. I think it was a horrible decision. We've seen that formula used many times to keep racist restructuring of voting even this past year. It was still used and needed.

The saddest thing is their rationale for striking it down. Basically they point to places where large amounts of minorities voted and used that as a reason to strike it down. So because in some places this act has worked, that means it needs to be removed?

 

Not to sound like an ignoramous but can somebody tell me what this means in layman terms?

 

I'm not familiar enough with the VRA - but geeimsobored, any thoughts on this?

http://www.yalelawjournal.org/the-y...-trigger-litigation-and-dynamic-preclearance/


The Voting Rights Act's Secret Weapon: Pocket Trigger Litigation and Dynamic Preclearance


119 Yale L.J. 1992 (2010).

Following NAMUDNO, the search is on for a way to save section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). This Note offers a solution through an examination of the VRA’s most obscure provision: section 3. Commonly called the bail-in mechanism or the pocket trigger, section 3 authorizes federal courts to place states and political subdivisions that have violated the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments under preclearance.

This Note makes a two-part argument. First, the pocket trigger should be used to alleviate the NAMUDNO Court’s anxiety over the coverage formula’s differential treatment of the states. The Justice Department and civil rights groups should build off of the handful of successful bail-ins and redefine the preclearance regime through litigation. Second, the pocket trigger provides a model for a revised VRA. The pocket trigger is more likely to survive the congruence and proportionality test because it replaces an outdated coverage formula with a perfectly tailored coverage mechanism—a constitutional trigger. It also sidesteps the political difficulties in designing a new coverage formula. The pocket trigger has the potential to create dynamic preclearance: a flexible coverage regime that utilizes targeted preclearance and sunset dates. This Note concludes by proposing possible amendments to the pocket trigger, such as adding an effects test or delineating certain violations that automatically trigger preclearance.

Seems to suggest that, though the formula is dead, federal courts can still enforce preclearance for any states they feel are doing sketchy things.

 

this statute was only used in areas with a history of discrimination. If the area didn't have this record of discrimination then they didn't need approval from the Justice Department.

 

I should also add the Section 2 is still around so there will still be court challenges to redistricting maps. People forget that Obama is the first Democrat to control the redistricting process since LBJ. For the past 30 years, the Justice Department has largely let the states do what they want with redistricting maps. Most challenges (like the successful challenge to part of Texas's 2004 maps) were done through court challenges and the current Texas map is still in the court system.

States can't just freely implement maps. It's just now the Justice Department isn't around to speed up rejection of maps. Now everything will go directly to the DC Circuit Court.