It's About Time: Past discrimination cannot be perpetually held against a state. (Voting Rights Case/Supreme Court Decision)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2013 2:30 PM GMT
    This is from the Supreme Court ruling today. It's about time!

    In a decision that marks the end of a major civil rights-era reform, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the federal government can no longer force states with a long-past history of voting discrimination to have to get federal approval for all of their voting laws.

    The 5-4 ruling rewrites a key tool of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which for five decades has given the federal government unprecedented say in everything from how some states draw their congressional maps to where they place polling locations.

    But beneath the legal ruling is a broader social significance, with the justices saying that past discrimination cannot be perpetually held against a state

    “The Fifteenth Amendment commands that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race or color, and it gives Congress the power to enforce that command. The amendment is not designed to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority.

  • TheBizMan

    Posts: 4091

    Jun 25, 2013 7:46 PM GMT
    Past discrimination shouldn't be perpetually held against a state, yes I agree.

    But inevitable future discrimination certainly should, now lets see if it will.
  • Lukehiker

    Posts: 161

    Jun 25, 2013 10:07 PM GMT
    I disagree; profoundly.

    If a State has a record of enacting discriminatory laws, then any potentially discriminatory laws should seek approval from a higher legal power, to prevent the chances of future discrimination.

    A good example of this:
    Prop 8: never before has the vote of a majority been used to take away an existing right from a minority.

    Kentucky's law regarding being Atheist is another, though not perfectly applicable, but related, example of this:

  • metta

    Posts: 44226

    Jun 26, 2013 6:45 AM GMT
  • metta

    Posts: 44226

    Jun 26, 2013 6:45 AM GMT
    LGBT Groups Issue Joint Condemnation of Supreme Court Decision to Strike Down Voting Rights Act


    Today, the Supreme Court struck down a central part of the Voting Rights Act, invalidating crucial protections passed by Congress in 1965 and renewed four times in the decades since. The sharply divided decision will significantly reduce the federal government’s role in overseeing voting laws in areas with a history of discrimination against African-Americans.

    We, America’s leading LGBT advocacy organizations, join civil rights organizations – and indeed, all Americans whom this law has served to protect – in expressing acute dismay at today’s ruling. Not only had Congress repeatedly reaffirmed the need for this bedrock civil rights protection, but authoritative voices from across America had filed amicus briefs urging the court not to undermine the law: the NAACP; the American Bar Association; the Navajo Nation; the states of New York, California, Mississippi and North Carolina; numerous former Justice Department officials charged with protecting voting rights; dozens of U.S. senators and representatives; and many others.

    These varied and powerful voices attest to the self-evident reality that racial protections are still needed in voting in this country. As recently as last year’s elections, political partisans resorted to voter suppression laws and tactics aimed at reducing the votes of people of color.

    Voting rights protections, which have long served our nation’s commitment to equality and justice, should not be cast aside now. The court has done America a grave disservice, and we will work with our coalition partners to undo the damage inflicted by this retrogressive ruling.

    Center for Black Equity
    CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers
    The Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals
    Equality Federation
    Family Equality Council
    Freedom to Marry
    Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
    Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC)
    Human Rights Campaign
    Immigration Equality Action Fund
    Lambda Legal
    National Black Justice Coalition
    National Center for Lesbian Rights
    National Center for Transgender Equality
    National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
    The National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance
    Out & Equal Workplace Advocates
    PFLAG - Parents, Families, & Friends of Lesbians and Gays
    Pride at Work, AFL-CIO

  • metta

    Posts: 44226

    Jun 26, 2013 6:46 AM GMT

    Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of Voting Rights Act as Unconstitutional

    Read more:
  • metta

    Posts: 44226

    Jun 27, 2013 2:57 PM GMT
    Six States Already Moving Forward With Voting Restrictions After Supreme Court Decision
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2013 3:07 PM GMT
    metta8 saidSix States Already Moving Forward With Voting Restrictions After Supreme Court Decision

    Those aren't restrictions - it's voter ID. It's amazing how the left has this wacky idea that requiring a photo voter ID somehow is a voting "restriction" - well, I guess it is a restriction placed upon people who aren't eligible to vote!
  • Apparition

    Posts: 4032

    Jun 28, 2013 3:29 AM GMT
    they should just start voting by satellite photo. Everyone wear a red or blue shirt and stand on the following streets at noon.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9225

    Jun 29, 2013 6:40 AM GMT

    What is to stop any of these historically notoriously racist states from resuming charging certain people a poll tax, administering a "literacy" test, or requiring that these same minorities clear any number of other intentionally impossible hurdles, in order to be allowed to vote ?
  • metta

    Posts: 44226

    Jul 25, 2013 2:35 PM GMT
    With Voting Rights Act Gutted, Florida Set To Resume Voter Purge
  • metta

    Posts: 44226

    Jul 26, 2013 5:47 PM GMT
    Justice Ginsburg Reacts To Epidemic Of Voter Suppression Laws: Told Ya So

    “I didn’t want to be right,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says about her prediction that striking a key prong of the Voting Rights Act will lead to a wave of minority voter suppression, “but sadly I am.”
  • metta

    Posts: 44226

    Jul 26, 2013 7:41 PM GMT
    North Carolina Gen. Assembly takes back 100 years of voters' rights