U.S. Jurisdictions Can Now LEGALLY Enact Policies to Prevent Minorities from Voting

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

    Jun 25, 2013 3:37 PM GMT
    http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/25/supreme-court-guts-landmark-civil-rights-law/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2013 4:01 PM GMT
    Could someone translate the legalese for me? I'm not so good at that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2013 4:14 PM GMT
    JohnSpotter saidCould someone translate the legalese for me? I'm not so good at that.


    Basically most states can pass any voting laws they won't without having to get federal approval. So Texas can pass a law making you have to profess a faith before voting and technically it would be legal.

    If the court ruled in favor of this I'm worried about the gay rights cases. I can't wait till one of the conservative judges dies and then we can have five liberal judges and then we can get whatever we want. Although Breyer and Ginsburg are old too so hopefully we can replace them with some new liberal blood if either of them kicks the bucket or retires.
  • AMoonHawk

    Posts: 11406

    Jun 25, 2013 4:19 PM GMT
    looks like they just removed one portion which will likely be revised:
    Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires that certain jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination, including most southern states, submit any changes to their election systems to the U.S. Justice Department for “pre-clearance.”

    My guess is that a "history of racial discrimination" is too far reaching and general. Neighborhoods can change drastically over a few years, so what may have once been a predominately white neighborhood (with a history of voting discrimination), could now predominantly be some minority group. So if you are looking at the history, then you are basing a requirement to get clearance from U.S. Justice Department for a boundary change for an area which no longer applies to the original race group that dominated in some area that had a history of voting discrimination. So really it is to the advantage of minorities that the restriction be revised. Of course a lot is going to depend on who is making the boundary line revisions. All these boundary line revisions are really just a game of chess to gain power and make it look like a fair election, which it never is because your individual vote doesn't really count. It is precinct electoral votes that count. So if you have precinct A of 100 people and precinct B of 1000 people and A over whelming votes for Z and B overwhelmingly votes for X, Z still wins even though the majority clearly voted for X.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2013 7:06 PM GMT
    JohnSpotter saidCould someone translate the legalese for me? I'm not so good at that.


    In case you're looking for a viewpoint that isn't ultra-leftist:

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3279631

    Of course, if you or anyone else would rather stay in the cocoon of MSNBC / Huffingtonpost / ThingProgress.org then do NOT click the above link.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 3:59 AM GMT
    EuphoricDanger said
    JohnSpotter saidCould someone translate the legalese for me? I'm not so good at that.


    Basically most states can pass any voting laws they won't without having to get federal approval. So Texas can pass a law making you have to profess a faith before voting and technically it would be legal.

    If the court ruled in favor of this I'm worried about the gay rights cases. I can't wait till one of the conservative judges dies and then we can have five liberal judges and then we can get whatever we want. Although Breyer and Ginsburg are old too so hopefully we can replace them with some new liberal blood if either of them kicks the bucket or retires.

    According to SCOTUSblog, the "tea leaves" read that Kennedy may write the DOMA opinion, and Roberts will write the Prop Hate opinion.

    That's good news. Why?

    Kennedy's past opinions indicate he's NOT a fan of a federal overreach of power. Hint hint hint.

    Roberts, during the Prop Hate oral arguments, seemed to focus on the issue of standing a LOT. So did Sotomayor.

    So, I don't predict a rainbow riot in the streets tomorrow.
  • metta

    Posts: 39119

    Aug 24, 2013 5:47 PM GMT
    U.S. DOJ Sues Texas(GOP) in Voting Rights Suppression