U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. Upholds Section Five of U.S. Voting Rights Act

On May 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia upheld section five of the national Voting Rights Act. Section five is the part of the act that requires certain states and counties to get permission from the U.S. Justice Department before changing any election law. The vote was 2-1. Here is the decision. The decision was written by Judge David Tatel, a Clinton appointee, and co-signed by Judge Thomas Griffith, a Bush Jr. appointee. The dissent is by Judge Stephen Williams, a Reagan appointee. The case is Shelby County, Alabama v Holder, 11-5256.

The same panel also issued an opinion in LaRoque v Holder, 11-5349. That opinion is unanimous. That is also a challenge to the Voting Rights Act, brought by voters in Kinston, North Carolina, who were dissatisfied that the Voting Rights Section of the U.S. Justice Department had refused to let Kinston change from partisan city elections to non-partisan city elections. After this lawsuit was filed, the Voting Rights Section changed its mind and let Kinston make that change. The ruling in this case says that it is now moot. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.


Comments

U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. Upholds Section Five of U.S. Voting Rights Act — No Comments

  1. What GENIUS court can detect the connection between 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 and 15th Amdt, Sec. 1 ???

    History note – Prez Grant barely won in 1868 in some NORTHERN States having a number of black males who were ex-Union Army/Navy folks.

    Congress Elephants had a MAJOR panic in the lame duck Dec. 1868-Mar 1869 session.

    Result – 15th Amdt, Sec. 1. — ONLY about the NEGATIVE definition of Elector.

    ZERO to do with ANY other election stuff.

    Much too difficult for M-O-R-O-N-S to understand in 1965 and since.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.