On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County, Alabama v Holder that section four of the federal Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. Section four is the coverage formula for determining which jurisdictions must get permission before changing any voting law or practice. If Congress does nothing, then section five can’t be enforced either. Section five says that covered jurisdictions must get approval from the Justice Department before changing election laws and practices. The vote was 5-4. The decision is by Chief Justice John Roberts.
The dissent is by Justice Ruth Ginsburg. The dissent, at pages 24-28, has considerable detail about Alabama, and why that state’s past and recent record of voting rights behavior justifies continued existence of the entire federal Voting Rights Act.
Since it is not likely that Congress will re-write section four, the practical impact of today’s decision will be to increase the number of lawsuits. Section two of the act has not been limited in any way. It gives the U.S. Justice Department authority to sue any state or other jurisdiction that has an election law or practice that results in racial discrimination in voting. The number of such lawsuits will probably increase, because the new laws and practices that lead to such lawsuits will increase without the pre-clearance law in effect.
SCOTUS throws us a bone with some meat still on it.
When SCOTUS (minus Kegan and Sotomayor) finally is forced to examine the original constitutional intent regarding recess appointment issue and nbc issue — BO’s not being a US citizen let alone not being nbc (natural born citizen) for the purposes of POTUS eligibility.
Strunk and Taitz efforts restore the constitution
Now, more than ever, it’s important for federal legislators and voters everywhere to get behind the recently introduced HJR 44 which would amend the US constitution to establish an explicit fundamental right to vote, and which if adopted would greatly inhibit politicians from fiddling with voting procedures and such that fewer voters among a targeted group(s) will vote in the next cycle. This ugly but common practice gets a big boost with today’s unfortunate 5-4 ruling.
1 –
Just can’t stand having a moderate Negro as a prez. can you honey?
So very, very pathetic, and Un-American.
What century will the usual suspect MORONS (lawyers, law schoo l profs, media) note the connection between 14 Amdt, Sec. 2 and 15th Amdt, Sec. 1 ???
How come the Congress MORONS do NOT know how to enforce CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ???
Any legislative, executive or judicial officer of the United States or any State who violates 15th Amdt, Sec. 1 shall be guilty of a felony and be put in a USA jail for life or merely for 100 years, and be fined a mere Trillion dollars, and be subject to a civil action for punitive damages by any aggrieved Elector in such 15th Amdt, Sec. 1 whose rights in such section have been violated by such officer.
i.e. put the EVIL public officials in JAIL and/or bankrupt them.
Much too difficult for the Congress MORONS to understand since 1870.
The *NO* type stuff is the same as the NO type stuff in Art. I, Sec. 10 — If violations, then criminal and/or civil cases.
NONE of the *preclearance* UNCONSTITUTIONAL stuff.