![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Supreme Court crippled a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, a law aimed at protecting minority voters from discrimination, on Tuesday.
Under the act, certain states and jurisdictions are prohibited from changing their voting laws without approval from the federal government. That’s because those states have a history of voter discrimination, and the law tries to combat that.
The court ruling said that the formula used to determine which states need approval should be updated.
They upheld the core of the law — that places with a history of discrimination should still be required to get approval before changing their laws — but in reality, they’ve made that nearly impossible.
That’s because Congress would have to agree on a new formula (the old one was from the 1960s) and Republicans, who have said the Voting Rights Act is no longer necessary, aren’t likely to agree to one.
The ruling is a huge blow for Latino civil rights organizations like the National Council of La Raza who say the law is essential to protecting Hispanic voters.
It was originally intended to protect African Americans when it was enacted during the civil-rights era, but Latino advocacy groups say that it is Hispanics in recent years who have been hit hardest by voter ID laws and discriminatory redistricting.
Unless lawmakers compromise on a new formula, the law will remain toothless.
Demand for a record of violations equivalent to the one earlier made would expose Congress to a catch-22. If the statute [The Voting Rights Act] was working, there would be less evidence of discrimination, so opponents might argue that Congress should not be allowed to renew the statute.
In contrast, if the statute was not working, there would be plenty of evidence of discrimination, but scant reason to renew a failed regulatory regime. ... Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.
Judge Ginsberg (dissenting vote)
Indeed, between 1982 and 2006, the Department of Justice (DOJ) blocked more than 700 voting changes based on a determination that the changes were discriminatory.
For example, in 2001, the mayor and all-white Board of Aldermen of Kilmichael, Mississippi, abruptly canceled the town's election after "an unprecedented number" of African American candidates announced they were running for office. The DOJ stepped in and required an election and the town elected its first black mayor and three black aldermen.
In 2003, after African-Americans won a majority of the seats on the school board for the first time in history, Charleston County, South Carolina, proposed an at-large voting mechanism for the board. The DOJ blocked that proposal, finding it an "exact replica" of an earlier voting scheme that violated civil and voting rights.
And in 2006, the DOJ stopped Texas' attempt to redraw a congressional district to reduce the strength of Latino voters, which bore "the mark of intentional discrimination that could give rise to an equal protection violation."
Since discrimination is still happening, deciding to update the Voting Rights Act when we have an inactive stagnant Congress is a no-win situation, better to leave the Act in action, enforced until there is change of rules.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-w-hughey/gutting-the-voting-rights_b_3518756.html
Under the act, certain states and jurisdictions are prohibited from changing their voting laws without approval from the federal government. That’s because those states have a history of voter discrimination, and the law tries to combat that.
The court ruling said that the formula used to determine which states need approval should be updated.
They upheld the core of the law — that places with a history of discrimination should still be required to get approval before changing their laws — but in reality, they’ve made that nearly impossible.
That’s because Congress would have to agree on a new formula (the old one was from the 1960s) and Republicans, who have said the Voting Rights Act is no longer necessary, aren’t likely to agree to one.
The ruling is a huge blow for Latino civil rights organizations like the National Council of La Raza who say the law is essential to protecting Hispanic voters.
It was originally intended to protect African Americans when it was enacted during the civil-rights era, but Latino advocacy groups say that it is Hispanics in recent years who have been hit hardest by voter ID laws and discriminatory redistricting.
Unless lawmakers compromise on a new formula, the law will remain toothless.
Demand for a record of violations equivalent to the one earlier made would expose Congress to a catch-22. If the statute [The Voting Rights Act] was working, there would be less evidence of discrimination, so opponents might argue that Congress should not be allowed to renew the statute.
In contrast, if the statute was not working, there would be plenty of evidence of discrimination, but scant reason to renew a failed regulatory regime. ... Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.
Judge Ginsberg (dissenting vote)
Indeed, between 1982 and 2006, the Department of Justice (DOJ) blocked more than 700 voting changes based on a determination that the changes were discriminatory.
For example, in 2001, the mayor and all-white Board of Aldermen of Kilmichael, Mississippi, abruptly canceled the town's election after "an unprecedented number" of African American candidates announced they were running for office. The DOJ stepped in and required an election and the town elected its first black mayor and three black aldermen.
In 2003, after African-Americans won a majority of the seats on the school board for the first time in history, Charleston County, South Carolina, proposed an at-large voting mechanism for the board. The DOJ blocked that proposal, finding it an "exact replica" of an earlier voting scheme that violated civil and voting rights.
And in 2006, the DOJ stopped Texas' attempt to redraw a congressional district to reduce the strength of Latino voters, which bore "the mark of intentional discrimination that could give rise to an equal protection violation."
Since discrimination is still happening, deciding to update the Voting Rights Act when we have an inactive stagnant Congress is a no-win situation, better to leave the Act in action, enforced until there is change of rules.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-w-hughey/gutting-the-voting-rights_b_3518756.html
