- Aug 18, 2015
- Reaction score
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
- June 25, 2013
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)
so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?
wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.
Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.
Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.
Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.
Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.
& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.
wanna 'splain that reasoning?
Are people not smart enough to bring their own damn water? If they can't see that far ahead, they damn sure shouldn't be voting.
<pffffft> lame dude ... lame. to make it ILLEGAL?
c'mon ... you can't come up with any justification for that one.
I just did. People shouldn't need their hands held to vote. If they can't think for and provide for themselves, they should just stay the fuck home.
you didn't justify anything.... going so far as doing somethig like that only proves that lying, cheating, stealing & gerrymandering are the only ways that (R)s can win. hell, a GOP lawyer outright told the C handmaid that very thing.
Deflection, really? You obviously want only people that can't think for themselves, to vote the way you tell them to.
now you're grasping.