• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court raises doubts about Voting Rights Act

Pilot

Banned
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
522
Reaction score
270
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Supreme Court raises doubts about Voting Rights Act
Conservative justices who hold a slim majority on the Supreme Court expressed grave doubts Wednesday that the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- the crowning achievement of the civil rights movement -- remains constitutional nearly a half century later.

The justices who could be the swing votes in an eventual ruling suggested that an outdated formula built into the law now discriminates against the South, much as Southern states discriminated against black voters by erecting barriers such as poll taxes and literacy tests.

"Is it the government's submission that the citizens in the South are more racist than the citizens in the North?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who argued that the law should remain intact. Roberts noted that Massachusetts has the worst black turnout in elections when compared with whites -- and Mississippi the best.

Although the more liberal justices defended Section 5 of the law, which requires all or parts of 16 states to clear any voting changes with the federal government, at times the die appeared cast inside the marble courtroom. That could mean a decision by June rendering that provision unconstitutional or sending it back to Congress.

"It's easy to go broke guessing on the outcome of any Supreme Court argument," said Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, which solicited the challenge to the law. But he said the questions from Roberts and others "highlighted the justices' skepticism about the differences in discrimination between the covered and non-covered jurisdictions. Those differerences simply don't exist any longer."

If we're going to keep Preclearance, it needs to apply to everyone, not just select states and counties. Things have changed and I don't see how theses select Southern areas are so much more likely to attempt discriminatory voting practices that they should be singled out.
 
I'm leery of the argument that "times have changed." I see it as a potential excuse for dramatic alterations against minority rights. I don't raise that argument for gun rights, I won't raise that argument for voting rights.
 
I'm leery of the argument that "times have changed." I see it as a potential excuse for dramatic alterations against minority rights.

I'm not saying that there aren't places that would still discriminate, just that it is wrong to only apply a law to people you suspect might do something. I see it as the equivalent of creating a law that all Middle Eastern airline passengers must go through a body scanner, but everyone else is not enough of a risk to be forced to undergo the same oversight. I'm not against the act, only the way it is currently applied.
 
Supreme Court raises doubts about Voting Rights Act


If we're going to keep Preclearance, it needs to apply to everyone, not just select states and counties. Things have changed and I don't see how theses select Southern areas are so much more likely to attempt discriminatory voting practices that they should be singled out.

Another argument for less government, not more.
 
I'm not saying that there aren't places that would still discriminate, just that it is wrong to only apply a law to people you suspect might do something. I see it as the equivalent of creating a law that all Middle Eastern airline passengers must go through a body scanner, but everyone else is not enough of a risk to be forced to undergo the same oversight. I'm not against the act, only the way it is currently applied.

I'm not suggesting that those currently would want to do it, but specific wording of each decision carries meaning, and can be used against the spirit of intentions. For the issue of civil rights, the most dangerous idea is that a given protection is declared antiquated.
 
I'm leery of the argument that "times have changed." I see it as a potential excuse for dramatic alterations against minority rights. I don't raise that argument for gun rights, I won't raise that argument for voting rights.

I agree. Times have not changed. Here in Houston, Hubert Vo, a Vietnamese American, won a Congressional seat years ago by 17 votes, and has won subsequent elections by wide margins. He was supported by the Houston Vietnamese community. Rick Perry and his cronies attempted to carve this district up and make it parts of 3 different districts, thus depriving the Vietnamese community of a voice in government. The courts used Title 5 of the Voting Rights Act to declare the Texas map that got rid of this district unconstitutional. There were also other Texas districts that were gerrymandered out of existence, which violated Title 5, and were part of the court decision. So, yes, the Voting Rights Act needs to stay.

Better yet would be a law which states that you cannot have a district that is gerrymandered at all, and districts must have a ratio of it's boundaries no larger than 3:1.
 
Last edited:
I agree. Times have not changed. Here in Houston, Hubert Vo, a Vietnamese American, won a Congressional seat years ago by 17 votes, and has won subsequent elections by wide margins. He was supported by the Houston Vietnamese community. Rick Perry and his cronies attempted to carve this district up and make it parts of 3 different districts, thus depriving the Vietnamese community of a voice in government. The courts used Title 5 of the Voting Rights Act to declare the Texas map that got rid of this district unconstitutional. There were also other Texas districts that were gerrymandered out of existence, which violated Title 5, and were part of the court decision. So, yes, the Voting Rights Act needs to stay.

Better yet would be a law which states that you cannot have a district that is gerrymandered at all, and districts must have a ratio of it's boundaries no larger than 3:1.

That's true.

Further, consider what someone may argue in a couple of generations or more, should a contemporary argument come about in regard to the African American population (or even the white population). They could return to those deliberations, perhaps misinterpret the common understanding and intentions of those who made the decision, to then make their own. It has happened quite a deal.
 
That's true.

Further, consider what someone may argue in a couple of generations or more, should a contemporary argument come about in regard to the African American population (or even the white population). They could return to those deliberations, perhaps misinterpret the common understanding and intentions of those who made the decision, to then make their own. It has happened quite a deal.

If it gets struck down only for not applying to all states, what misinterpretations could arise? Why should the Supreme Court not fix something solely because there could be a misinterpretation in the future? Every decision they make carries that chance, I don't see how this is different from anything else.
 
I say keep the precleareance part of the bill around. I believe we should keep it around because im still weary of southern states, and southern state legislatures. I say we keep it around until a law can be made that allows precelarnce to all states.
 
I say keep the precleareance part of the bill around. I believe we should keep it around because im still weary of southern states, and southern state legislatures. I say we keep it around until a law can be made that allows precelarnce to all states.

It isn't just the South. In South Dakota, Title 5 also applies because of the history of that state not giving Native Americans the vote.
 
This sins of the father garbage is completely un-american; more importantly, it's completely unconstitutional. sadly, I have little faith in the court that claims the government can force anyone to buy anything at any time ever coming down on the side of the constitution.
 
This sins of the father garbage is completely un-american; more importantly, it's completely unconstitutional. sadly, I have little faith in the court that claims the government can force anyone to buy anything at any time ever coming down on the side of the constitution.

It's quite valid. There's a great many things minorities, especially if they have been long-term minorities, can expect, and that will include rights being diminished. If I was told that, for instance, that the ADA is no longer needed because everyone is cool with people with disabilities, I would fight tooth and nail against its removal-strictly because generational memory is quite instructive about the dangers involved and would rather not place my faith that the American people are actually better​ than their forefathers.
 
I'm leery of the argument that "times have changed." I see it as a potential excuse for dramatic alterations against minority rights. I don't raise that argument for gun rights, I won't raise that argument for voting rights.

So, that means that your ok with the ghetto system that is created and made legal by Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act? Racial gerrymandering, basically? Election rigging?

Personally, I'm not ok with it.
 
I agree. Times have not changed. Here in Houston, Hubert Vo, a Vietnamese American, won a Congressional seat years ago by 17 votes, and has won subsequent elections by wide margins. He was supported by the Houston Vietnamese community. Rick Perry and his cronies attempted to carve this district up and make it parts of 3 different districts, thus depriving the Vietnamese community of a voice in government. The courts used Title 5 of the Voting Rights Act to declare the Texas map that got rid of this district unconstitutional. There were also other Texas districts that were gerrymandered out of existence, which violated Title 5, and were part of the court decision. So, yes, the Voting Rights Act needs to stay.

Better yet would be a law which states that you cannot have a district that is gerrymandered at all, and districts must have a ratio of it's boundaries no larger than 3:1.

This is the self contradictory post of the century.
 
I'm not suggesting that those currently would want to do it, but specific wording of each decision carries meaning, and can be used against the spirit of intentions. For the issue of civil rights, the most dangerous idea is that a given protection is declared antiquated.

That kind of echoes the concerns of the people that lock their doors when a group of black dudes walk by. Just sayin'
 
I have no objections to extending the VRA to the entire nation. The Northern states were a far cry from perfect with regard to discrimination, and it shouldn't be allowed anywhere.
 
the states have ****ed up elections enough that i would welcome federal oversight in every state. extend the VRA to cover every state, and expand the hell out of it. additionally, the artificially long lines should count as a poll tax, because that's exactly what they are. anyone trying to stand in the way of voting belongs in jail, in my opinion.
 
I also think it should be applied to all states equally.
 
Supreme Court raises doubts about Voting Rights Act


If we're going to keep Preclearance, it needs to apply to everyone, not just select states and counties. Things have changed and I don't see how theses select Southern areas are so much more likely to attempt discriminatory voting practices that they should be singled out.

As long as there is gerrymandering, jury rigging the results of elections way before the first vote is cast, this nation will never have fair elections. I think gerrymandering should also be looked at by the SCOTUS. I will add another item to this discussion, the minority majority district's. These districts actually help the Republicans as the majority of minorities who normally vote for democrats can all be placed into one district leaving the rest more white and more republican than what would be if you split up minorities around the state. Here in Georgia putting most of the blacks into 4 districts guarentees the election of 4 black Democrats, that leaves 9 other districts which only one white democrat was elected along with 8 white republicans. If John Barrow runs for the senate here in Georgia in 2014, look for the republicans to pick up his seat. I would say having 9 out of 13 house seats in republicans hands, I am sure they are more than willing to let the 4 majority black districts stand.
 
As long as there is gerrymandering, jury rigging the results of elections way before the first vote is cast, this nation will never have fair elections. I think gerrymandering should also be looked at by the SCOTUS. I will add another item to this discussion, the minority majority district's. These districts actually help the Republicans as the majority of minorities who normally vote for democrats can all be placed into one district leaving the rest more white and more republican than what would be if you split up minorities around the state. Here in Georgia putting most of the blacks into 4 districts guarentees the election of 4 black Democrats, that leaves 9 other districts which only one white democrat was elected along with 8 white republicans. If John Barrow runs for the senate here in Georgia in 2014, look for the republicans to pick up his seat. I would say having 9 out of 13 house seats in republicans hands, I am sure they are more than willing to let the 4 majority black districts stand.

That was a result of a deal between the dems and the GOP much to the chagrin of suburban liberals who found themselves in red districts. I believe Mother Jones referred to the deal as one of the most unholy political alliances ever in politics, or something along those lines.
 
As long as there is gerrymandering, jury rigging the results of elections way before the first vote is cast, this nation will never have fair elections. I think gerrymandering should also be looked at by the SCOTUS. I will add another item to this discussion, the minority majority district's. These districts actually help the Republicans as the majority of minorities who normally vote for democrats can all be placed into one district leaving the rest more white and more republican than what would be if you split up minorities around the state. Here in Georgia putting most of the blacks into 4 districts guarentees the election of 4 black Democrats, that leaves 9 other districts which only one white democrat was elected along with 8 white republicans. If John Barrow runs for the senate here in Georgia in 2014, look for the republicans to pick up his seat. I would say having 9 out of 13 house seats in republicans hands, I am sure they are more than willing to let the 4 majority black districts stand.

Yep. That is the really sad part, fairness would be seen as unfair. These "affirmative action" districts, that make it a shoe-in for minority (demorat?) candidates, also make it more difficult for demorats to win in the others. If the districts were more "fair" there would be far, far fewer minority candidates that could get elected. It is easy to make demorat districts, simply load them with minorities, it is not quite so easy to do the same for republicants.
 
Supreme Court raises doubts about Voting Rights Act


If we're going to keep Preclearance, it needs to apply to everyone, not just select states and counties. Things have changed and I don't see how theses select Southern areas are so much more likely to attempt discriminatory voting practices that they should be singled out.

Affirmative action districts should be illegal EVERYWHERE. While they are seen as "good" to ensure the election of minority candidates they are also likely to produce only demorats. That is the clever little "secret" about keeping these districts alive and well - they seriously increase the number of demorats in some very red states.
 
The SCOTUS gave a backhanded warning to Congress before that the VRA may need updating. I expect them to strike the formula provisions and force Congress to take it up again to save the law (which should be saved and updated)
 
This sins of the father garbage is completely un-american; more importantly, it's completely unconstitutional. sadly, I have little faith in the court that claims the government can force anyone to buy anything at any time ever coming down on the side of the constitution.

I'm leery of a court that claims anyone can buy anything pertaining to promoting aspects of government at anytime (citizens united). So, looks like we're even.
 
I'm leery of a court that claims anyone can buy anything pertaining to promoting aspects of government at anytime (citizens united). So, looks like we're even.

Not really.

You want an amendment, while I just want them to read the God damn thing they are sworn to protect.
 
Back
Top Bottom