• 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 avoids major voting rights ruling

Redress

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,952
Reaction score
60,480
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Reuters-1:45 pm Monday june 22

The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to rule on the constitutionality of part of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act which sought to protect minorities in states with a history of racial discrimination.

The nation's top court instead ruled on a more narrow constitutional question, deciding that political subdivisions within a state can apply to be exempted from the Act.

The 8-1 ruling, spurred by a Texas municipal utility district's challenge, could result in other government bodies in 16 largely Southern states seeking to be free of the Act's requirements.
Click to expand...

Supreme Court avoids major voting rights ruling - Yahoo! News

Could one of our legal types explain this better for me. It sounds important, but I don't exactly follow the whole issue.
 
Redress said:
Reuters-1:45 pm Monday june 22



Supreme Court avoids major voting rights ruling - Yahoo! News

Could one of our legal types explain this better for me. It sounds important, but I don't exactly follow the whole issue.
Click to expand...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-voting-rights23-2009jun23,0,2453659.story

That link explains it better. Basically, since the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Southern states have had to clear any changes in their voting process with the Federal Justice Department. Some writer challenged this as unfair and outdated and Civil Rights Activists were afraid the law would be invalidated. However, the Court decided not to rule on this whole issue and said that the district should be able to file for an exception even though it doesn't register voters.
 
wbreese91 said:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-voting-rights23-2009jun23,0,2453659.story

That link explains it better. Basically, since the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Southern states have had to clear any changes in their voting process with the Federal Justice Department. Some writer challenged this as unfair and outdated and Civil Rights Activists were afraid the law would be invalidated. However, the Court decided not to rule on this whole issue and said that the district should be able to file for an exception even though it doesn't register voters.
Click to expand...

nice to know the government discriminates against states.
 
Caine said:
nice to know the government discriminates against states.
Click to expand...

It's not like the Southern states didn't earn it. It might be a tad outdated now, but it should be done away with gradually, not all at once. I give the Court credit for considering such a drastic step before they institute massive change.
 
wbreese91 said:
It's not like the Southern states didn't earn it. It might be a tad outdated now, but it should be done away with gradually, not all at once. I give the Court credit for considering such a drastic step before they institute massive change.
Click to expand...

The Civil Rights Act did not prevent crooked governments at the state and local levels from preventing minorities from voting. Florida's infamous "Felon's list" is proof of that. And it doesn't take the Federal government to end Jim Crow. In fact, the Federal government is unable to end Jim Crow. It takes the states. Hats off to Charlie Crist for ending the practice in Florida. He is a Republican that did what no Democrat legislation and mandates were ever able to do.
 
Last edited:
Re: US Supreme Court leaves electoral law in place

chevydriver1123 said:
I would like to know who brought this case up to the Supreme Court in the first place?

The Raw Story | US Supreme Court leaves electoral law in place
Click to expand...

I believe it was the city of Austin, TX to be able to add a polling place in a fairly new neighborhood that didn't exist prior to the Civil Rights movement. From what I have read, they have been using the garage of a private residence for voting and they want to start using a place more suitable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom