Did SCOTUS just give the okay to disenfranchise voters?

[cynatnite]

Are they saying it's okay to purge voting rolls, set more restrictions on voters, allow towns to cancel or delay elections, limit polling places and so on?

Does this just give these southern states the right to do whatever the hell they want in regards to voting?

[riqster]

1. Not quite, but it's not good either.

It takes away part of the oversight process.

[backwoodsbob]

2. it just says we can't give southern states more scrutiny

it just says we have to hold all states to the same standard.

This is getting silly

[premium]

10. Exactly.

I don't understand why people are getting all in a tizzy, all congress has to do now is make it a nationwide scrutiny and the court has indicated that would solve the problem.

[backwoodsbob]

11. THANK YOU!

someone who can read and has a basic understanding of what he/she reads.

This poutrage is just silly

[SoCalDem]

13. Yeh.. John Boehner will get right on that

[premium]

16. Oh, I think if the repubs want to hold onto the House,

enough of them will join Dems. in the house to pass a revised VRA. The Senate I'm not worried about at all.

[yurbud]

39. If Republicans work on a Voting Rights Act, it will include the old Jim Crow literacy test:

1. Which race did God put the curse of Ham on?

A. Whites
B. Orientals
C. Mexicans
D. Blacks

2. How did the dinosaurs die?

A. In the great flood
B. They touched the ark of the covenant
C. Jesus cursed them like the fig tree
D. They didn't die--the world's a big place and we just ain't seen 'em lately.

3. What ended the Great Depression?

A. The New Deal
B. Normal business cycles
C. the birth of Ronald Reagan
D. The Great Depression is a myth invented by liberals to make the socialist FDR look good

and so on.

[premium]

40. We'll just have to wait and see what Sen. Leahy comes up with.

I don't even know if the House needs to get involved in this, after all, it's not a new law, it's just a rewrite of a section 4 of the VRA. The justice's didn't throw out the whole VRA, just one section of it.

Maybe someone here with more knowledge can chime in and let us know.

[dogknob]

14. Yes, put it on the Feds so the right-wing MSM can say "Stalin!" a few hundred more times...

[premium]

17. Let them say what they want,

I could care less.

[dogknob]

20. I'm with you, but for most, the MSM is gospel.

When the Kochs get their tentacles on the LA Times, we will have a new scandal every day in California until the GOP gets their way.

[morningfog]

28. Have you looked at how the vote split? Have you read Ginsberg's dissent?

[dogknob]

50. What? That they shouldn't have even heard the case?

That it is "hubris?"

Who cares? Nobody celebrating this decision in Texas today even knows what "hubris" means. Two hours after the decision, there was dancing in the streets:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/25/1218851/-Texas-attorney-general-Eric-Holder-can-no-longer-deny-new-Texas-voting-nbsp-restrictions

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. after dentist

Getting on that rwading

[Skidmore]

18. Given the current make up of the House, how long do you suppose it will take it to slow walk

the legislation through whatever process it needs to clear for resolution? I don't assume that these people will do anything because it is the right thing to do. After all, how many districts do they need to game to benefit the GOP?

[premium]

19. Here's the thing though.

This gives us a rallying point to GOTV and take back the House in 2014, also, if the repubs want to have any chance of holding onto the House in 2014, I'll bet enough repub House members will join with Dems. to pass a revised VRA. I see this as a win-win situation.
The Senate I'm not worried about at all.

[Skidmore]

21. I'm not worried about the Senate either.

The House is where legislation goes to die right now. How much is GOTV going to be able to offset these state laws that have become so draconian?

[premium]

23. Enough if Dems come out enmasse and vote in Nov. 2014.

I'll be doing my part in my little town. Let's get the word out far and wide and take back the House and increase our majority in the Senate.

[morningfog]

24. "All congress has to do." lol. Yeah, they are so efficient and capable.

[KamaAina]

29. Yes. That's all Congress has to do.

And I'm sure Agent Orange has already drafted a bill to do just that.

[Mr Dixon]

37. Really? SMH

DID YOU JUST SAY ALL CONGRESS HAS TO DO? the same congress that can't get out of there own way? are you for real?

[premium]

38. Yeah I'm for real.

Are you?
It's my belief that enough repub. will join the Dems in the House and pass a rivised section 4 of the VRA, come to think of it, I don't even know if the House has to be involved, I think all it is, is a re-write of section 4 and it looks like the Senate is already taking that up and it will pass the Senate.

Maybe someone here who knows better can chime in.

[Puzzledtraveller]

25. like New York?

[morningfog]

26. THe problem is that the majority presumes that racism is not a problem in the south anymore.

Wrongfully. And you do realize which side of the court you are lining up against, right?

[premium]

32. All they said was that section 4 of the VRA was applied unfairly,

whether wrong or right, it has to be applied to all states, not just a select few. I believe congress will revise section 4 to comply with the Court's ruling and that will be that.

[morningfog]

34. You have far more faith in COngress than I. I also don't think the issues of

suppressing the minority vote is equal in each state. The evidence is clear that there are worse states than others and I don't think a uniform rule will mitigate the problem.

[premium]

36. That's true that some states are worse than others,

but the court says that federal law has to be applied evenly, which, IMO, is a good thing because in the future, those states that aren't covered under section 4 may drastically change and start the nonsense that those under section 4 tried to do.

[dkf]

51. Or find a meaningful criteria that applies to the situation we see today.

[AndyA]

3. Just minority voters.

No biggie. It's not like there's been any voting issues recently, like long lines, not enough machines, shorter voting hours, things like that. See? No need to get approval on any changes because everything is fine with voting in America.

[Mr Dixon]

41. Agreed

Agreed this will not affect the voting process one bit congress to the rescue

[Orrex]

45. That was going to my answer as well.

Soon you'll need to be a white male landowner in order to vote. Again.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. pretty much. it is a fucked ruling from a fucked court.

Some parts remain, but it is crippled.

[Cleita]

5. Did they finally rip away what is left of our democracy?

What do we have now? A white supremacist defacto monarchy? I think Thom Hartmann is right. We have nine kings acting as SCOTUS. You know by purging the voting roles, the states that are openly racist will purge away all the brown people denying them their vote.

[Gothmog]

6. Now we must rely on Section 2 of the VRA which requires intent

Section 5 did not require proving an evil intent. Section 2 of the voting rights act is intact but that section requires proving intent which is hard

[hack89]

7. No - they did not. nt

[morningfog]

27. Yes, they did. States can now change their voting laws to remove

protections minorities have needed for decades. They can also bring new restrictions and hurdles without the VRA preventing it.

[hack89]

43. They changed one section of the VRA

that had a formula that was used to determine which states and cities required extra scrutiny in regards to elections. They said the formula was 40 years old and does not reflect current demographics - they said that Congress has to update the formula.

All the other protections in the VRA are still in place - even without section 4 scrutiny, every state and city still has to meet the basic standards of the VRA. They cannot implement new restrictions that are forbidden by the VRA.

[morningfog]

46. The reasons for extra scrutiny in those districts remains. Watch how quickly they react.

[hack89]

49. They still are required to obey the VRA

if they react in an illegal manner it will be reported and investigated. There will be plenty of groups standing by to observe and report any wrong doing.

[ruffburr]

8. Moving inexorably-

Toward the solidifying of "The Leveraged States Of Corprica"

[geek tragedy]

9. It not only opened the door, it sent out engraved invitations.

Open season on minority voters in Florida, Texas, etc.

[SoCalDem]

12. You-betcha

The truly odious "plans" will be in force by '14...with nothing legally stopping them.

[treestar]

15. Of course not

Must everything be put in such extreme language?

[jberryhill]

31. "Everything"?

Do you think "everything" on DU is put in extreme language?

Isn't that a little over the top?

[treestar]

54. Every issue gets approached that way at some point

For the most part, I'd say. There is always someone willing to say something like the OP says rather than ask what the effect might be. Things can be bad and even have bad effects, but for some reason people cannot moderate their language and declare the ultimate doom.

[pnwmom]

30. Pretty much. n/t

[DevonRex]

33. In effect, yes, since Congress is dysfunctional. nt

[TheKentuckian]

35. No, but it is very much hobbled. The ruling was predictable on equal protection

We need the same oversight and protections in all 50 states anyway. There is plenty of room in states that weren't covered for shenanigans now anyway. You think fuckers like Scott Walker and Rick Snyder won't do the same dirt because they are north of the Mason-Dixon line? Nowhere is actually safe, what we had was a false sense of security based on the worst of a couple of generations ago.

[NoPasaran]

42. Yes indeedally doo

Texas Atty General Greg Abbott announced that the state can implement its restrictive voter ID law immediately. The DPS is a little looser and says ID won't be required in elections until Thursday.

[Riftaxe]

44. So pass a law requiring all states to share the same burdens previously imposed

by the now defunct section of the original legislation. It's not as if remedy is not available, although probably not nearly as fun as the whinging.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. No, not from reading the actual decision

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf

Now back to reading

[Jarla]

48. From what I understand

SCOTUS ruled that voting districts may not be singled out for extra scrutiny by the DOJ based upon what their voting practices and demographics were like in the 1960s.

The VRA needs to be amended so that the need for extra scrutiny is determined by more recent behavior and demographics. In other words, all 50 states need to be re-evaluated.

Why the VRA was never updated in the last 40 years is beyond me.

[aquart]

52. Yeah, but it's time to include Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan...

So let's do that.

And take back the statehouses.

Any Dem who stays home for any election no matter how local deserves to rot in Hell in the same ring as the Republicans

[noiretextatique]

53. given that the majority argument is mostly bogus...

The formula that governs which parts of the country are covered "that Congress reauthorized in 2006 ignores these developments, keeping the focus on decades-old data relevant to decades-old problems, rather than current data reflecting current needs," Roberts contended. But Roberts, who during oral arguments relied on bungled Census data to assert that Massachusetts has a worse record on voting rights than Mississippi, doesn't appear to have paid close attention to the data.

In May, political scientists at the University of California-Davis and the University of Connecticut published a study that seemed to anticipate Roberts' critique, maintaining that "the geography of anti-black prejudice" in the United States closely tracks with the geography of the Voting Rights Act. That is, the states and districts that receive special attention under the VRA because of their histories of discrimination remain the problem areas.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-decision

now...do we trust republicons, like to ones in texas who are already disenfranchising people, to vote for a law that extends this section to all 50 states? don't hold your breath. this is another scotus-wrapped gift for republicons.