Section 4 of VRA struck down

[JoeTheJuggler]

Section 5 has not been struck down (nor, obviously, any other Sections other than Section 4), but without Section 4, it has no effect -- and though the non-permanent Sections were renewed in 2006 with overwhelming support in both Houses of Congress (unanimous in the Senate), there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the current Congress will be able to agree on a new coverage formula

In fact, I think it's likely that there is no formula possible that the court would accept under current conditions. So effectively Sections 4 and 5 are gone from now on.

But again, the rest of the VRA remains intact. The only thing that has changed is that these few states (or counties or whatever) don't have to get pre-authorization to change their voting laws from the federal government.

But if they pass a law that has the intent or effect of denying anyone the right to vote based on race or color, that law would still be illegal under the VRA. We would have to stop such a law from going into effect the normal way: by asking a court for an injunction.

ETA:

Never did think either of those things. I actually made that pretty clear.

If you didn't think the entire VRA was struck down, then your following makes no sense:

So the VRA worked; therefore, it is no longer needed?

No one in this case is or was pushing for getting rid of the entire VRA. This loaded question assumes that.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Taking the pre-authorization out is wrong. Injunctions will be filed under section 2, but by then, the damage will already be done.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Taking the pre-authorization out is wrong.

Based on what? The Constitution definitely doesn't give this sort of "veto" authority over state laws to the federal government. It was a pretty extraordinary measure.

It surely made it a lot easier to stop bad state laws, but "easier" doesn't mean it was right (or constitutional) under current conditions.

Injunctions will be filed under section 2, but by then, the damage will already be done.

If the law in question is enjoined before it goes into effect, what damage will already be done?

ETA: And I'm generally opposed to these voter ID laws since at best they are "solutions" in want of a problem, and at worst they are attempts to gain political advantage by disenfranchising minorities. But they're nothing like the Jim Crow laws and blatant racist shenanigans that were going on in the mid '60s that was used to justify the extraordinary measure of giving the federal government this sort of veto power over state laws. And if these are of the "at worst" kind, there will be little problem preventing them from ever taking effect.

 

[theprestige]

For people with money to spare, you are correct. Poor people don't count.

Here's Alabama's current Voter ID requirement, which was pre-cleared under VRA Section 4, and ratified in 2003.

Valid forms of ID include

...
3. Government check with voter's name and address
4. Paycheck with voter's name and address
...
19. Valid Medicaid card
20. Valid Medicare card
21. Valid electronic benefits transfer (EBT) card

The requirement provides that these forms of ID can be either the original document or a photocopy.

The requirement further provides that people without ID can still vote if they are identified by two poll workers.

So that covers all working poor, all poor who receive government benefits, and all poor who are known to the poll workers in their community.

Meanwhile, an Alabama state ID card costs $23.50. Elections for the Alabama state legislature are held every four years. A person who was disenfranchised at the time of the last election would need to save approximately 53 cents a month, in order to be able to pay the fee and get an ID card in time for the next election.

While there are undoubtedly people for whom this would be a challenge, I submit that their numbers are so few as to make the idea that they are being targeted for disenfranchisement absurd on its face. It's just not worth the effort. As Vladimir Putin might say, it'd be like shearing a piglet: too much squealing, not enough wool.

 

[Dymanic]

In fact, I think it's likely that there is no formula possible that the court would accept under current conditions.

I don't know about that, but it's likely that there is no formula that could be agreed upon by Congress under current conditions. Under any currently foreseeable conditions, even.

So effectively Sections 4 and 5 are gone from now on.

Right.

But if they pass a law that has the intent or effect of denying anyone the right to vote based on race or color, that law would still be illegal under the VRA. We would have to stop such a law from going into effect the normal way: by asking a court for an injunction.

The problem being that by the time those notoriously slow wheels of justice finish their grinding, any affected elections will be over. Looks like our best hope is that states with established track records of racist policies have truly mended their ways. The evidence, unfortunately, does not indicate that this is in fact the case.

No one in this case is or was pushing for getting rid of the entire VRA. This loaded question assumes that.

What it assumes is that the reader would understand that the context is that indicated by the thread title -- Section 4 (and the implications for Section 5) -- rather than the broader context of the VRA as a whole.

 

[RandFan]

But again, the rest of the VRA remains intact. The only thing that has changed is that these few states (or counties or whatever) don't have to get pre-authorization to change their voting laws from the federal government.

My understanding is that the law existed because state legislators were very adept at creating new barriers to minorities to keep them from voting in significant numbers. In effect every new law made must be tested in the courts. The wheels of justice grind slowly. Smart legislators can keep moving goal posts to disenfranchise voters for each election cycle. Long story short, this law didn't just appear out of thin air for no reason. On the contrary, it was the persistent disenfranchisement of minorities that made the law necessary.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The problem being that by the time those notoriously slow wheels of justice finish their grinding, any affected elections will be over. Looks like our best hope is that states with established track records of racist policies have truly mended their ways. The evidence, unfortunately, does not indicate that this is in fact the case.

Same day injunctions aren't all that uncommon. And state legislatures don't ordinarily manage to surprise anyone by passing legislation without anyone seeing it coming.

What it assumes is that the reader would understand that the context is that indicated by the thread title -- Section 4 (and the implications for Section 5) -- rather than the broader context of the VRA as a whole.

That's a poor assumption. The way most people would read that sentence is that the antecedent for "it" is "VRA".

"So the VRA worked; therefore, it is no longer needed?"

If you mean Sections 4 and 5, I would answer, "Yes." The court's decision said very nearly exactly that, IIRC.

Actually, I'd word it differently. I'd say since the VRA worked to end the blatant Jim Crow era, the extraordinary measures taken in Sections 4 and 5 are no longer needed.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My understanding is that the law existed because state legislators were very adept at creating new barriers to minorities to keep them from voting in significant numbers.

And only certain jurisdictions were the really bad offenders that justified this extraordinary pre-authorization requirement. And even really bad offenders who had mended their ways as recently as 5 years and some time (anything over 5 years) prior to the passage of the VRA were already exempted from that extraordinary requirement.

It's pretty tough to accept that that extraordinary requirement is still justified.

In effect every new law made must be tested in the courts. The wheels of justice grind slowly.

You can get an injunction without actually arguing the legality of a law in the courts. That's one reason why injunctions are granted, because if we wait until the courts get around to it, the damage will have been done.

You can certainly get an injunction quicker than most state legislatures can get a piece of legislation drafted, debated and passed (according to the rules of the state in question). This timing argument seems to rely on the idea that state legislatures can act a lot more quickly than a federal judge. I don't buy it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Actually, I'd word it differently. I'd say since the VRA worked to end the blatant Jim Crow era, the extraordinary measures taken in Sections 4 and 5 are no longer needed.

Blatant Jim Crow laws is correct. Now they're more creative. There is a reason congress reauthorized the act in 2006 by an overwhelming majority.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Blatant Jim Crow laws is correct. Now they're more creative.

I don't know about more creative. (In the Jim Crow era, there were literacy tests, grandfather clauses, poll taxes, etc.) I think if anything they're less obviously effective at denying minorities the right to vote.

There is a reason congress reauthorized the act in 2006 by an overwhelming majority.

But reauthorization by an overwhelming majority of Congress is not the same thing as "constitutional". The authority to decide that question is given to the Judiciary, not the Legislature. We don't answer constitutional challenges to acts of Congress by considering the margin of votes they're passed by.

 

[RandFan]

You can get an injunction without actually arguing the legality of a law in the courts. That's one reason why injunctions are granted, because if we wait until the courts get around to it, the damage will have been done.

Not every request for an injunction in the last election was granted. Many of the voter ID laws remained in place even though there was no evidence of wide spread voter fraud and there was evidence that the laws would in fact disenfranchise voters.

If it worked as you advertise I doubt the ACLU and other voters rights organizations would be fighting them.

Voter Suppression in America | American Civil Liberties Union

More telling is the persistence of people on the right to pass a number of voter ID laws without sufficient outreach or time to educate voters. It would be easy to insert a provisional ballot requirement and give voting rights groups funds and resources to ensure each legitimate voter has the right to vote. But most are very resistant to those kinds of measures.

I think you are being naive. These laws aren't being passed for kicks.

 

[theprestige]

There is a reason congress reauthorized the act in 2006 by an overwhelming majority.

And that reason is probably that an overwhelming majority of Congress realized it was much safer and easier to just reauthorize the thing than to try to update or repeal it.

Even now that the Supreme Court has stated that the existing formula is unconstitutional, I bet any Congressperson who suggested updating it would have every partisan jackass and race-monger in the tri-state area coming out of the woodwork to vilify them as a Jim Crow racist.

Of course Congress re-authorized it. But that doesn't really tell us anything about the wisdom or desirability of the thing, any more than the fact that Prohibition was passed by Congress tells us anything about the wisdom or desirability of Prohibition.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's weird that Scotus determines constitutionality, not Congress. Scalia agrees, just not in this case, but in the DOMA case.
How does section 2 violate the Constitution, btw?

 

[RandFan]

And that reason is probably that an overwhelming majority of Congress realized it was much safer and easier to just reauthorize the thing than to try to update or repeal it.

And the harm? What harm was there to reauthorize it? I accept that what SCOTUS says is constitutional is in fact constitutional. Slavery was once constitutional. Segregation was once constitutional. What I'd like to know, given the real harm caused by voter disenfranchisement, what was the impetus?

Can't we admit the basis to bring the case was for the ability to disenfranchise voters? Or was there a compelling reason other than that? I've yet to see it.

 

[applecorped]

Keep those southern racist states in their place and never let them forget it!

 

[thaiboxerken]

Keep those southern racist states in their place and never let them forget it!

I agree. Only because it's still a big problem.

 

[theprestige]

It's weird that Scotus determines constitutionality, not Congress.

Weird? I thought that was one of the basic checks and balances of our form of government: Congress has an independent body that ratifies its claims of constitutionality. Would you rather Congress answered only to itself, on questions of constitutionality?

 

[elbe]

I agree. Only because it's still a big problem.

And apparently there's a method by which states could become exempted when they previously weren't - you know, if they stopped trying to interfere with voters.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Weird? I thought that was one of the basic checks and balances of our form of government: Congress has an independent body that ratifies its claims of constitutionality. Would you rather Congress answered only to itself, on questions of constitutionality?

Where is that power given to Scotus?

 

[SezMe]

Now, we will have to block these laws in the normal way--by asking a court for an injunction.

Where is the burden of proof when a group files for an injunction. To be concrete, suppose some group filed for an injunction alleging that Law X is unconstitutional. Or that the intent of the legislature was to disenfranchise <fill in a minority>. What is the basis for a judge to accept or reject such a filing (preponderance of evidence? beyond doubt? etc.) Where does the burden of proof lie? Is the question taken at the state or federal level?