Section 4 of VRA struck down

[SezMe]

I'd love to see a law passed that districts should be as square as possible dictated by population only, preferably done by computer. Right now it's dictated mainly by the interest of majority party incumbents.

Geography is just one criterion. Here are the criteria used by the California Commission:

Q. What criteria did the Commission consider in deciding the districts?

A. The criteria for the Commission to follow is laid out in the Act:

Districts must be of equal population to comply with the US Constitution.

Districts must comply with the Voting Rights Act to ensure that minorities have an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.

Districts must be contiguous so that all parts of the district are connected to each other.

Districts must respect the boundaries of cities, counties, neighborhoods and communities of Interest, and minimize their division, to the extent possible.

Districts should be geographically compact, that is, have a fairly regular shape.

Where practicable each Senate District should be comprised of two complete and adjacent Assembly Districts and Board of Equalization districts shall be composed of 10 complete and adjacent State Senate Districts.

Districts shall not be drawn to favor or discriminate against an incumbent, candidate, or political party.

 

[WildCat]

Geography is just one criterion. Here are the criteria used by the California Commission:

Illinois pols would never allow something that sensible.

Check out the 4th District in this map: http://ilheadstart.org/wp-content/u...District-Map-and-ARRA-Funds-by-District-2.png

Some parts are nothing but interstate highway...

 

[A'isha]

Why would they flock to the Republicans? That's the party of the privileged white racists.

Yes. Yes it is.

And that's precisely why this "Democrats and libs are the real racists!" nonsense is gaining zero traction among minority voters.

 

[AlBell]

But that isn't the claim. It's that a smaller percent of black people have them and so they are the ones who would need to get them. Not a big problem if implemented correctly, but the design is to deny them votes and that's why it's always close to election time that the changes are proposed and wanted to be put in place.

Any current studies in the VRA states that demonstrate that claim?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Yes. Yes it is.

And that's precisely why this "Democrats and libs are the real racists!" nonsense is gaining zero traction among minority voters.

Remember when Bush was president, and he actually reached out to the minority vote? Those were good days.

 

[newyorkguy]

But that isn't the claim. It's that a smaller percent of black people have them and so they are the ones who would need to get them....

In this case, and I think this is a serious concern (I'm a lifelong registered Democrat), local Democratic party leaders and community groups will just have to organize 'Get Your Photo ID' drives. The same way they organized voter registration drives when the VRA was originally passed almost fifty years ago.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In this case, and I think this is a serious concern (I'm a lifelong registered Democrat), local Democratic party leaders and community groups will just have to organize 'Get Your Photo ID' drives. The same way they organized voter registration drives when the VRA was originally passed almost fifty years ago.

And again, if they use the tactic of passing ID laws that take effect too close to an election for some people to be able to get proper ID, such laws should be easily enjoined. Any law that has the purpose or effect of disenfranchising minorities is still illegal under the VRA.

_________

I think this is one of the tough things for progressives to deal with: acknowledging that even though there is still injustice in the world, we have indeed made progress. The extraordinarily racist voting laws that gave rise to the exceptional federal authority to veto state laws under Sections 4 and 5 really are a thing of the past. We can deal with the kinds of laws that might possibly deny relatively few people (disproportionately minorities) without this extraordinary arrangement.

Pinker talked about this phenomenon a bit in his book Better Angels of Our Nature. Pointing to progress achieved doesn't motivate people so much to deal with remaining injustices. (Although the book dealt specifically with violence rather than progress in general, he did make the point that the rights issues we're dealing with now are nothing like the ones we've overcome in the past.)

 

[newyorkguy]

I live in an urban area and during both the 1992 and 2008 elections there were outreach programs begun by both the local Democratic organization and the League of Women Voters to get people registered to vote. Mostly low-income people -- both minorities and senior citizens -- who are often dealing with many different problems, have few resources and sometimes as a result are somewhat alienated. So the same mechanisms could be used to get people to wherever they have to go to get a photo ID card.

Do I think the Republicans are doing this because they at least hope it will result in many low-income people of color not getting registered? Probably.

I'm currently re-reading Robert Caro's book The Power Broker which details how back in the 1920s the New York Republican Party fought the establishment of state parks for recreation. They made it pretty plain they were against "attracting" low-income city residents to parks located in suburban areas even if it was only for summer weekends.

So, sad to say, I guess this is just a continuation of their legacy.

 

[Dymanic]

The extraordinarily racist voting laws that gave rise to the exceptional federal authority to veto state laws under Sections 4 and 5 really are a thing of the past.

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

 

[elbe]

It's not like anyone has any reason to distrust the motivations behind voter ID laws.

 

[Dymanic]

Any current studies in the VRA states that demonstrate that claim?

Is 2006 current enough?

http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/download_file_39242.pdf

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

The decision most definitely did not strike down the VRA. It only struck down Sections 4 and 5. These are the measures that granted the federal government veto power over state laws for some but not all the states. These measures were always meant to be a temporary thing necessary because of an extraordinary problem that once existed.

This decision most definitely did not strike down the parts of the law that makes state laws that have the purpose or effect of denying the vote based on race illegal.

 

[Dymanic]

The decision most definitely did not strike down the VRA.

No, it merely eviscerated it.

It only struck down Sections 4 and 5. These are the measures that granted the federal government veto power over state laws for some but not all the states.

No. It struck down Section 4, the formula by which it is determined which states are subject to preclearance under Section 5:

Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so. Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare §4(b) unconstitutional. The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance. Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in §2. We issue no holding on §5 itself, only on the coverage formula.

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

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, it merely eviscerated it.

Not by a long shot. It's still illegal for states to pass laws that have the purpose or effect of denying minorities the right to vote.

No. It struck down Section 4, the formula by which it is determined which states are subject to preclearance under Section 5:

True enough--there was no decision on Section 5, but it was observed that Section 5 only applies to jurisdictions identified in Section 4. Congress could come up with a new formula*, but as it currently stands, Section 5 has no effect.

At any rate, the Voting Rights Act itself has not been struck down.

*ETA: Maybe. It also might be that it's impossible to come up with any formula under current conditions the court would accept that would give effect to Section 5.

 

[Dymanic]

Not by a long shot. It's still illegal for states to pass laws that have the purpose or effect of denying minorities the right to vote.



True enough--there was no decision on Section 5, but it was observed that Section 5 only applies to jurisdictions identified in Section 4. Congress could come up with a new formula*, but as it currently stands, Section 5 has no effect.

At any rate, the Voting Rights Act itself has not been struck down.

*ETA: Maybe. It also might be that it's impossible to come up with any formula under current conditions the court would accept that would give effect to Section 5.

I kind of enjoyed watching you think that through there.

 

[theprestige]

Does this mean you are dropping your other ridiculous argument? The intent is to deny votes.

Is that why Alabama lawmakers passed a voter ID law in 2011, that would not take effect until 2014?


If you need more than a 3 year head start, the only person with any intent to deny you the vote is you.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I kind of enjoyed watching you think that through there.

What does that mean? Do you still think the VRA has been entirely struck down?

And do you still simultaneously think Section 5 has any effect right now?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The intent is to deny votes.

If this is true, then the law in question is still illegal under the VRA.

The big change is that instead of the federal government being able to "veto" these laws, we would have to get a court to enjoin such laws.

The ability to "veto" these laws was necessary (wrt to some jurisdictions anyway) in the extraordinary conditions that existed in the Jim Crow era.

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

 

[Dymanic]

What does that mean? Do you still think the VRA has been entirely struck down?

And do you still simultaneously think Section 5 has any effect right now?

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

The insight you arrived at is spot on: 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 (let alone a Constitutional Amendment that would place the whole matter beyond the reach of this extreme activist SCOTUS).

 

[thaiboxerken]

Seriously, getting a state-issued photo ID isn't hard. Frankly the contention that black people are unable to figure out how to get a photo ID strikes me as inherently racist. Really, they can do it. It doesn't require you to be as smart as white Democrats.

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