Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court narrows, but preserves, Voting Rights Act (9-0)
www.latimes.com ^ | 6-22-09 | By David G. Savage

Posted on 06/22/2009 10:04:53 AM PDT by Red Badger

Reporting from Washington -- The Supreme Court narrowed, but did not overturn, the historic Voting Rights Act today, ruling that municipalities across the South that have had a clean record for the last decade can seek an exemption from the law.

The decision came as a relief to civil rights advocates, who feared the high court was prepared to invalidate the law.

Since 1965, the Voting Rights Act has required states and municipalities in the South to "pre-clear" any changes in their voting or election standards with the Justice Department in Washington.

Three years ago, Congress extended this provision for another 25 years, but it was challenged by a small Texas water district as unfair and outdated.

The case had set the stage for a potentially broad ruling by the high court's conservative bloc.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: antisouth; civilrights; discrimination; robertscourt; ruling; scotus; unconstitutional; voting; votingrightsact

1 posted on 06/22/2009 10:04:54 AM PDT by Red Badger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

More discrimination from the people who brought the country back together again./s

The South WILL rise again and there will be Hell to pay.


2 posted on 06/22/2009 10:08:13 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Why should they need to seek an exemption.. It’s been over a decade.... TOTAL BS decision...

Agree with Judge Thomas on the law should of been struck down


3 posted on 06/22/2009 10:08:59 AM PDT by GreaterSwiss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

And the South remains in the Penalty Box.


4 posted on 06/22/2009 10:11:39 AM PDT by Gurn (Remember Mountain Meadows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

The Voting Rights Act does not apply to all states evenly, unfairly targeting only some. That makes it a clear violation of equal protections.


5 posted on 06/22/2009 10:13:13 AM PDT by counterpunch (In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Georgia can now require positive ID to vote?

I just hate it when 115% of a county votes - including dead people. I also hate it when illegals vote... and lemme tell ya - we got ‘em.


6 posted on 06/22/2009 10:18:25 AM PDT by Principled (Get the capital back! NRST!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

If the Supreme Court truly wants the people to be equal; they would have struck the law down.


7 posted on 06/22/2009 10:20:20 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch

The headline, lead and entire tenor of the story are based on a misunderstanding of the actual decision. It leaves out the crucial information that the “tiny water district in Texas” won the case and is being allowed to opt out. Reportorial misconduct of the highest order.


8 posted on 06/22/2009 10:21:02 AM PDT by jyoders19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Disappointing progress. So States can apply for an exemption. That just means that Obama’s Dept of Justice will deny any application that makes voter identification easier or vote fraud more difficult.


9 posted on 06/22/2009 10:24:09 AM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Supreme Cowards. And get a load of the film of screaming, threatening, spittle-hurling “civil rights activists” menacing people outside SCOTUS when the case was argued earlier this year.


10 posted on 06/22/2009 10:32:48 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jyoders19

It really looks like a political decision from the court, rather than a legal one.
Thomas is the only Justice with the balls to point out the obvious: Section 5 is unconstitutional.

And by merely allowing counties and municipalities within the discriminated-against-states to opt out by proving their innocence in court, this ruling places an unfair burden on said counties, and sets these areas up for vicious internal political fights between those who want to opt out, and those (both inside and outside) who want to prevent that.

Yet another muddled ruling from the court that only further complicates the issue it addresses.


11 posted on 06/22/2009 10:45:32 AM PDT by counterpunch (In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
At least one of the following occurred:

(1) Chief Justice Roberts conducted more minimalist philosophy regarding judicial decision making, so he crafted a ruling based on the narrowest grounds.

(2) Justice Kennedy, like in the 1992 Casey decision, wussed out and so the Court provided a compromise ruling.

12 posted on 06/22/2009 12:20:04 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; ...
The Supreme Court narrowed, but did not overturn, the historic Voting Rights Act today, ruling that municipalities across the South that have had a clean record for the last decade can seek an exemption from the law... Since 1965, the Voting Rights Act has required states and municipalities in the South to "pre-clear" any changes in their voting or election standards with the Justice Department in Washington. Three years ago, Congress extended this provision for another 25 years, but it was challenged by a small Texas water district as unfair and outdated.

13 posted on 06/22/2009 5:21:25 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (http://www.troopathon.org/index.php -- June 25th -- the Troopathon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Will dead dems still be able to vote?

Or may we plead with the fed to pretty please require they be alive?


14 posted on 06/22/2009 11:01:19 PM PDT by NoLibZone (I swear by my life & my love of it, that I will never buy U.S.made goods again!- In Galts Vallley!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jyoders19
Reportorial misconduct of the highest order.

Yes, the decision apparently was made on the narrow point of whether this district was too small and specialized to apply for the opt-out, and didn't touch the Constitutionality of the law. In fact the comments of the Justices in the decision implied that it probably not Constitutional.

15 posted on 06/22/2009 11:07:34 PM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla ("men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." -- Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

So what does this mean for Ricci and for the Hilliary movie decisions?

They gonna wimp out?

Ed


16 posted on 06/23/2009 1:26:06 AM PDT by Sir_Ed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch
The Voting Rights Act does not apply to all states evenly, unfairly targeting only some. That makes it a clear violation of equal protections.

To be really fair they need to start applying it to places like Detroitistan, Phily, Chicago, etc and all the places where ACORN is busy defrauding the voters.

17 posted on 06/23/2009 8:55:46 AM PDT by Sparticus (Libs, they're so open minded that their brains leaked out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sir_Ed
So what does this mean for Ricci and for the Hilliary movie decisions?

They gonna wimp out?

It means:

(1) Justice Kennedy will be the deciding factor; and

(2) If Chief Justice Roberts is in the majority, the case will be narrowly decided.

18 posted on 06/23/2009 11:53:33 AM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sparticus; Red Steel; AJFavish; ml/nj; ExTexasRedhead; LucyT; theothercheek; David; GreatOne; ...
To be really fair they need to start applying it to places like Detroitistan, Phily [sic], Chicago, etc and all the places where ACORN is busy defrauding the voters.

Unquestionably there is a huge problem with all kinds of fraud and deception in the electoral process in these localities. But applying the Voting Rights Act - or the particular provision of it at issue in this SCOTUS case - would be absolutely worthless in addressing these abuses. That's because these localities aren't changing their voting procedures that are already on the books (and therefore wouldn't be required to report anything to the feds anyway), they are merely not enforcing the procedures that are supposed to be in place and deliberately turning a blind eye to the criminal activity staring them in the face.

The best solution would be to enforce the laws and procedures already on the books and arrest and prosecute the voting fraud artists for their crimes. Of course, this requires more courage than the victims of the crimes seem to be able to muster at this point.

19 posted on 06/23/2009 12:33:03 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Meanwhile in the cities across America, the negros steal elections to control blue states


20 posted on 06/23/2009 12:37:55 PM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . The boy's war in Detriot has already cost more then the war in Iraq.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bert

“Meanwhile in the cities across America, the negros steal elections to control blue states.”


However 41.7 million whites voted for Obama compared to the 16.2 million blacks who voted for Obama.


21 posted on 06/23/2009 12:57:48 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Thanks.


22 posted on 06/23/2009 3:21:48 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (http://www.troopathon.org/index.php -- June 25th -- the Troopathon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

So we’re screwed?

I hope not...

Ed


23 posted on 06/23/2009 5:35:18 PM PDT by Sir_Ed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson