Skip to comments.Supreme Court to weigh states' rights vs. voting rights [Arguments TODAY!]
Posted on 02/27/2013 3:00:03 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
When the Supreme Court hears arguments today in a direct challenge to a central part of the Voting Rights Act, it will once again wade into a decades-old dispute over voting rights that has its roots in the country's long history of racism...
On its face, the challenge to the Voting Rights Act is about how state and local officials run elections. But states' rights have underpinned much of the opposition to the law since it was first enacted, and today's hearing will feature familiar arguments.
The issue is Section 5 of the law, which requires all or part of 16 states to get any changes to election law pre-approved by either the Justice Department or a federal court. That requirement, based on findings of discrimination and racism years ago, applies to most every aspect of elections, from technical changes to the high-profile issue of photo ID requirements that recently spawned court battles for states such as Texas and South Carolina. The challenge was brought by Shelby County, Ala., and argues that the act's preclearance requirement is unconstitutional on its face, no matter how it's employed.
"Section 5's federalism cost is too great," the county argues plainly in its Supreme Court brief, pointing to a lack of evidence to justify what it sees as federal overreach.
(Excerpt) Read more at wvgazette.com ...
Here there is a chance to move away from the federal government dictating election law for states.
You are forgetting the ROBERTS court has been hijacked by the Dhimmicrats. IE: Zer0bamacare is now just a tax. And John Roberts has been blackmailed either via his kids adoption or his possible gay college days.
Pretty sure Roberts has already been told how to vote.
And only certain states must get the justice departments permission.
One thing I wont forget that most Republicans seem to is that it was the GOP congress under GWB 2006 that re-authorized this expired Voting Rights Act 2006, as is, with no changes, including that requirement for certain selected states to get permission from justice to make any change in rules, even impose voter ID.
Yes, the GOP congress under GWB did this in 2006, to get minority votes we can only assume. Well it didnt work. They they screwed themselves for the future, and screwed GOP states (and GOP in swing states).
This is like the GOP making illegals from third world nations voters under the mission to get minority votes.
Good point. I hope the SCOTUS ends federal intervention. We have put, twice, an unqualified black communist in the place where leaders should occupy. I think this shows we are no longer racist. We are now a DIFFERENT kind of stupid.
Back during Bush I subscribed to National Review and they did a story ~ 2006 telling Republicans controlling congress to leave these parts of the voting rights out of re-authorization, that it was no longer the 1960s in the South(30 years later) , and that they shouldnt be dictating to those states anymore. But the fools in the GOP seemed sure they would hold on-to the WH with smart moves like that.
Bills of Attainder should not stand.
Courts should punish malefactors based on evidence and trial.
Not legislatures based on their emotions and greed.
They scream “motor-voter-access”...we scream back “purge the voter roles of the dead, moved, and fraudulent”.
The GOP has leaders?
O only needed one qualification, to get the majority of votes in swing states. Meanwhile the GOP was living in a fantasy world, and I mean Rush too. "We are winning. America is with us. Its in the bag"
Romney-Rove-Morris was going to win big by buying expensive TV ads that no-one watched. Obama got out the Dem vote (with help from a few Republicans) and Dems outnumber Republicans.
bfl. the transcripts for this should be interesting.
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.