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

Skip to comments.

Per Drudge - FLASH: Section 4 of Voting Rights Act unconstitutional...
Drudge report ^

Posted on 06/25/2013 7:15:58 AM PDT by Perdogg

Per Drudge - FLASH: Section 4 of Voting Rights Act unconstitutional...


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 15thamendment; act; rights; scotus; scotusvoterrights; scotusvotingrights; supremecourt; unconstitutional; vanity; voting; votingrightsact
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last

1 posted on 06/25/2013 7:15:58 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

: Holding: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. Its formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.

From SCOTUSblog


2 posted on 06/25/2013 7:16:32 AM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

“Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2. We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions”


3 posted on 06/25/2013 7:18:10 AM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

The communists finally lose one.


4 posted on 06/25/2013 7:18:30 AM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Osama tried and failed. Obama got it done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

bttt


5 posted on 06/25/2013 7:18:53 AM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Fantastic news, from the headline, anyway!!!

Any qualifiers?


6 posted on 06/25/2013 7:19:04 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Wonder what the vote was?


7 posted on 06/25/2013 7:19:04 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: green iguana

What is section 4????


8 posted on 06/25/2013 7:19:50 AM PDT by HOYA97 (twitter @hoya97)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: green iguana

So what specifically in Section 4 is found to be unconstitutional? What’s in Section 4?


9 posted on 06/25/2013 7:20:25 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
"....Fantastic news, from the headline, anyway!!!...."

Not sure what this means...can you please 'splain...?

10 posted on 06/25/2013 7:20:29 AM PDT by Victor (If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert." -David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Section 5 is the section at issue, not 4


11 posted on 06/25/2013 7:20:41 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Does this mean that the South is beginning to emerge from “occupied territory” status?


12 posted on 06/25/2013 7:22:08 AM PDT by July4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Victor

These SCOTUS decisions often have qualifiers. Leave it to this corrupt court to often leave issues more convoluted and ambiguous than when they found them.


13 posted on 06/25/2013 7:22:50 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: July4

we wish


14 posted on 06/25/2013 7:24:09 AM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

I’m going to wait half a day for people smarter than me to analyze all the meanings and outworkings of this decision. The case isn’t going anywhere.


15 posted on 06/25/2013 7:24:34 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
Section 4 is the preclearence section. It says that certain southern states must get any voting changes at all pre-cleared by the Justice Dept before the changes can be enacted. These changes can be as small as changing the boundaries of a water district, or requiring ID to vote.

Texas currently has a voter ID law that is similar to others the Supreme Court has found okay that cannot be implemented because it's being held up by Justice in pre-clearence. This decision means Texas can go ahead and enact the law.

16 posted on 06/25/2013 7:24:47 AM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

Read that vote was 5 - 4...but didn’t see the breakdown...


17 posted on 06/25/2013 7:25:15 AM PDT by ~Vor~ (Freeper since 10/98)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Won't make a white of difference to Ubama/Holder.

They'll do whatever they want.

18 posted on 06/25/2013 7:25:17 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Religious faith in government is far crazier than religious faith in God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Yup. I remember too well a year ago and the initial reports that Obamacare had been struck down.


19 posted on 06/25/2013 7:25:18 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: montag813

In the Drudge report, the article states it is section 5. Later the article refers to section 4. A bit confusing. On FOX news, the reporter covering the case said it was section 4.


20 posted on 06/25/2013 7:25:39 AM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ..

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

21 posted on 06/25/2013 7:26:10 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Voting Rights Act, Section 4
22 posted on 06/25/2013 7:26:20 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
AND Texas JUST ROLLED-OVER and voted into law the (minority 'protecting') redistricting done by the Federal Courts for the 2012 elections.

My, my, my! Ain't we just the smartest-of-the-smart when it comes to gettin' screwed by the Feds.

23 posted on 06/25/2013 7:26:35 AM PDT by harpu ( "...it's better to be hated for who you are than loved for someone you're not!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: green iguana

Formulas for rights.

Ugly.


24 posted on 06/25/2013 7:27:07 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (If youÂ’re happy and you know it clank your chains!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Here is the decision

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


25 posted on 06/25/2013 7:27:20 AM PDT by crosslink (Moderates should play in the middle of a busy street)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: green iguana
Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions

I fully expect Obama to issue a new oppressive formula by executive decree to ensure all of us crackers in the South get what's coming to us. It's what Abe Lincoln would have wanted after all.

26 posted on 06/25/2013 7:27:25 AM PDT by peyton randolph (Tagline copyright in violation of Directive 10-289)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

The Court did not issue a holding on Section 5. They said specifically that Congress is free to legislate a new coverage formula.


27 posted on 06/25/2013 7:27:28 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ~Vor~
Read that vote was 5 - 4...but didn’t see the breakdown...

Do we need to? I bet it was the usual political split.

28 posted on 06/25/2013 7:27:35 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

29 posted on 06/25/2013 7:27:58 AM PDT by Red Badger (Want to be surprised? Google your own name......Want to have fun? Google your friend's names........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: crosslink

sorry I can’t spell as I post.


30 posted on 06/25/2013 7:28:10 AM PDT by crosslink (Moderates should play in the middle of a busy street)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; stephenjohnbanker; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; Gilbo_3; Impy; NFHale; BillyBoy; ...
Here's excerpts and the direct link to the article that Drudge posted

The Supreme Court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act Monday, a cornerstone of the civil rights movement that helped dismantle decades of discriminatory voting restrictions in the South when it passed 60 years ago. The vote was 5-4, with the court's liberal justices dissenting.
....
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, reauthorized by Congress in 2006, gives the federal government the ability to pre-emptively reject changes to election law in states and counties that have a history of discriminating against minority voters. The law covers nine states and portions of seven more, most of them in the South. The formula used to decide which states are subject to this special scrutiny (set out in Section 4 of the law) is based on decades-old voter turnout and registration data, the justices ruled, which is unfair to the states covered under it.

Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act(yahoo news today)

MSNBC will be burning tonight, at least this will dampen their celibration if the gay rights cases go bad.

31 posted on 06/25/2013 7:28:53 AM PDT by sickoflibs (To GOP : Any path to US citizenship IS putting them ahead in line. Stop lying about your position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I’m just commenting what the reporters have said.


32 posted on 06/25/2013 7:29:12 AM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Victor
text of voting rights act (PDF) See PDF page 14. Section 4 is the one which puts certain jurisdictions under federal courts, where they must seek approval of any rules which may affect qualifications for voting, or may affect blacks ability to vote.
33 posted on 06/25/2013 7:29:37 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Our Fing communist administration will just ignore this and anything else that has an effect on its plans.


34 posted on 06/25/2013 7:29:40 AM PDT by mongo141 (Revolution ver. 2.0, just a matter of when, not a matter of if!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Sounds like good news, but the short article begins discussing Section 4 and then jumps to Section 5 and it’s not clear exactly what’s been shot down. There’s usually a lag between the first announcement and a clear understanding of what a ruling means.


35 posted on 06/25/2013 7:30:07 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

Gotcha.


36 posted on 06/25/2013 7:30:48 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

The judges didn’t throw out section 5 (preclearence), they threw out section 4, which set the formula for preclearence.

They ruled that the formula was unconstitutional as it doesn’t appy evenly to all states and there is no valid reason today for it not to do so.

The decision effectively throws out section 5 unless Congress comes up with a new formula that applies to all the states.


37 posted on 06/25/2013 7:30:55 AM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: green iguana

Thank you.


38 posted on 06/25/2013 7:31:55 AM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
If I understand correctly, Section 5 (not "4") was not struck down. Only the ancient list of proscribed counties, all the counties in some States, requiring federal pre-clearance before any changes are made in election law.

For example, in N.C. 40 of 100 counties are, or were, "covered" under Sec. 5:

Congress, who placed these counties on this list in 1965, can draw up a new list (or make federal pre-clearance universal).

Preclearance comes either from a Three-Judge federal panel or from the DOJ Civil Rights Division (or both, in some cases.)

There are some redistricting plans presently in litigation, and how they are or are not affected I don't yet know.

39 posted on 06/25/2013 7:32:51 AM PDT by Prospero (Si Deus trucido mihi, ego etiam fides Deus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ~Vor~

If it was 5 to 4 then we can all guess the breakdown: Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer against and Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Roberts for.


40 posted on 06/25/2013 7:32:55 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Shelby County v Holder ....

Holder LOSES!


41 posted on 06/25/2013 7:33:08 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Well, well, well....one of Eric Holder’s (and of his thugs in the Department of “Justice”) toys just got taken away. A toy he used to oppress political jurisdictions with whom he had political disagreements regarding voting laws.


42 posted on 06/25/2013 7:36:09 AM PDT by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prospero

Without Section 4, Section 5 is almost meaningless if I understand it completely.


43 posted on 06/25/2013 7:36:17 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Does this mean Alabama is “Free At Last”?


44 posted on 06/25/2013 7:37:33 AM PDT by Old Retired Army Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O
"If it was 5 to 4 then we can all guess the breakdown: Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer against and Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Roberts for."

Absolutely!

45 posted on 06/25/2013 7:38:21 AM PDT by ~Vor~ (Freeper since 10/98)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Southern states, implement Voter ID immediately.


46 posted on 06/25/2013 7:39:49 AM PDT by liberateUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; All

Another analysis...

Breaking: Supreme Court strikes down part of Voting Rights Act

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/25/breaking-supreme-court-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act/


47 posted on 06/25/2013 7:40:08 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike ("Governing a great nation is like cooking a small fish - too much handling will spoil it." Lao Tzu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

It would seem so. It will take the Congress a long time to pass a new coverage formula.


48 posted on 06/25/2013 7:41:06 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

Thomas said in his concurrence that he would have struck down Section 5 also.


49 posted on 06/25/2013 7:42:18 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Finally!


50 posted on 06/25/2013 7:42:33 AM PDT by pgkdan (Marco Rubio can go straight to hell!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last

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