Skip to comments.An Assault on the Voting Rights Act (NYT Editorial)
Posted on 06/25/2013 12:19:37 PM PDT by Red Steel
The conservative majority on the Roberts Court issued another damaging and intellectually dishonest ruling today. It eviscerated enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, in which Congress kept the Constitutions promise of a vote for every citizen. But it did not rule on the constitutional validity of the idea that some places have such strong records of discrimination that they must seek federal approval before they may change their voting rules. Instead, the 5-4 ruling usurped Congresss power to strike down the formula ...
The Justice Department is still free to sue jurisdictions over their voting policies after the fact, and should, as often as necessary, because such lawsuits will become an even more important tool to ensure justice. ...
Chief Justice Roberts was entirely wrong when he wrote that the states can no longer be divided into two groups: those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout, and those without those characteristics.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
OOOOh. The Slimes is not happy. That means we should all be.
NY Times is sad.
The slimes would like a vote for every NON citizen also.
Heroic Roberts Leads Brave Supreme Court to Legalize Gay Marriage
“The problem with the invalidated formula, in our view, is that it does not cover all the jurisdictions that have imposed or tried to impose techniques like racially discriminatory voter I.D. laws. Such efforts have become widespread in areas not governed by the preclearance rule.”
How is the person behind the desk with the list of voters in front of him or her supposed to be able to tell if the person in front of them is indeed the person on the list??
Shame they didn't last year on Obamacare...
But the NYT had nothing to say about White voter intimidation by Black Panthers in Philly, and the habitual voter fraud in Democrat precincts in northern cities.
“The conservative majority on the Roberts Court issued another damaging and intellectually dishonest ruling today.”
Assuming the first one was Obamacare?
Sheesh...No bias at the Slimes is there?
Conservatives and the moderate liberals.
This would not even be an issue today if the gutless republicans in 2006 had not gone along with a 25 year extension of this racist law.
But the mindless kissing up to blacks and white racists has really helped republicans do better in national elections - hasn’t it.
Why just recently in the last presidential election the black vote for the democrat plunged from 95% in 2008 to only 93% in 2012.
This part of the Civil Rights Act should have been declared unconstitutional a long time ago. How can anyone justify treating nine states and selected counties in six other states differently than the rest of the country? It was a travesty that should have been ended a long time ago.
FUNYT. What about the “assault” on my health care by the SCOTUS? You commie piggies can’t get your way EVERY time.
Shouldn’t the NY Times and other Marxists praise societies improvements made over the last 40 years? Hell, a black justice ruled on the case! Along with a wise Latina, a radical feminist, and an 80 year old communist hag.
If anyone ever needed any proof that liberal, ivory tower, damned yankees hate southerners, here it is. They always have.
And they always will.
The NYT need not worry. Voter fraud is alive and well, and the dead will still cast their ballots.
This is an unbelievably disingenuous and misleading analysis. Of COURSE most of the cases of discrimination were in places covered by the act. The so-called voting rights act encouraged people to claim discrimination and it provided them assistance in doing so.
ID in PERSON = VOTE ONCE in ONE STATE.
Get rid of computerized voting which is more easily trumped than paper ballots. And I want a receipt.
"...the Voting Rights Act, in which Congress kept the Constitutions promise of a vote for every citizen..."
If the NYT was as concerned for "a [ONE] vote for every citizen [no illegal immigrants, no dead and buried, no "Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck & Pluto voters"] as they are about the Feds continual sticking of their thumbs in the eyes of Southern states, then I might listen to what they have to say.
Liberals go on & on about the Constitutions being a "living, breathing document" and "our lives don't need to be ruled by dead white guys".
Ummm, guys, the Voting Rights Act was passed 48 years ago by mostly dead, mostly white (only 5 or 6 members of Congress in 1965 were 'African American)
"African American Members of the United States Congress: 1870-2012"
We now have a true African-American president, 42 A-A members if Congress, a Supreme Court Justice, a couple of past Secretaries of State and even South Carolina [remember Ft Sumter] now has a black US Senator.
NYT & the rest of you liberals & race-baiters, get over it. The Supreme Court has ruled that portions of the VRA are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!. They have been for 48 years.
BTW, "...the Constitutions promise of a vote for every citizen..." is a figment of an illiterate imagination.
"When the country was founded, in most states, only white men with real property (land) or sufficient wealth for taxation were permitted to vote. Freed slaves could vote in four states. Unpropertied white men, women, and all other people of color were denied the franchise. At the time of the American Civil War, most white men were allowed to vote, whether or not they owned property. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and even religious tests were used in various places, and most white women, people of color, and Native Americans still could not vote."
Women did not get the vote until 1920
Persons between 18 and 21 could not vote until 1971.
It eviscerated enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, in which Congress kept the Constitutions promise of a vote for every citizen.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
The article itsaelf doesn’t say constitutional promise; whoever posted the article added that.
I did not add anything to this article. The article is excerpted.