Voting Rights Act - Section 5 Struck Down

Knotbuyinit

Veteran
Dec 12, 2011
1,299
421
In a decision that marks the end of a major civil rights-era reform, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the federal government can no longer force states and jurisdictions with a long-past history of voting discrimination to have to get federal approval for all of their voting laws.

The 5-4 ruling rewrites a key tool of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which for five decades has given the federal government unprecedented say in everything from how some states draw their congressional maps to where they place polling locations.

But beneath the legal ruling is a broader social significance, with the justices saying that past discrimination cannot be perpetually held against a state.

“The Fifteenth Amendment commands that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race or color, and it gives Congress the power to enforce that command. The amendment is not designed to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority.

Nine states are covered in their entirety, while counties and townships in six other states are also constrained by the so-called “preclearance” section, which means they must send all voting changes to the federal government for review before they can take effect. That gives the federal government review over everything ranging from new congressional representation maps and voter-identification laws all the way down to moving a polling place across the road.

http://www.washingto...no-longer-held/
 
I read a big portion of the ruling and it seems within the original intent of the Voting Rights Act. Then open question is whether we as a society have come far enough to relax the rules for the states covered.
 
I read a big portion of the ruling and it seems within the original intent of the Voting Rights Act. Then open question is whether we as a society have come far enough to relax the rules for the states covered.
The government couldn't even make an argument that the endemic discrimination that required federal interference in state-level legislative processes still existed. They just argued that because the conditions existed 50 years ago, they might still be a problem today.
 
The government couldn't even make an argument that the endemic discrimination that required federal interference in state-level legislative processes still existed. They just argued that because the conditions existed 50 years ago, they might still be a problem today.
I think it's time to see how far we've come as a society when it comes to race.
 
I think it's time to see how far we've come as a society when it comes to race.

About this far:

A Democratic lawmaker from Minnesota criticized Tuesday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act by calling Justice Clarence Thomas “Uncle Thomas,” then saying he didn’t know “Uncle Tom” was a racist epithet.