The Supreme Court did not strike down the Voting Rights Act today.

[BlueCheese]

The Supreme Court made a big decision today on the Voting Rights Act that I disagree with. However, it did not strike down the VRA, nor did it strike down the concept of preclearance-- the requirement that some jurisdictions must get federal preapproval for laws related to voting. What the court did reject was (as I understand it) using a formula from the 1960s and 1970s to determine which areas still require preclearance. To fix this, Congress needs only update its formula.

Now, is there any hope of this? I would have guessed that the GOP would block any such attempts. However, to my surprise, the VRA was extended for 25 years in 2006 by a 390-33 vote in the GOP House and a 98-0 vote in the GOP-controlled Senate; the extension was then signed into law by Bush. So if the GOP went along with the old formula in 2006, when they controlled Congress and the presidency, hopefully they'll go along with it now.

With all the fighting over the NSA surveillance program of late, here's an issue where we can all agree. Let's pressure Congress to act on this immediately.

A couple of interesting notes:

The list of areas currently subject to preclearance is a little odd. As expected, it covers eight Southern states, as well as Alaska and Arizona, but not North Carolina (it covers many, many counties there, however), Arkansas, or Florida. It also covers a motley sort of counties and towns, including most of New York City and Monterey County, Calif. Maybe some updating is in order.

One justice thought the idea of preclearance itself is unconstitutional. Any guesses as to who that was?

[rurallib]

1. Pre-Clarence against pre clearance?

[EC]

2. You really believe congress will be able to fix this?

Did you just hear McConnell agree with the SCOTUS? Updating is in order...it should cover all the states now, but I have no hope with this crew in the Senate and House. Then it will be too late. We really goofed up in 2010 letting all those states turn red. It'll be repubs all around, Hello Privatization of everything and deregulation of everywhere. It's really going to cost a lot more just to survive.

[BlueCheese]

5. My first thought was that no way will Congress fix this.

But then I saw the 2006 extension passed the GOP House and Senate in 2006 by overwhelming votes, and was signed by Bush.

I wouldn't mind if it covered all the states-- I think one thing that the South found objectionable is that they were singled out. If that's what it takes to re-authorize this, then that's fine with me.

[Yo_Mama]

7. I don't think it can constitutionally cover everyone

I skimmed part of the decision. They seem to be saying that the sovereignty granted to the states can only be overridden constitutionally by a valid Congressional finding that the Constitution is being overridden by deprivation of voting rights, and that the findings have to be specific and somewhat objective. So that's why the original bill was valid, and it seems as if all the justices agree that it was valid because Congress did have specific measures that determined the original enumeration of the oversight areas.

Since I cannot believe that voting rights are being suppressed everywhere, I would not think the SC would allow a universal coverage. But they did sign on to the declaration that Congress has the power to reevaluate the voting record and institute coverage of a new list of areas/counties, whatever.

I would think Congress would do so.

I agree with the OP that we should all contact our own representatives and urge them to act on this matter. Congress has been reauthorizing this thing with huge majorities for more than four decades. What would have changed?

[BlueCheese]

8. Any chance the 15th Amendment comes into play?

It explicitly gives Congress the power to protect the right to vote. Could that overcome state sovereignty on this?

[Yo_Mama]

13. They addressed that in the decision

Congress does have the duty and the right to protect the right to vote. But constitutionally, the decision seemed to be saying that one could only overcome the constitutional sovereignty of the states with a determination based on evidence that these rights were being violated.

The decision was not critical of the original legislation or the methods of arriving at the oversight category, just of the fact that the data determining those areas stems from almost 50 years ago.

The decision basically tells Congress just to update the areas - which may be a good idea. I would bet that there are some areas that should be on the list that aren't now.

[JaneyVee]

3. Congress can't even agree on brand of coffee in the break room.

[Gothmog]

4. Section 5 is effectively dead

The whole purpose of this ruling is to let the GOP voter suppression efforts run wild.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. You are thinking section four

As the OP astutely said, they eft a way to fix it.

It's a good question whether congress will.

The decision is online and it is not that hard on the reading side.

[RedCappedBandit]

6. Congress needs to do something to fix it?

Welp, in effect I guess it was struck down.

[Motown_Johnny]

9. I agree with your assessment, but....

today's GOP is much different than the GOP of 2006. They are finally coming to grips with the fact that they can't continue as a national party without either gaining more non-white votes or increasing the percentage of the electorate which is white (or a combination of both).


There are multiple camps staking out their strategies and some of them are openly suppressing votes of people who they think will vote against them.


I don't have much faith in Congress to fix this. I do think that we can turn this into a political issue and beat them over the head with it the same way we have been with Immigration Reform. I hope that I am wrong and that a reasonable formula can make it through The House but it seems unlikely.

I really think the best we can hope for here is to use this issue to keep painting them as the party of racists and try to win more votes from the middle than we lose due to suppression.

[Orsino]

10. The Court struck down what the Right cared most about.

Five of them did the job they were hired to do.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

11. They might as well have. They struck down the heart of the VRA. We need to stop being naive.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Those of us who bothered reading it get it

Thanks for the attemp

[hughee99]

15. Require EVERY state to run election law changes past the DOJ or Federal courts.

Discrimination can happen anywhere, since Congress now has to do something about it anyway, why continue to only single out a few states.