I'm confused about Shelby County v. Holder.

[Motown_Johnny]

I am going to expose my ignorance here so please excuse my lack of knowledge on this issue.



The decision seems to be against disparate treatments of certain states (and other localities). I don't understand why this automatically means that preclearance can't be used. Why not simply eliminate the formula and the disparate treatment, which the Court has deemed unconstitutional, by requiring that all voting laws be precleared?


I understand that this could set up a 10th Amendment v. 15th Amendment fight but I think the 15th wins. The 10th reserves to the states all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government. The 15th specifically grants to Congress the power to enforce anti-discrimination through legislation. The Voting Rights Act is that legislation and as of now only the formula which created the disparate treatment of states has been nullified. Section 2 of the VRA should still be enforceable and that outlaws any voting practice or procedure that has a discriminatory result.


Why not give the SCOTUS exactly what they asked for by applying preclearence to everyone? To me it seems to have more legal standing than not applying it to anyone. At the very least it would keep this subject in the news and force more court battles on the issue. It might even buy us enough time to have Congress come up with another formula to work with. Then again, as I stated at the outset, I am simply exposing my ignorance here. Thank you for your understanding and for any light you can shed on this subject for me.

[PoliticAverse]

1. How many congresspeople would vote for such a measure that would require their own state

to get permission for any election law changes ?

[Motown_Johnny]

2. I don't see why any vote is needed.

Section 2 already exists.

Pres. Obama can simply instruct the Justice Department to apply it equally to the entire country.


The point is to use this to tie up the discriminatory laws that are now being enacted until we can get a new formula through Congress. It could even create political cover for some (R)s to vote for a new formula because it can be sold as reducing the power of the Federal Government.

[PoliticAverse]

3. Section 5 is the part that permits/requires preclearance (based on the formula in section 4).

I do not believe that the Justice Department can apply preclearance to states that Congress
hasn't specifically authorized by a formula in section 4.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/misc/sec_4.php
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/about.php

Section 2 is still in force, but it doesn't permit preclearance, the Justice Department has to
bring suit against any state/locality that violates the provisions of Section 2 after any law
violating it is passed (as it has done against some states that haven't been subject to
preclearance).