Force Congress to create new map for Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.

[Indyfan53]

This is a White House petition to press President Obama into forcing congress to reinstate section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.

Please sign and share. We should be able to get at least 100,000 signatures from DU alone.

Stay alert, stay active.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/force-congress-create-new-map-section-4-voting-rights-act/CXYzJNsj

[Tx4obama]

1. I think it should not be a map.

There should be a guideline that covers all 50 states, then it would be fair and constitutional.

[Revanchist]

2. Got to agree with you

That why it was thrown out it to begin with, they were using standard established 40 years ago instead of judging the areas on how they were acting today. (At least that was my take on the decision)

[LukeFL]

5. Explain

Need to see it the way you do

[Revanchist]

6. I'll try

According to what it says on Wiki (I know, not the best source, but don't have the time to read the whole bill ATM)

The central component to Section 4 of the Act is a formula for determining which jurisdictions will be subject to the preclearance conditions of Section 5. As originally enacted, the first portion of the formula was whether, as of November 1, 1964, the jurisdiction used some form of "test or device" to restrict the opportunity to register and vote (such as a literacy test or a character reference). The second portion was a check of whether less than half of all eligible citizens were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that half of all eligible citizens voted in the presidential election of November 1964

So, according to the parts I bolded, some areas of the country could not make changes to their voting laws based on the messed up things they did over 40 years ago because the data used in the formula has not been updated since 1972. But other areas of the country where there is currently GOP meddling but had decent voting requirements 50 years ago could pass whatever law they wanted and the laws would be valid until they were challenged in court.

They were warned about this in 2009 but didn't make any changes. How would I rewrite the VRA? Make every state and district get clearance before they attempt to change their voting laws, that way less areas will attempt to pass law that restrict voting. Don't punish some areas for what they were doing 40 years ago and other areas a free pass until someone complains, treat every state equally by looking at what they want to pass.

Hope that answers your question, if not let me know and I'll try to explain what I left out.

[Igel]

7. I doubt it.

Preclearance was a remedy for a specific problem. "You've shown you can't make wise decisions. Somebody will review your decisions before they can take effect."

What you're proposing is preclearance for everybody--not because of what has been done, but because somebody might do something wrong. While there are remedies in provision 2 for when somebody does somethign wrong, your proposal is that everybody's decisions need to be vetted by an unelected official in charge of a part of the federal Executive. Ginsberg was cited quoting the Court's revocation of the 2006 district 23 gerrymander as evidence that this part of the VRA is needed. She cited it as evidence herself. But this problem was resolved quite nicely under article 2. If it's resolved under Article 2, why is Article 4 needed? To simply things in some cases? Even then, the Court said it may have been gerrymandered for perfectly fine non-racial reasons, but that disproportionate impact is sufficient grounds for considering something to bear the mark of being racist. This, of course, is a different matter.

The Constitution may leave elections to the states, but we really need a law because we simply can't trust people--any of them. Instead of trusting many to do things right most of time, we need to trust a very few the Justice Dept. to make sure that everybody does things right--as they see it--all of the time. In perpetuity.

Any educational psychologist will tell you that the goal of most correction or rehabilitation is to eventually stop correction. "Eat your peas" works with kids, but the goal is to get them to eat their peas as a matter of course when they're adults. At some point, you have to let people grow up, even if you think that someone, somewhere, may be doing something you think is wrong.

Make it a remedy. Make it fairly short-term remedy (since, let's face it, most of those elected officials responsible for the state of affairs in 1964 are hardly likely to be wielding much power in 2013, 49 years later.) Make it based on quantifiable deviations from racial or ethnic equity that are not likely to be due to how voters or politicians normally act. Then it'll pass constitutional muster.

[blkmusclmachine]

3. .

.

[RudynJack]

4. How does the President

force Congress to do anything?

Petitioning the White House seems like a waste of time.