Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so are the feds excluded from intervening until a new basis is drafted by Congress? What would keep the House from scrapping the idea altogether and giving the states free reign? It just seems to me a lot of election oversight by the federal government was done away with (although I do understand and agree with the reasoning).
The Voting Rights Act is still in place and fully functional. The Court struck down Section 4 (pre-clearance for some ) and essentially made Section 5 (which only applied to Section 4 under present Law) null until/unless Congress passes new requirements for Section 5.
We should be clear that the VRA still gives us the option to challenge changes to election legislation in any jurisdiction just as we have had before; however, the jurisdictions previously covered in Section 4, which were required to get approval from the DOJ for any changes, no longer have to get approval or "pre-clearance." We can still challenge the changes, but the burden is on the challenger to prove it's a violation of the VRA, instead of on the jurisdiction to prove it's not a violation of the VRA.
Good. Black people are more than equal in America these days. In fact, SCOTUS just gave them the green light to have more rights than white people just yesterday in its ruling on Affirmative Action.
2012 elections made it pretty clear that some states do indeed try to discriminate with access to voting rights. This decision was political.
The 2012 election, in which the first partially black man ever to be elected POTUS was re-elected by a decent margin proves that some states discriminate against who exactly?
The 2012 election, in which the first partially black man ever to be elected POTUS was re-elected by a decent margin proves that some states discriminate against who exactly?
The Voting Rights Act is still in place and fully functional. The Court struck down Section 4 (pre-clearance for some ) and essentially made Section 5 (which only applied to Section 4 under present Law) null until/unless Congress passes new requirements for Section 5.
We should be clear that the VRA still gives us the option to challenge changes to election legislation in any jurisdiction just as we have had before; however, the jurisdictions previously covered in Section 4, which were required to get approval from the DOJ for any changes, no longer have to get approval or "pre-clearance." We can still challenge the changes, but the burden is on the challenger to prove it's a violation of the VRA, instead of on the jurisdiction to prove it's not a violation of the VRA.
2012 elections made it pretty clear that some states do indeed try to discriminate with access to voting rights. This decision was political.
Discrimination is still illegal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
