The Supreme Court

[Biff Pocoroba]

No Voting Rights Act info yet?

I agree that the standards for which certain areas of country need their elections related laws be approved by the DOJ should be re-examined but isn't this throwing the baby out with the bath water? And throwing that responsibility on Congress (which did write the original act) is going to make for some interesting political drama, particularly for the GOP, but a long and drawn out drama. Who knows what some of elections laws will look like by then; Texas, Mississippi and Alabama have already changed their ID laws to cast a vote.

[Green Habit]

DOMA

5-4 per Kennedy. Roberts dissents. Scalia dissents. Equal protection.

DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

[Green Habit]

DOMA opinion, and there are cites to the Prop 8 case in there as well:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12 ... 7_g2bh.pdf

Thatissue, however, is not beforeus in this case, and we holdtoday that we lack jurisdiction to consider it in the partic-ular context ofHollingsworthv.Perry,ante,p. ___.

Whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of theHouse of Representatives (BLAG) has standing topetition is a much more difficultquestion. It is also a signifi-cantly closer question than whether the intervenors inHol­lingsworthv.Perry,ante,p.___—which the Court alsodecides today—have standing to appeal. It is remarkablethat the Court has simultaneously decided that the UnitedStates, which “receive[d] all that [it] ha[d] sought” below,Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bankv.Roper, 445 U. S. 326, 333(1980), is a proper petitioner in this case but that theintervenors inHollingsworth, who represent the partythat lost in the lower court, are not. In my view, both theHollingsworthintervenors and BLAG have standing.

Interesting.

[Green Habit]

From the way I interpret that, it sounds like they're going to rule on Prop 8 that the petitioners lack standing.

I'm not sure how Kennedy is going to find a way to strike DOMA on EPC, but not Prop 8.

[broken iris]

A victory for equal rights is still a victory, even if it is incomplete. I may walk over during lunch to check out the crowds. Should be an interesting mix going on.

[Green Habit]

Indeed, Prop 8 supporters lack standing.

The line up is 5-4: Kennedy dissents, joined by Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor.

Whoa, weird lineup. There's got to be some other opinions here.

EDIT: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12 ... 4_8ok0.pdf

[Electromatic]

No Voting Rights Act info yet?

I agree that the standards for which certain areas of country need their elections related laws be approved by the DOJ should be re-examined but isn't this throwing the baby out with the bath water? And throwing that responsibility on Congress (which did write the original act) is going to make for some interesting political drama, particularly for the GOP, but a long and drawn out drama. Who knows what some of elections laws will look like by then; Texas, Mississippi and Alabama have already changed their ID laws to cast a vote.

Not really. The predominant use right now is purely political not ethical.

If we are going to have a VRA it should pertain to the entire country.
________________________________________________________________

Finally, DOMA is struck down.

[nyquillyn]

Happy about the DOMA and Prop. 8 rulings, but as someone who lives in Arizona, the VRA ruling scares the shit out of me.

[Biff Pocoroba]

If we are going to have a VRA it should pertain to the entire country.

I think that's a fair statement. I don't believe Arizona falls under it's jurisdiction now (could be wrong) but I can it and other GOP controlled states go to a more restrictive voter ID laws, the very thing that the DOJ had repeatedly rejected before.
I was not surprised that DOMA got overturned but I was a little surprised that the SC directly ruled that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. I was with the conventional thinking that they would knock it back down to a lower court. Looks like it pretty much settles the issue for Calif, at least for now.
Meanwhile on an ultraconservative board I lurk they're pretty much sure this is another sign the rapture is near.

[Green Habit]

If we are going to have a VRA it should pertain to the entire country.

I think that's a fair statement. I don't believe Arizona falls under it's jurisdiction now (could be wrong) but I can it and other GOP controlled states go to a more restrictive voter ID laws, the very thing that the DOJ had repeatedly rejected before.

Arizona was one of the few non-Southern states that was covered under Section 4. I didn't know that the DOJ had rejected voter ID laws, even though that SCOTUS said they were constitutional (which I think was a horrible decision). I'll have to read more into that.

I was not surprised that DOMA got overturned but I was a little surprised that the SC directly ruled that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. I was with the conventional thinking that they would knock it back down to a lower court. Looks like it pretty much settles the issue for Calif, at least for now.
Meanwhile on an ultraconservative board I lurk they're pretty much sure this is another sign the rapture is near.

They didn't rule at all on the constitutionality of Prop 8, and they indeed kicked it back to a lower court--though hardly in the lineup that anyone would expect.

[Biff Pocoroba]

I'm almost certain that South Carolina's was rejected and that was just within the past year.
Haven't had a chance to look into the nuts & bolts of the rulings. I know I have a simplistic understanding from reading a few brief reports.

[Electromatic]

Happy about the DOMA and Prop. 8 rulings, but as someone who lives in Arizona, the VRA ruling scares the shit out of me.

We have social media now, any truely ridiculous or patently racist law (and certainly anyone publically attempting to keep any group from voting) that would be passed would immediately face enough public pressure and scrutiny to get it overturned or face federal funding cuts which the states can't afford. ID's are free, transportation is arranged, and we make it as easy as it possibly can be to enable anyone who wants to vote the ability to vote (terrible county governments and electronic voting procedures notwithstanding)

The VRA as constituted was patently unfair (obviously not when it was conceived, but it certainly is now). It should apply to every state or none.

The VRA is mostly used to esure a particular delagates district is not redrawn. In other words, it has a lot more to do with politics now than race.

[mookie]

The VRA as constituted was patently unfair (obviously not when it was conceived, but it certainly is now). It should apply to every state or none.

This would have been the better direction to go with it.

The VRA is mostly used to esure a particular delagates district is not redrawn. In other words, it has a lot more to do with politics now than race.

You seem convinced!

[simple schoolboy]

The VRA as constituted was patently unfair (obviously not when it was conceived, but it certainly is now). It should apply to every state or none.

This would have been the better direction to go with it.

Unless you have an alternate take, that seems to be an option still available:

If I'm reading this correctly, SCOTUS said that preclearance itself (Section 5) is OK, but the preclearance formula used in the VRA (Section 4) isn't. Only Thomas would have also struck down Section 5.

Here's the relevant part of Section 4:

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall apply in any State or in any political subdivision of a state which (1) the Attorney General determines maintained on November 1, 1964, any test or device, and with respect to which (2) the Director of the Census determines that less than 50 percentum of the persons of voting age residing therein were registered on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percentum of such persons voted in the presidential election of November 1964.

A determination or certification of the Attorney General or of the Director of the Census under this section or under section 6 or section 13 shall not be reviewable in any court and shall be effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

(c) The phrase "test or device" shall mean any requirement that a person as a prerequisite for voting or registration for voting (1) demonstrate the ability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter, (2) demonstrate any educational achievement or his knowledge of any particular subject, (3) possess good moral character, or (4) prove his qualifications by the voucher of registered voters or members of any other class.

It's often said that the VRA targeted states with a history of discrimination, but the other part of the test (<50% voting in the 1964 election) likely ensnared odder states like Arizona and Alaska.

This is quite close to what I think should be the proper legislation for the VRA: don't pick and choose which states/counties have to be precleared. Make all of them be precleared. Since Section 5 survived, that would be constitutional under this Court.

[Electromatic]

Agreed, I think a re write including all states would be the way to go with it

[Harry Lime]

I groan every time the same sex marriage topic comes up. I guess I just don't care.

[epilogue]

I groan every time the same sex marriage topic comes up. I guess I just don't care.

[mookie]

It's an important issue. It's not everybody's issue though. It's not really my issue, but the decision affects a lot of folks. These folks are out and good for them. When people are happy it's good for business. It's also good to see people that have fought the good fight finally feel vindicated and accepted.

[Harry Lime]

Happy about the DOMA and Prop. 8 rulings, but as someone who lives in Arizona, the VRA ruling scares the shit out of me.

Elaborate on this if you could please.

[Electromatic]

I groan every time the same sex marriage topic comes up. I guess I just don't care.

To me, this should never have been a court case. It's ridiculous that the woman in this case had to pay the government $300,000 because her chosen spouse didn't have the proper gender.

DOMA was always ridiculous to me because I don't view that as a role of government. It's a great success for people who are homosexual but it's kind of silly that it is even that big a deal. It's a wrong that was righted and now people can go on about their lives, choose whomever they want to marry and have the same protections and frustrations everyone else has with the law.

It's like Jim Crow or Blue Laws.... just really stupid legislation.