Red Mosquito

Electromatic wrote:No Voting Rights Act info yet?

SCOTUSblog wrote: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.

John Roberts wrote: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. ___.

Samuel Alito wrote: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.

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

Biff Pocoroba wrote:

Electromatic wrote: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.

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

Biff Pocoroba wrote:

Electromatic wrote: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.

Biff Pocoroba wrote: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.

turned2black wrote:Happy about the DOMA and Prop. 8 rulings, but as someone who lives in Arizona, the VRA ruling scares the shit out of me.

Electromatic wrote:
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.

Electromatic wrote: 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 wrote:

Electromatic wrote:
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.

Green Habit wrote: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.

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

turned2black wrote:Happy about the DOMA and Prop. 8 rulings, but as someone who lives in Arizona, the VRA ruling scares the shit out of me.

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