Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSupreme Court could gut key protection for minority voters
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/22/supreme-court-could-gut-key-protection-for-minority-voters/Delores Freelon had been a reliable voter for decades. But in 2011, her home state of South Carolina passed a restrictive photo ID law that threatened to prevent her from casting a ballot. Freelons drivers license was set to expire later that year, and she couldnt get a new one without a birth certificate. But like many older African-Americans born in the rural south, her birth certificate had no first name on it. Though Freelon had a Social Security card, a Medicare card, and a state health insurance card all bearing her name, she appeared to be out of luck.
In the end, Freelon was able to vote last fall. Thats because the federal government stepped in and stopped South Carolinas law from going into effect. To do so, it relied on Section 5, a provision of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) that allows the Justice Department and the courts to block any election changes made by certain states and jurisdictions with a history of discrimination, if the change is deemed to harm minority voting rights.
For nearly half a century, since not long after the days of literacy tests and other tactics designed to prevent blacks from voting, Section 5 has helped ensure that racial minorities have an equal voice at the ballot box, voting-rights advocates say. But that could end soon. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, in which an Alabama county, backed by an array of conservative interests, argues that Section 5 is unconstitutional and should be scrapped.
In recent years, Republicans have pulled out a slew of tacticsfrom voter ID laws like South Carolinas, to purges of voting rolls, to reductions in early votingdesigned to make it harder for Democratic-leaning groups to vote. But getting rid of Section 5 would represent the voter-suppression movements biggest victory yet, and would mark a major step backwards on a core civil-rights issue that many Americans assumed was long since decided.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 654 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court could gut key protection for minority voters (Original Post)
steve2470
Feb 2013
OP
gollygee
(22,336 posts)1. K&R
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)2. And Ralph Nader said Gore and Bush are the same.
this is the direct cause of that logic.
May the 3rdpartyite fracturous never be allowed to duplicate what happened in 2000.