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

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 10:25 AM Jun 2013

SCOTUS Strikes Down Section 4 Of Voting Rights Act

SCOTUS Strikes Down Section 4 Of Voting Rights Act

MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act cannot be enforced until Congress comes up with a new way of determining which states and localities require close federal monitoring of elections.

The justices said in 5-4 ruling Tuesday that the law Congress most recently renewed in 2006 relies on 40-year-old data that doesn’t reflect racial progress and changes in U.S. society.

The court did not strike down the advance approval requirement of the law that has been used, mainly in the South, to open up polling places to minority voters in the nearly half century since it was first enacted in 1965. But they said lawmakers must update the formula for determining which parts of the country must seek Washington’s approval for election changes.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scotus-strikes-down-section-4-of-voting-rights-act.php

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
SCOTUS Strikes Down Section 4 Of Voting Rights Act (Original Post) ProSense Jun 2013 OP
Isn't it clear that ALL States need close monitoring of elections? Scuba Jun 2013 #1
Yes! Increasingly so. femmocrat Jun 2013 #2
Hell yeah. HappyMe Jun 2013 #3
Maybe some folks will be reminded why they are Democrats and the value of things generally BeyondGeography Jun 2013 #4
The 'Supreme Court' my ass. SamKnause Jun 2013 #5

femmocrat

(28,394 posts)
2. Yes! Increasingly so.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 10:31 AM
Jun 2013

That is the ruling I was hoping for. Didn't happen that way, though. What a terrible decision.

BeyondGeography

(39,377 posts)
4. Maybe some folks will be reminded why they are Democrats and the value of things generally
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 10:36 AM
Jun 2013

Like having SC judges appointed by Democrats. Not asking for much here...

SamKnause

(13,110 posts)
5. The 'Supreme Court' my ass.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 10:38 AM
Jun 2013

What exactly are they so supreme at ?

9 judges that can never be fired should not hold this much power.

Our entire judicial system is a fucking joke.

A fair and impartial court would have left the ruling in place until the new data is obtained.

Our 'Supreme Court' should be striving to make voting easier for every U.S. citizen.

Our 'Supreme Court' should be protecting the rights of people, not corporations.

It does not matter how many times they repeat corporations are people, THEY ARE NOT.

Corporations should not have MORE rights than living breathing humans.

I am so fed up with the 'government' of the U.S.

It is nothing but a cluster fuck of greedy power hungry asswhips, bowing and groveling at the feet of their corporate masters.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»SCOTUS Strikes Down Secti...