Is It Time to End Parts of the Voting Rights Act Still In Place in Some States?
The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the spring on whether the laws, which were put into place almost half a century ago, are now unconstitutional.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether to strike down parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which requires some states to consult with the federal government on all voting changes. An article by USA Today points out that should it be struck down and Southern states would no longer have to clear it with the federal government every time it wants to move a polling place or institute photo ID laws or restrictions on early voting. One of the reported arguments supporting the fact that it is no longer necessary is the voting records of Mississippi and Massachusetts. Mississippi, which is still subject to the act, has the best black voter turnout, while Massachusetts, not subjected to any federal oversight, has the worst.
What do you think? Have we moved past the time when Southern states need to subjected to federal oversight to ensure racism does not creep back into voting laws?
George Wilson
1:58 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
"One of the reported arguments supporting the fact that it is no longer necessary is the voting records of Mississippi and Massachusetts. Mississippi, which is still subject to the act, has the best black voter turnout, while Massachusetts, not subjected to any federal oversight, has the worst." I would suggest that Massachusetts has a much lower population of blacks than Mississippi.
Mr. B
2:34 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Just to clarify George, they use percentages, not finite numbers. Percentage of black voter turn out in Mississippi (49%) is much higher than in Massachusetts (39%.)
Although my specialty is family law and not constitutional law, I have studied this case. Section 5 is the part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in question. This happens to be one of the few, of not the only, government acts that was successful. Amazingly successful! Prior to the Act, Mississippi had 5% of blacks as registered voters; after the Act, 60% of blacks were registered voters. The problem with this section is not whether it was effective or whether it needs to remain in place to be effective but whether it is constitutional. To single out seven states is NOT constitutional. Either this part of the Act needs to be struck down or it needs to be applied to all 50 states equally. It is no longer fair to target individual states due to changes these states have made to provide fair voting since 1965. Bush 43 signed a 25 tear extension of the Voting Rights Act but I believe the Supreme Court will have no choice but to repeal Section 5 due to its un-Constitutionality.
George Wilson
3:08 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
@Mr. B
I would agree that it needs to be applied to all states. My big concern is that the Republicans have used the law to create gerrymandered bleached white districts that favor radical right wing conservative Republicans. While jamming minorities into a few districts that are primarily black that preclude whites from even running for office in those districts because minorities will not generally vote for whites if a minority is running. It also has the effect of not being representative of the state. Hence the complete control of both houses of the legislature by the Republicans. That is why you don't see many white Democrats in the legislature. That are why our state government has moved to the radical right.
Mr. B
3:13 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
You're confusing this Act with redistricting. The same redistricting that kept Georgia a Democratically controlled state for 135 years.
Ed Varn
9:37 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
And that's George for you. Chastise the Republicans, but turn a blind eye to the Democrats when they do the same things.
Which is why we have so much gridlock in DC--partisan, partisan, partisan.
R++ - One of the famous "Dacula Crew"
11:00 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
For those who think Democrats never redistrict to strengthen their party position...
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/ky-state-news/House-passes-redistricting-plan-over-GOP-protests-195778071.html
FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) - Democratic leaders in the House have won passage of a legislative redistricting plan that could strengthen their majority by forcing 11 Republicans to run against each other next year.
The Democratic-controlled House voted 53-46 along party lines on Wednesday to pass the measure, which now moves to the GOP-led Senate where it faces an uncertain future.
Bonus points if you move, they don't have the new screwgoogled car tax fee we just started paying.
To Dems among us, feel free to depart just leave your ID at the state line and don't forget to shut off the light.
Tammy Osier
8:21 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Mr. B is right. Redistricting seldom helps republicans so to villifiy them unecessarily is redundant.
R++ - One of the famous "Dacula Crew"
10:16 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Eek, it has in some degree - just like it has for any group in power, but every empire collapses over time, it just seems Republicans have been more efficient in the life cycle...