Sister Joan Chittister famously said, "We are each called to go through life reclaiming the planet an inch at a time until the Garden of Eden grows green again." Reflecting on that journey -- a blog at a time -- is the focus of this site.
I must say that I'm rather disappointed to hear misleading extremist rhetoric from a Supreme Court Justice. In fact, the VRA has not been thrown out. The DoJ can still sue States that it thinks are discriminating against voters. All the other sections remain intact.
The only thing that they got rid of was presuming that voter laws in Alabama - which has a racial population to racial voter registration disparity of 0.9% - can legally be subjected to an unusual form of "pre-clearance", whereas laws in Massachusetts - with a racial registration disparity of 10%, disfavorable to blacks - do not. That makes no sense and it's unconstitutional.
It can still apply pre-clearance IF the Congress comes up with a formula that fits the reality of the day and not the reality of 48 years ago. But that would probably affect as many blue states as red states, so I'll bet it won't happen.
Susan - since you have posted Justice Ginsberg's remarks I'd be interested to hear you defend them - based on the actual content of the VRA and how the Supreme Court decision changed it's enforcement.
From our statement yesterday on the Voting Rights Act ruling:
What this ruling means is that states and localities previously covered by Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act will now be able to implement changes first and victims will have to prove discrimination after the fact. The sad truth is that as a nation we still have roadblocks designed to obstruct citizens of color from voting with ease and so we still need the checks and balances the Supreme Court removed this morning.
The court has done America a grave disservice in casting aside voting rights protections – which have long served our nation’s commitment to equality and justice. It is a self-evident reality that racial protections are still needed in voting in this country. As recently as last year’s elections, political partisans resorted to voter suppression laws and tactics aimed at reducing the votes of people of color.
In the days and weeks ahead we will work with our justice allies to stand up, to speak out and to redouble our commitment to equality by calling on Congress to act to undo the damage inflicted by this regressive ruling.
===
As for your disappointment in the "exremist rhetoric" from Ginsburg you must be devasated by Scalia's screed this morning on DOMA.
What this ruling means is that states and localities previously covered by Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act will now be able to implement changes first and victims will have to prove discrimination after the fact.
Well, but that doesn't seem to be true. Consider the various Voter ID acts that have been passed around the country. They have almost always ended up in court as soon as they were passed, and many of them were stayed by various courts until after at least one election, even if they were subsequently found to be Constitutional.
4 comments:
I must say that I'm rather disappointed to hear misleading extremist rhetoric from a Supreme Court Justice. In fact, the VRA has not been thrown out. The DoJ can still sue States that it thinks are discriminating against voters. All the other sections remain intact.
The only thing that they got rid of was presuming that voter laws in Alabama - which has a racial population to racial voter registration disparity of 0.9% - can legally be subjected to an unusual form of "pre-clearance", whereas laws in Massachusetts - with a racial registration disparity of 10%, disfavorable to blacks - do not. That makes no sense and it's unconstitutional.
It can still apply pre-clearance IF the Congress comes up with a formula that fits the reality of the day and not the reality of 48 years ago. But that would probably affect as many blue states as red states, so I'll bet it won't happen.
Susan - since you have posted Justice Ginsberg's remarks I'd be interested to hear you defend them - based on the actual content of the VRA and how the Supreme Court decision changed it's enforcement.
From our statement yesterday on the Voting Rights Act ruling:
What this ruling means is that states and localities previously covered by Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act will now be able to implement changes first and victims will have to prove discrimination after the fact. The sad truth is that as a nation we still have roadblocks designed to obstruct citizens of color from voting with ease and so we still need the checks and balances the Supreme Court removed this morning.
The court has done America a grave disservice in casting aside voting rights protections – which have long served our nation’s commitment to equality and justice. It is a self-evident reality that racial protections are still needed in voting in this country. As recently as last year’s elections, political partisans resorted to voter suppression laws and tactics aimed at reducing the votes of people of color.
In the days and weeks ahead we will work with our justice allies to stand up, to speak out and to redouble our commitment to equality by calling on Congress to act to undo the damage inflicted by this regressive ruling.
===
As for your disappointment in the "exremist rhetoric" from Ginsburg you must be devasated by Scalia's screed this morning on DOMA.
What this ruling means is that states and localities previously covered by Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act will now be able to implement changes first and victims will have to prove discrimination after the fact.
Well, but that doesn't seem to be true. Consider the various Voter ID acts that have been passed around the country. They have almost always ended up in court as soon as they were passed, and many of them were stayed by various courts until after at least one election, even if they were subsequently found to be Constitutional.
Post a Comment