My problem with Voting Rights act pre-clearance provision

[ashling]

It should apply to all 50 states.

[LeftInTX]

1. I'm upset about what I'm reading about today's case

Ari Berman tweets:

"Voter suppression attempts in last election didn't even come up during SCOTUS arguments about Voting Rights Act".

https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/306820514461138944

In depth analysis about today's case:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9890

[JaneyVee]

2. Jeez, that is the brunt of the entire argument.

[LeftInTX]

3. I know..........

Doesn't sound like there was enough evidence/arguments from Voting Rights advocates. I don't know why this was. Very sad.

[JaneyVee]

6. Probably because they were shot down before election 2012, but that doesn't mean they aren't

AGGRESSIVELY trying to suppress voting for future elections. Which they are, aggressively.

[uponit7771]

7. what the?! Caging in 2000? hmmmm

[joeybee12]

4. Doesn't it? If there was a history of discrimination, it applies...

Just happens that the places they found a history of discrimination is down south, but if there's an area elsewhere, wouldn't this apply there as well?

[ashling]

10. A federal court can order it

if there is a show of discrimination

[joeybee12]

11. Thanks...

Seems like Kennedy wants something more specific in the law, or at least that's what it seems like from what someone posted...he could go either way on this.

[uponit7771]

5. AMEN! Not having it as a requirement is avoiding human nature

[Scuba]

8. We sure need it here in Wisconsin.

[ellisonz]

9. +1000