Kudos to Holder for going after Texas voting laws by requiring their changes be monitored.

[Stinky The Clown]

Now go after NC if their bullshit law passes.

And Pennsylvania.

And Mississippi.

And any place else the right wing, ALEC funded fuckers try that shit.

[William769]

1. Kick & recommended.

[The Magistrate]

2. True, Sir

Follow-through is needed.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. Don't forget Florida

And hit 'em with your best shot sir.

[rhett o rick]

4. Under what authority is he doing this? nm

[JustAnotherGen]

5. The court didn't say

Minorities couldn't have their day in court. They just said we needed to provide up to date proof. This is why going out in the streets and protesting won't stop it. We need a sharp legal shark to take 'em out.

But the actual legal rule announced in the opinion was narrower. The opinion didn't say there could be no preclearance; it said only that the preclearance formula was too old. The jurisdictions covered were selected with reference to events that occurred before 1975. The formula, Roberts said, focused "on decades-old data relevant to decades-old problems."

The VRA is far more than Section 5, and it is and always was more flexible than the majority suggested. For one thing, "covered jurisdictions" have always had the opportunity to get out from under the preclearance requirement. Under Section 4 of the VRA, they could go to court and demonstrate that they have "stop[ped] discriminating on the basis of race" for a period of ten years. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent in Shelby County, 200 jurisdictions have successfully "bailed out" of preclearance--with no objection from the federal government.

ETA: Forgot to post link to article. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/in-going-after-texas-voting-policies-holder-takes-john-roberts-at-his-word/278125/

[eomer]

6. Relying on other sections of the Voting Rights Act that weren't struck down by SCOTUS.

The U.S. Justice Department isn’t waiting for Congress to revise a preclearance formula in the Voting Rights Act used to determine which jurisdictions have to get advance clearance before making changes to voting practices.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the formula in June, but Attorney General Eric Holder said in prepared remarks on Thursday that the Justice Department will rely on other parts of the law to fight state changes that could interfere with voting rights. The Washington Post and the New York Times have stories.

“Even as Congress considers updates to the Voting Rights Act in light of the court’s ruling,” Holder said, “we plan, in the meantime, to fully utilize the law’s remaining sections to subject states to preclearance as necessary. My colleagues and I are determined to use every tool at our disposal to stand against such discrimination wherever it is found.”

The Supreme Court ruling in Shelby County v. Holder did not overturn Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting. It also left intact Section 3, which says that jurisdictions that are found to be discriminating intentionally can be subjected to preclearance requirements. University of California at Irvine law professor Richard Hasen told the Times that the discrimination must be recent for Section 3 to apply, giving it a lesser sweep than the preclearance regime struck down by the Supreme Court.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/doj_isnt_waiting_for_congress_to_revise_voting_law_texas_will_be_preclearan/