Can't U.S. Attorney General Lynch restore the full Voting Rights Act *now* with this SCOTUS?

[KeepItReal]

Since it was a 5-4 vote to eliminate DOJ pre-clearance requirements (Section V of the Voting Rights Act) for states known to have discriminated against minorities in the past (by unfair gerrymandering and other voter suppression), would not a new lower court ruling supporting the existing VRA provisions be upheld by a 4-4 Supreme Court vote?

Need y'all who speak legalese to let me know if I'm way off base.

She's aware of the need to fight for it. Just can't see any action since then.

[LiberalArkie]

1. I really think that no matter what administration status quo is what they desire.

[Stallion]

2. Yes and No- Prior SCOTUS Precedent is Binding on Lower Courts

and remains the law of the land until reversed. Now there can be positive ruling in regional Circuit Courts of Appeal that could be positive. Say a State like Arizona imposes unreasonable voter ID legislation and is sued in Federal Court under the remaining section of the Voting Rights Act (not the pre-clearance section struck down). If it is appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (considered the most liberal) and the 9th Circuit strikes down the Arizona law then a 4-4 decision in the SCOTUS has the affect of affirming the 9th Circuit decision. The Arizona law cannot be enforced. Although Democratically nominated judges control about 3/4ths of the Circuit Courts of Appeal they don't control for example the 5th Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi etc) and a couple of others

[KeepItReal]

3. Thanks for the info!

Wish they would at least make an effort at these state levels to challenge this blatant voter suppression.

[davidn3600]

6. You don't seem to understand how court precedents work

ONLY the Supreme Court can reverse it's decision. The lower courts have to follow the Supreme Court's precedents. So if you send another challenge through the courts, the appeals court must follow the 5-4 decision.

[Stallion]

10. That's EXACTLY What I Said in First Sentence

"Prior SCOTUS Precedent is Binding on Lower Courts and remains the law of the land until reversed"

I don't think you understand the Voting Rights Act. The SCOTUS struck down only part of the Voting Rights Act including the section on pre-clearance for states with a history of racial discrimination. Other sections of the Voting Rights Act remain (Section 2) which allow for federal court jurisdiction to challenge violations of voting rights. The hypothetical 9th Circuit decision which results in a 4-4 deadlock in the SCOTUS would remain binding federal law in the states within the 9th Circuit. Other Circuits may disagree. There are several examples of this hypothetical situation winding through the Courts right now.

From the Voting Rights Act Wikipedia page:

The Act contains numerous provisions that regulate election administration. The Act's "general provisions" provide nationwide protections for voting rights. Section 2 is a general provision that prohibits every state and local government from imposing any voting law that results in discrimination against racial or language minorities. Other general provisions specifically outlaw literacy tests and similar devices that were historically used to disenfranchise racial minorities.

The Act also contains "special provisions" that apply to only certain jurisdictions. A core special provision is the Section 5 preclearance requirement, which prohibits certain jurisdictions from implementing any change affecting voting without receiving preapproval from the U.S. Attorney General or the U.S. District Court for D.C. that the change does not discriminate against protected minorities

[Gothmog]

4. NO-it is not that easy to undo voter suppression

The DOJ sued Texas on the voter id law. Even though 7 federal judges have ruled against the Texas voter id law, we were stuck with in during the March 1 Texas primary. The DOJ and the Texas Party tried to get the 5th circuit to rule on this law before the primary but the court ignored their filings. See http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/SupplementalAuthoritiesFiledbyAppelleesMsImaniClarkandTexasLeagueofYoungVotersEducationFund1.pdf

Right now, the DOJ and the private plaintiffs are asking the SCOTUS to lift the stay of the Cir See
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Veasey-ApplicationToVacateStay03252016.pdf In addition to the DOJ, one of the lead plaintiff attorneys, Chad Dunn, also happens to be the Texas Democratic Party outside counsel (Chad is representing Congressman Marc Veasey in this case)

It is not that easy to fight voter suppression

[Stallion]

11. Texas is in the 5th Circuit Which is One of Few Circuits Left without Democratic Nominated Majority

so a 4-4 deadlock in SCOTUS on an appeal coming from 5th Circuit is going to mean that the 5th Circuit decision is binding

[Gothmog]

12. Wisconsin's voter id law also survived circuit court review

Despite a wonderful dissent by Justice Posner, the Wisconsin voter id law was also approved by a conservative court of appeals http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-why-voter-id-laws-are-evil-20141013-column.html

In a rational world, the debate over voter ID laws would be ended by the eloquent, incisive and angry opinion issued late last week by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner of Chicago in a case concerning Wisconsin.

But this isn't a rational world. So not only will the debate continue, but Posner's opinion failed even to sway his fellow judges on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The court split 5-5 on Posner's request for an en banc -- that is, full court -- rehearing of the Wisconsin case, in which a three-judge panel already had cleared the state's ID law to go into effect for next month's election. That meant Posner's request was turned down and his opinion was in the nature of a dissent.

As it happens, the Supreme Court has stepped in and suspended the Wisconsin law, probably invalidating it for the upcoming polls. But Posner's 30-page dissent, laid out in his typical lucid and direct manner, is as exacting an examination as you're likely to find of why voter ID laws are corrupt and iniquitous, and why their usual rationale -- to combat voter fraud -- is a lie.

The majority opinion in that case is dreck where the idiot Federalist society judge lied about needing drivers licenses to fly under TSA rules and Justice Posner's dissent was a thing of beauty from a legal standpoint.

[Gothmog]

5. As Hillary Clinton Pitches Voting Rights On The Trail, Her Counsel Looks To Fight For Them in Court

Marc Elias, the chief counsel for the Clinton Victory Counsel program, is busy suing the GOP and fighting GOP vote suppression http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/16/voting-rights-lawsuits-_n_7594960.html

The general counsel for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign is heading up three high-profile lawsuits against Republican-backed voting restrictions in what is shaping up to be a perfect political and legal storm leading up to the 2016 election.

The attorney, Marc Elias, is involved in lawsuits challenging measures passed in Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin, arguing that laws cutting back early voting, restricting registration and requiring photo identification to vote, among other measures, disproportionately impact racial minorities.

Conservatives have argued such measures protect against voter fraud, and have called the lawsuits a political effort to energize Democratic voters. The financial involvement of the billionaire liberal philanthropist George Soros, who is supporting the suits, has only incensed them further.

There are high stakes to the lawsuits, as the Supreme Court displayed a certain skepticism about federal voting rights legislation when it struck down a key section of the landmark Voting Rights Act in 2013. That provision had required states and localities with a history of voting discrimination to first clear any changes to their voting laws with the federal government or in federal court. The VRA still bars voting procedures that discriminate against racial minorities, but the strength of that section hasn’t been tested since the court’s controversial decision two years ago.

So, while the politics of Elias’ cases have attracted most of the attention — Clinton recently decried measures supported by Republican governors, like fellow presidential hopeful Scott Walker of Wisconsin — there is an equivalent amount of intrigue on the legal side. Some of the provisions targeted in the lawsuits, like Wisconsin’s voter identification law, have already been challenged, while others, like Virginia’s photo ID law, haven’t yet seen the inside of a courtroom.

The GOP is very good at voter suppression and I am glad that Marc is fighting against the GOP. Unfortunately, the Wisconsin voer id law will be in effect for Tuesday primary.

[davidn3600]

7. I believe Congress has to first pass a new forumla for section 4

The court threw out section 4 which describes the formula on how states are chosen for voting law approval. Roberts' decision stated that the formula is obsolete because it was developed in the 60s with a different population number. In order for the VRA to be restored, Congress would have to pass a new formula.

Roberts did not say the entire law was unconstitutional, he said the formula in Section 4 is bad and needs to be replaced. Unfortunately, Democrats never got around to fixing this when they had control of congress in 2009.

[Jitter65]

8. It has to be a law passed by Congress. nt

[onenote]

9. A case would have to work its way up through the courts.

And that takes time. And it would have to be a case that deviated from the applicable SCOTUS precedent, that the Court agreed to hear (not a given) and then was effectively affirmed by a 4-4 split. Even then it would only be binding in that one instance and would not overrule the standing precedent in other parts of the country.

[George II]

13. I don't think a Supreme Court decision can be overturned by another Supreme Court. What would....

...remedy this would be passage of a new law essentially overturning that decision and addressing the reasons why the original law was thrown out.

[Stallion]

14. No the Supreme Court Can Definitely Overturn its Own Prior Precedent

Plessy v Ferguson ("Separate But Equal&quot was overturned by Brown v Board of Education. They may be hesitant to do so but they can and have-of course right now they don't have the votes

[Gothmog]

16. But an eight person court will not reverse this ruling

[bhikkhu]

15. I'd rather see it replaced with something more comprehensive

as the whole US voting system is a mess, and too many states trample on it at will in a whole variety of ways.