Supreme Court considers challenge to Voting Rights Act

[JohnWxy]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3681816


USA Today artcle: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-01-08-court_N.htm


The law in dispute was overwhelmingly approved by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2006. Yet the Supreme Court in recent years has found some U.S regulation of the states too intrusive.

"If the court takes the case, it has the potential to be the most important election case since Bush v. Gore," says Richard Hasen, an election-law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, of the 2000 decision that ensured Bush the presidency. He notes the court has earlier upheld the disputed provision. "The question is whether the role of race in American politics has so changed … that remedies that were once constitutional are now impingements on state sovereignty," he says.

A Texas utility district says the provision known as Section 5, which gives the U.S. government authority to oversee state electoral-law changes, is no longer needed. "The America that has elected Barack Obama as its first African-American president is far different than when Section 5 was first enacted in 1965," say lawyers for the utility district.

Section 5 covers nine mostly Southern states and several counties and municipalities where, as Justice Department lawyers note, race discrimination "has been most flagrant." Texas utility district lawyer Gregory Coleman says the continued use of that section attaches a "badge of shame … based on old data" and should be lifted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Republicans of all districts are continuing their destructive campaign against democracy - replacing "one man - one vote" for "what am I bid for this senator, representative or legislation." which results in "Government by corporation - as many votes as they can buy". It's not democracy and in the final analysis its not a pracitical and effective way to run a country. Look at the last 8 years and the economic disaster as well as the international political mess we're in for evidence of what government by corporations for corporations and of corporations gets you.

[aquart]

1. Yeah, like we didn't need Glass-Steagall anymore, either.

[bluestateguy]

2. The new conservative narrative: Obama won, meaning racism is dead

and affirmative action should now be abolished, along with the voting rights act and any other law that demands federal oversight of states that are itching to go back to Jim Crow.

We have a black president now! Rejoice! Racism is over, and you libs should quit your bitching and complaining now! :sarcasm:

[merh]

3. But would we have had a black man voted in to office if that

provision of the law did not exist?

It served it's intended purpose, it prevented the gerrymandering which tried to control the voting or rather, which tried to dilute the voting powers of protected class.

You don't do away with a law just because it works.

[napi21]

4. I don't think now is the time to overturn it. I live in Ga. and believe me,

racism is alive and well. I honestly don't see it changing much in my lifetime either.

[Gman]

5. There was good reason in 1965

and there's good reason now to oversee these states. Nothing has changed. The data also shows nothing has changed. Typical GOP says "who you gonna believe? Me or the data?"

And these states continue to earn through hard work and discrimination their badge of shame.

[robinlynne]

6. This is important. k&r for everyone to read.