Subscribe via RSS Feed

Fables of the Post-Reconstruction, With Antonin Scalia

[ 102 ] February 27, 2013 |

Today’s oral arguments concerning the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act were as depressing as you’d expect. As has been his recent tendency, Scalia did is the favor of using his hypotheticals to give away the show. He sees the robust federal protection of voting rights as a problem that the Supreme Court needs to solve, using the same kind of arguments about “special rights” the Supreme Court used to help pave the way to Jim Crow in the late 19th century:

The most remarkable example of the contemporary Republican hostility to civil rights came, unsurprisingly, from Antonin Scalia. Ensuring equal access to the ballot, asserted Scalia, represents “a phenomenon that has been called the perpetuation of racial entitlement.” As it happens, Scalia’s argument has precedent … in the white supremacist arguments made by the Supreme Court in the 19th Century when it was dismantling Reconstruction. In the Civil Rights Cases, the majority opinion sniffed as it struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 that “there must be some stage in the progress of his elevation when [the freed slave] takes the rank of a mere citizen and ceases to be the special favorite of the laws.” As Justice Harlan noted in dissent, this line of argument was nonsense: “What the nation, through Congress, has sought to accomplish in reference to [African-Americans] is what had already been done in every State of the Union for the white race—to secure and protect rights belonging to them as freemen and citizens, nothing more.” Harlan was right then, and he’s even more obviously right now. Ensuring equal access to the ballot does not represent a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” It simply provides the foundation equal citizenship.

Scalia’s arguments about “racial entitlements” also represent an odd theory of democracy. The strong support for the VRA, Scalia argues, is just a product of the fact that “when a society enacts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the ordinary political process.” Note, first of all, the hostility evident in Scalia’s phrasing: he seems to take for granted that it’s an important goal to “get rid of” what he erroneously calls a “racial entitlement.” And leaving that aside, his argument perversely assumes the effectiveness of the bill and the political support it generated are reasons the Court should strike it down. This makes no sense. As Justice Breyer noted, it’s not irrational for legislators to want to continue to apply a remedy that has largely (but not fully) eradicated the disease of disenfranchisement.

So if I understand Scalia’s jurisprudence correctly, the 14th Amendment (which says nothing about race) applies only to racial discrimination (that affects white people) (unless a Republican has a presidential election to win), while the 15th Amendment (which explicitly forbids racial discrimination in voting and empowers Congress to enforce the provision) should not be construed as allowing Congress to prevent racial discrimination in voting, because this would be a “racial entitlement.”  Fascinating.

The rest of the Republican justices weren’t quite as explicit in their hostility, but while I guess you cold hold out some faint hope that Kennedy will pull back from the brink, I agree with Rick Hasen that the heart of the Voting Rights Act is doomed. We’ll get a superficially “minimalist” Roberts opinion that strikes down the preclearance requirement, while holding out the theoretical possibility that Congress could pass a new one, although it’s clear that no way Congress could go about it would satisfy the Court’s Republican majority.

…Paul linked to it below, but make sure to read him as well.

…see also Flatow and Millhiser. And then Serwer on Roberts’s long war on the Voting Rights Act.

…Pierce:

If the Roberts Court declares Section V of the Voting Rights Act to be unconstitutional, as seems sadly likely, it will have complete a historically resonant parlay through which corporate influence over elections is enhanced while minority participation is made more difficult. This did not work out very well the last time, and it is unlikely to work out well now.

Comments (102)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Dilan Esper says:

    To me, the most outrageous part of the argument is where Scalia says that the VRA can’t be fixed by Congress because it’s too popular and no member of Congress wants to vote against “voting rights”.

    Basically, that’s an argument for a Supreme Court dictatorship! It’s now their JOB to overturn popular laws to save the public from themselves!

    • sharculese says:

      There appears to be a pretty significant chunk of the public that’s opposed to voting rights, though, so I’m not sure where he’s getting that from.

    • Incontinentia Buttocks says:

      Now to be fair, Dilan, it’s only their job to do this when Antonin Scalia doesn’t like the laws. When he does like the laws, it’s their job to defer to the political branches. Remember that Justice Scalia, and Justice Scalia alone, is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of Constitutional doctrine.

    • Brandon says:

      Yeah, that’s a hell of a constitutional argument he’s trying to make: something is overwhelming popular, therefore it must be wrong.

      He brings up the original votes on the VRA and contrasts that against the current votes, as if we shouldn’t expect 1) society to get less racist in the generations since the CRA and VRA and 2) legislators elected by enfranchised minorities to support protections of their voting rights.

      How can anyone support his argument? It doesn’t make any damned sense. This is worse than his SB1070 dissent.

    • DrDick says:

      I think he would be perfectly happy with a Presidential or Congressional dictatorship, as long as they were completely controlled by conservative Republicans.

    • David Stuligross says:

      To be fair, it is ALWAYS the Supreme Court’s job to protect the American public from itself. Rampant populism can and has led to an abridgement of civil liberties. Scalia’s failing, in this moment, is to suggest that the American public would be endangered if the government retains the right to promote and ensure equal voting rights for all.

      • Bijan Parsia says:

        To be fair, it is ALWAYS the Supreme Court’s job to protect the American public from itself. Rampant populism can and has led to an abridgement of civil liberties.

        This seems to buy too much of Scalia’s framing. Part of the SC’s job is to preserve the rights protected in the constitution regardless if a violation is popular or not.

        The reasoning that since something is popular it is prima facie illegitimate is odd on its face, but, depending on the strength of the “prima facie”, could be workable. Scalia’s isn’t.

      • Dilan Esper says:

        There’s a big difference between saying the Court has a counter-majoritarian role (it does) and arguing that a law is somehow suspicious because it is popular and members of Congress don’t feel they can afford to oppose it. If a law is unconstitutional, the Court’s job is to invalidate it whether it gets 51 percent support in Congress or 98 percent, and in contrast, if it is constitutional, it doesn’t become suspicious just because it is popular.

        And normally, those scholars who DO advocate some consideration of the popularity of a law do it in the other direction– saying that the Court should be extra-careful about invalidating popular laws due to legitimacy concerns.

        But the idea that the Court has to come in like Mighty Mouse and save the day because “voting rights” is too popular and nobody realizes what a terrible thing they are voting for isn’t a viable constitutional theory in a democratic republic.

    • Rarely Posts says:

      He was also really critical of the name:

      They are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act. Even the name of it is wonderful — the Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?

      We’re critical of his argument here, but when Congress passed the PATRIOT Act with only one Senator in opposition, Justice Scalia realized that he had to jump forward to defend people’s Fourth Amendment rights in the face of this populist wave.

      Honestly, his arguments here are so implausible it’s painful. He clearly doesn’t rely on this reasoning in other contexts (and he shouldn’t, because it’s stupid).

      It’s astounding to me because I honestly don’t understand how one finds the Voting Rights Act constitutional. Any textualist or originalist reading of the 15th Amendment would seem to support it. You have to bend over backwards to find to the contrary.

      The only problematic aspect is that Congress is still relying on the disenfranchisement data from back in the 1960s (though, in fact, at this reauthorization there was still substantial evidence of greater disenfranchisement efforts and racial polarization to this day). It would be awesome if the Court struck down only the portion of the Act that restricts its scope, so that it applied across the Country. Of course, never going to happen, but a boy can dream.

      • Rarely Posts says:

        Sorry, one edit: “It’s astounding to me because I honestly don’t understand how one finds the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.” I wish this blog had an edit function, or at least a preview function.

      • DrDick says:

        I am not entirely convinced that the South is significantly more racist in this regard than the rest of the country, especially rural areas. That said, it is not because the South is any less racist than it was, but because racism is and always has been a national problem, not only a regional one, and that Republicans in the rest of the country have become much more active in voter suppression and intimidation efforts. I think there is a much stronger case to expand Section 5 to cover the entire country.

        • rea says:

          I am not entirely convinced that the South is significantly more racist in this regard than the rest of the country, especially rural areas. That said, it is not because the South is any less racist than it was, but because racism is and always has been a national problem

          The lsit of preclearance jurisdictions is far from limited to the South:

          States:
          Alabama, except for the city of Pinson
          Alaska
          Arizona
          Georgia, except for the city of Sandy Springs
          Louisiana
          Mississippi
          South Carolina
          Texas, except for Jefferson County Drainage District Number Seven and Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One
          Virginia, except for 24 counties (Amherst, Augusta, Bedford, Botetourt, Carroll, Craig, Culpeper, Essex, Frederick, Grayson, Greene, James City, King George, Middlesex, Page, Prince William, Pulaski, Rappahanock, Roanoke, Rockingham, Shenandoah, Washington, Warren, and Wythe) and six independent cities (Fairfax, Harrisonburg, Manassas Park, Salem, Williamsburg, and Winchester)
          Counties:
          California: Kings (except for Alta Irrigation District), Monterey, Yuba (except for Browns Valley Irrigation District)
          Florida: Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough, Monroe
          New York: Bronx, Kings (Brooklyn), New York (Manhattan)
          North Carolina: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Camden, Caswell, Chowan, Cleveland (except for the city of Kings Mountain), Craven, Cumberland, Edgecombe, Franklin, Gaston, Gates, Granville, Greene, Guilford, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Jackson, Lee, Lenoir, Martin, Nash, Northampton, Onslow, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Person, Pitt, Robeson, Rockingham, Scotland, Union, Vance, Washington, Wayne, Wilson
          South Dakota: Shannon, Todd
          Townships:
          Michigan: Clyde Township (Allegan County), Buena Vista Township
          New Hampshire: Rindge, Millsfield, Pinkham’s Grant, Stewartstown, Stratford, Benton, Antrim, Boscawen, Newington, Unity

  2. Brandon says:

    subtext->text

  3. Glenn says:

    So obviously for Scalia this is not just a question of opposition to the preclearance formula, or the preclearance method at all, but the VRA itself. Nice.

  4. Bill Murray says:

    Take a break Justice 8, Justice 8 take a break
    You’ve been on this shift too long

    And the blog conductor says
    Take a break Justice 8, Justice 8 take a break
    We can reach our destination, but we’re still a ways away

  5. Murc says:

    I don’t know if I’m glad Scalia has stopped even trying to disguise his intellectual bankruptcy, or to long for the days when he’d at least try and construct a framework that wasn’t ludicrous on its face.

    • LosGatosCA says:

      Since he has not had the good grace to leave, it’s helpful that he’s decided to act in a way that fully discredits his hackery beyond a reasonable doubt.

  6. L.M. says:

    Leave it to Antonin Scalia to gratuitously invoke the death penalty (but not, of course, the death penalty as it actually exists in the United States) in explaining why the Voting Rights Act is what real racism looks like. What a classy guy.

    • john (not mccain) says:

      just like actual innocence does not preclude legal execution, being actually eligible to vote does not preclude legal exclusion from the voting booth.

  7. Jon says:

    Anyone else immediately think of that episode of The West Wing where the SC Justice is writing in rhymes? Yeah.

  8. MAJeff says:

    So, enjoying the rights of citizenship is now a “racial entitlement” for black folks.

    The world will truly be a better place when Scalia is no longer in it.

  9. sibusisodan says:

    I do wonder what history is going to make of Scalia’s tenure on the bench. I reckon he won’t be forgotten, but I doubt the reasons for that will be the ones he’s hoping for.

    Can those of you with access to longer institutional memory than I compare the attitude of the current SCOTUS with previous ones? Is this court unusually dismissive of, say, precedent, constitutional norms and reasoned thought compared to its predecessors?

    I know SCOTUS has laid some rotten decisions in the past, but this bad, and this transparent?

    • mpowell says:

      I imagine Scalia will be forgotten more than most justices. His jurisprudence is simply too incoherent to really serve as a reliable reference in the future. In 50 years when the fulcrum of politics has shifted, his opinions will simply appear bizarre and they won’t be frequently referred to.

      • john (not mccain) says:

        who wrote dred scott?

        • mpowell says:

          One huge famously bad decision is a different kettle of fish. And Scalia isn’t a chief justice. He doesn’t get headline credit for decisions good or bad. For example, Bush v Gore will be remembered, but Scalia was one of 5 justices determining it and he won’t get any special note. And that’s popular history anyways. If you look at just the legal community, this court in general is going to be mostly ignored. They reach decisions without extensive reach for highly political purposes using inane legal reasoning (standing for example). Scalia’s legal vision is far more sweeping than Roberts, but it falls down for being simply incoherent. Once we move beyond the immediate impact of their decisions, people won’t reference these cases because there’s no jurisprudential theory worth referring to.

        • rea says:

          Taney, of course, who is actually a fairy important figure even without Dred Scott

      • Origami Isopod says:

        You assume the fulcrum will have shifted to the left.

        • LosGatosCA says:

          Of course. History has been tilting left since the start of the Enlightenment.

          No matter that there have been setbacks, some very serious, nonetheless the overall progress is clear, even if the pace is unsatisfying.

    • timb says:

      Read “the Oath” by Jeff Toobin. No matter how much contempt we hold Scalia in, his originalism philosophy is the preeminent school of thought for rightist Constitutional analysis. Scalia didn’t invent it, but the more nimble minded Scalia of yesteryear championed the ascendant school of “thought” in American jurisprudence.

      • sibusisodan says:

        Right, but that’s kinda what I was trying to get behind. Sure, Scalia nominally has a school of thought. And that school of thought is originalism.

        But right now, what he’s offering isn’t originalism, in the sense of a (to whatever extent) consistent theory of jurisprudence. He’s offering, so it seems, whatever damn fool thing happens to pop into his head and then calling that originalism. Broccoli mandate! Racial entitlement! Drink! Girls! &c

        He’s behaving like he doesn’t give a damn about consistency or whatever framework got him there in the first place.

        I would be unsurprised if previous SCOTUS didn’t have their own legal frameworks into which they tried to shoehorn decisions – that’s how these things go. What I want to know is whether previous SCOTUS ever ditched those frameworks in favour of ‘whatever’ to the degree we’re seeing now.

      • rea says:

        Actually, he’s not, strictly speaking, an originalist–he’s sort of off on his own unique theory, under which what matters is not the intent of the drafters, but what [Scalia claims, using his own unique take on history] an objective person living at the time of the drafters would have thought the language meant. And of course, it’s all just cover for accute rightwingnut partisanshiip.

      • L2P says:

        He’s prominent regarding one branch of originalism, “original meaning.” However, he’s likely to be remembered as the reason nobody really believes in “original meaning” as a useful way to interpret the constitution because it’s indistinguishable from just, you know, interpreting the Constitution according to what seems reasonable and necessary for contemporary times.

        The problem with Scalia’s originalism, compared to textual originalism, is that it can be applied to allow living constitution results when you want or textual originalism results when you want. That’s very useful when you want to get to whatever decision aligns with the current conservative agenda. Not so useful when you want to argue that living constitutionalism is unmoored from core principles.

  10. Phil says:

    So I’m sure that all the right wing blogs are highlighting Scalia’s statement that And history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it’s very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. and railing against JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, right? Right?

    • efgoldman says:

      Is there at least a small possibility that Roberts and Kennedy could be so put off by Scalia’s “reasoning” that they’ll either go for a very limited decision, or even uphold the act? Grasping at straws here, people.

      • Rarely Posts says:

        I think this is possible — a very small possibility, but possible. We know that Roberts flipped on Obamacare at the last moment. I’m sure he had a lot of reasons (and, the fact that Obamacare is clearly constitutional may have been one of them). Nonetheless, I also suspect that Scalia’s absurd, right-wing rhetoric at the arguments did not help the right-wing cause. The press coverage of the arguments correctly made it sound like an absurd political sideshow in which the Republican nominees were driven by nothing but partisan politics. Roberts may not have liked that. And, I doubt that he’s liking the press coverage of this argument either.

        • Rarely Posts says:

          Still, I would emphasize that the possibility is smaller here because Roberts has long opposed the VRA and has seemed passionate about that opposition. In contrast, he generally has taken a very expansive view of federal power, so upholding Obamacare was the natural result that his partisanship had to overcome.

  11. Elk says:

    Scalia gonna write a book it will be called Life and How to Live It.

  12. J.W. Hamner says:

    Excited for when this gets overturned and all those conservatives who objected to “those provisions which impose burdens unequally upon different parts of the nation” propose a new VRA which has pre-clearance for all 50 states!

  13. penpen says:

    Justice Scalia: taking Slate-style bullshit contrarianism to nonsensical extremes

  14. rea says:

    Does anyone understand the constitutional basis for an attack on the VRA? The 15th Amendment gives an express grant of power–”The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” WTF does Scalia think he gets the power to decide that preclearance is unconstitutional? From the word, “appropriate”?

    • efgoldman says:

      WTF does Scalia think he gets the power to decide that preclearance is unconstitutional?

      WTF does Scalia think he gets the power to do or say an of the asshole things he says or does? From his black robe, high bench, and lifetime appointment, where else? And I disagree with the folks upthread who think he won’t be remembered. When all the information is a click or two away,for anyone, in whatever format exists then, its a very different thing from some doctoral student having to search through paper archives of opinions and arguments.
      (Moved from where it doesn’t belong. FTWP!)

      • (the other) Davis says:

        Oops, responded to the wrong instance of this.

        When all the information is a click or two away,for anyone, in whatever format exists then, its a very different thing from some doctoral student having to search through paper archives of opinions and arguments.

        As I noted below, all historical Supreme Court opinions are already available on Google Scholar (and the important ones are discussed on Wikipedia). It’s hard to imagine the cases being any more accessible. The main issue is that, aside from law or history nerds, people tend not to care about the make-up of past Supreme Courts. Hard to see why that would change in the future.

    • penpen says:

      I’d really love some insight on this too.

    • Julian says:

      Read City of Boerne v. Flores, which holds that Congress can use the section five enforcement power of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce rights guaranteed by that Amendment, but that Congress may not use that power to change the underlying substantive right. Scalia can just say the preclearance measures change the underlying substantive right.

      • (the other) Davis says:

        Sure, he can say that, but he’d still just be making shit up. The underlying substantive right is the right to vote, regardless of race. The preclearance measures address this right under any non-insane view. Perhaps the conservative justices plan to impose a procedural limit, and not just a substantive one, on rights enforcement?

    • L2P says:

      I think he’d say some combination of two things.

      First, the people at the time didn’t think that pre-clearance was part of the 15th amendment; they were thinking about stuff like sending in the national guard to make sure blacks weren’t excluded from polling stations. Evidence not included.

      Second, he’ll say that pre-clearance violates equal protection (or the 15th amendment itself) because some voters have “pre-cleared” voting rights but others don’t. This unconstitutinally deprives some voters of an equal right to vote. Whether it’s the voters in the “pre-clearance” jurisdictions or the other voters I’ll leave up to you to decide, given Scalia’s comments regarding who the real racists are here.

      • rea says:

        How on earth do you say that the express grant of power in the 15th Amendment is subject to the equal protection requirements of the 14th (both because 15 comes after 14, and because the 14th Amendment is a limitation on state, not federal power)?

    • Antonin Scalia says:

      Since so many of you have asked I’ll explain my revised judicial theory of post-structuralism.

      My reading of the constitution clearly shows the VRA to be unconstitutional.

      Some of you may not agree my reading of the text but to give a text a single interpretation is to impose a limit on that text. Since this is the consitution there can be no limits on it.

      Text is a tissue of quotations,drawn from innumerable centers of culture, rather than from one, individual experience. The essential meaning of a work depends on the impressions of the reader, rather than the passions or tastes of the writer; a text’s unity lies not in its origins, or its creator, but in its destination, or its audience. The essential meaning I have drawn from the constitution is that it supports whatever I want it to support and that Broccoli is an abomination.

  15. DocAmazing says:

    Vaffankukluxklan.

  16. efgoldman says:

    WTF does Scalia think he gets the power to decide that preclearance is unconstitutional?

    WTF does Scalia think he gets the power to do or say an of the asshole things he says or does? From his black robe, high bench, and lifetime appointment, where else? And I disagree with the folks upthread who think he won’t be remembered. When all the information is a click or two away,for anyone, in whatever format exists then, its a very different thing from some doctoral student having to search through paper archives of opinions and arguments.

    • efgoldman says:

      This belongs up there ^^ as a reply to rea. Where I put it. FYWP.

    • (the other) Davis says:

      When all the information is a click or two away,for anyone, in whatever format exists then, its a very different thing from some doctoral student having to search through paper archives of opinions and arguments.

      It’s actually not that difficult to access historical Supreme Court opinions. They’re all publicly available on Google Scholar.

  17. David Kaib says:

    I went straight to Bradley’s Civil Rights Cases opinion too, but I failed to grab Harlan’s great rebuttal. Nice.

    If the Court took seriously this ‘it doesn’t count when Congress votes for nice sounding name’ bills claim, they could pretty much wipe out everything that’s been passed in the last 25 years.

  18. Broken Wingnut Tautology says:

    Blacks have it too good! They have cell phones and refrigerators!

    Blacks are lazy and shiftless and get everything for free! I want what they get!

    Blacks are the real racists for pointing out whites have a long history that continues to this day of denying blacks equal rights!

    Blacks ended racism a long time ago, no thanks to Robert Byrd and the rest of the Ku Klux Demoklans!

    Blacks are murderous thugs who deserve the harshest punishments possible!

    Blacks should have no affirmative action and should be thankful for the degrading non-union jobs we magnanimously give them!

    Blacks should be murdered in the streets by stalking vigilantes!

    Blacks are so scary that I need a gun that I’m much more likely to use against myself and/or my family!

    Blacks believe in God and hate homosexuals, so they should be Republican! Why aren’t they!? I don’t get it!

  19. Data Tutashkhia says:

    I’ll admit that I don’t understand any fine details of this thing, but the main issue seems clear: federalism. Is the US of A a union of (more or less) independent states, or is it, the whole thing, just another state with a weird name? What is extent of states autonomy (the infamous ‘states’ rights’)?

    Well, clearly, opinions differ, and they will always differ. As long as the ‘union’ exists, the politics of it will keep moving the marker back and forth.

    • chris says:

      Is the US of A a union of (more or less) independent states, or is it, the whole thing, just another state with a weird name? What is extent of states autonomy (the infamous ‘states’ rights’)?

      You know, if Scalia had looked back in history just a little further than Reconstruction, he would have seen the last time these issues were disputed…

      Seriously, when a constitutional amendment says that Congress shall have the power to enforce it by appropriate legislation, I think it’s pretty hard not to reach the conclusion that Congress shall have the power to enforce that amendment by appropriate legislation *regardless of what the states’ rights would have been before that amendment*. That being the whole point of passing the amendment at all.

  20. David Kaib says:

    Scalia used the phrase ‘racial entitlement’ as early as 1979 – in a piece attacking affirmative action.

  21. jake the snake says:

    Shorter Antonin Scalia: “It is unconstitutional to enforce the 15th amendment”

  22. [...] while Scalia’s remarks will justly garner the most scorn from right-thinking members of the media and the public, it’s probably more important to [...]

  23. retr2327 says:

    So let me see if I understand Scalia’s “legal reasoning” here. Suppose Congress passed a law to address rape and other violence against women (you could call it the Violence Against Women Act, or some such), with certain provisions applicable only in areas with a demonstrated history of excess rapes, spousal abuse, etc. In response to this law, rates of such violence dropped (but did not completely disappear). So now that the problem has been “solved,” those provisions are suddenly unconstitutional.

    Seriously? WTF kind of gibberish legal reasoning is that? (and let’s not even talk about what kind of social policy it might be . . . .)

    • SteveHinSLC says:

      I don’t think the reasoning is illogical. Under the Equal Protection Clause, if a law is going to treat different people differently, then there must be a legitimate reason. If one area has a higher rate of rape and abuse, that may be a legitimate reason. But if that area’s rate of rape and abuse drops, so it is no longer higher than the rate in other areas, then there is no longer a justification for treating that area differently.

      So I think it would be logical for the Supreme Court to rule the pre-clearance provisions of the VRA unconstitutional if, in fact, the areas covered by those provisions did not have a higher rate of discrimination against minorities in access to voting.

      In my view, the problem is not with the theory, but with the empirical facts. As I understand it, those areas covered by the pre-clearance provisions still are more racist and more likely to discriminate against blacks in voting access without oversight.

      • retr2327 says:

        Hi Steve,

        Thanks for the answer. I see your point, but here’s the thing. The people being “treated differently” under the VRA are not the minority voters in the affected areas: they’re just enjoying the same rights (i.e., to vote) as everyone else.

        Now, arguably (and no doubt it is being argued here) the state/municipal governments that are laboring under pre-clearance requirements are being treated differently from those areas without a demonstrated history of interfering with voters’ rights. But how does that fit into an Equal Protection analysis?

        All we’re really talking about is the design, and duration, of the remedy (pre-clearance) chosen by Congress for past misbehaviour by those governmental entities. The (alleged) fact that conditions have since improved should have no bearing on whether that remedy has somehow become unConstitutional; either it never was Constitutional, or it still is.

        • Bijan Parsia says:

          Now, arguably (and no doubt it is being argued here) the state/municipal governments that are laboring under pre-clearance requirements are being treated differently from those areas without a demonstrated history of interfering with voters’ rights. But how does that fit into an Equal Protection analysis

          This this this.

          It’s really hard to see how this is an equal protection issue at all (in this direction). After all, pre-clearance doesn’t preclude states from having the voting laws they want so long as they aren’t discriminatory. They just have a few extra hoops to go through. Given the resources of the states, this is not a significant burden in the worst case.

          I’m happy to preclear everywhere. Indeed, I’d be hugely happy to rip election law from the states, if I thought I could get away with it :) It’s the worst kind of federalism.

  24. AJAY JAIN says:

    The Voting Rights Act (VRA) must be upheld by the supreme court: Discrimination is alive today unfortunately; Liberty and justice for all is openly sabotaged and the Supreme Court is inviting trouble of great magnitudnal proportions if it dares to fail its ultimate mandate: to uphold everyone’s constitutional rights.

    We not only need to keep the protections in the current Voting Rights Act (VRA), it should be expanded. The numerous despicable attempts to restrict voting made during the last election cycle are proof of that. Anyone who truly believes the VRA is obsolete needs to recognize, given last year’s voter suppression efforts, the Jim Crowe era is biding its time, lurking in the shadows waiting for an opportunity to rear its head once again.

    If properly educated and aroused to stand up against Supreme Court activism from the bench the entire nation will speak against it because the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is not about political parties; the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is about individual rights protection. Bank on it! it is time to review; the Supreme Court’s Justice Scalia’s attack on VRA as ” racial entitlements” will not stand the test of time. If the Supreme Court does not uphold the Voting Rights ACT it is no longer acting as an unbiased institution and that, its Justices, can be challenged in public. Supreme Court Justices, get up and do your job or we will make it happen! Count on it!

    Now Even if you are dumb enough to believe that all is OK with the world and there are no reasons to have the voting rights act on the books. Then why are the the parties at opposite end’s on this ? Why are the Republicans in America trying to keep people from the poles ? Well I will tell you what I think. I think there may be a dozen or two, man and women (Billionaires) in America that have the means to buy the power it wants to call all shots in this Country. The only way they can obtain this right now is get the people they want in office. To buy them so to say. But they know they can be stopped at the voting polls as proven in the 2012 election. They know the more that get out and vote there chances are reduced substantially.

    Commentator George Will knows this and should be ashamed of his views on VRA. He says VRA is 47 years old. Is that old ? I don’t think so. Look at the constitution, at that II Amendment a lot older right. SS, Medicare, still very new in the big picture. But look at who wants to change them. Not working men and women, no the big bosses. They do not like to match payments that is what this is all about. They did not like it back in the 1930s and they do not like it now. So Americans do not be fooled by the right wing opposition and all of you older people that now have this little benefit fight like h— to keep it just as it is. It just might be all there is between eating and striving !!

    The argument is that VRA is discriminatory against Southern states to require them but not other states to seek pre-clearance for voting laws; I actually agree. The Voting Rights Act should require *all* states to seek pre-clearance. After what we’ve seen the GOP try to pass in states all across the nation prior to the last 2012 election, I see no reason this safeguard against voter suppression should be limited to just Southern states as suggested by VRA of 1965 but now should be expanded to apply to ALL 50 states.

    It is urgent that whoever can go to the Supreme Court and organize peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience protests in front of the Supreme Court ASAP to do so right away!

  25. Rickey says:

    I really want you in order to be able for you to help say thanks to for your period of this great examine!
    We without a doubt take pleasure in every little bit of it and I perhaps you have saved to see brand-completely innovative things of the
    blog a must study blog!

  26. dalmindlidda says:

    Simply want to say your article is as surprising. The clearness in your put up is simply great and that i can suppose you are a professional on this subject. Well together with your permission allow me to seize your feed to keep updated with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please keep up the enjoyable work.

  27. blog says:

    Leather-based is certainly a disputatious materials, obligated to admonish materials, and varied int

  28. I absolutely love your site.. Very nice colors & theme.
    Did you develop this website yourself? Please reply back as I’m attempting to create my
    very own blog and want to know where you got this from or exactly what the theme is named.
    Cheers!

    Feel free to visit my web page – ブーツ 正規品

  29. cheap Vikings jerseys china VIP Size

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Switch to our mobile site