![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've been reading a lot of people talking about yesterday's SCOTUS decision "gutting" the Voting Rights Act, but now that I'm taking some time to read about it, it looks like the decision was a lot more nuanced (and perhaps less dire?) than that. Am I missing something? Here's what I've gathered so far...
Section 5 of the act sets standards for pre-approval that have to be met before state voting laws can be changed.
BUT...
Those rules only apply to "covered districts", which are defined by a formula in section 4 of the act. That formula is based on the voting rights record of the district in question... from the 1960s and (after later amendments) 1970s. Only. Nothing past that.
From the SCOTUS decision:
"""
The coverage formula and preclearance requirement were initially
set to expire after five years, but the Act has been reauthorized several times. In 2006, the Act was reauthorized for an additional 25
years, but the coverage formula was not changed. Coverage still
turned on whether a jurisdiction had a voting test in the 1960s or
1970s, and had low voter registration or turnout at that time.
"""
The court's holding says this:
"""
Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formula
can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.
"""
...which, I've gotta say, kind of makes sense. Instead of rubber-stamping section 4 over and over, shouldn't Congress have been, you know, applying the VRA in *all* places that are exhibiting suspect behavior, not just those that did so 30+ years ago (or, ideally, uniformly across the board)?
The interim between the SCOTUS decision and when Congress can implement a more reasonable alternative to Section 4 is a scary thing to think about, but...
1) In the long-(or even mid, depending on how quickly Congress can act)-run, it's a solvable problem... right?
2) Is SCOTUS really the right place for blame? I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't thoroughly researched this, but it's looking to me like Congress acted stupidly and irresponsibly by not updating section 4 for decades, and now it's blown up in their faces.
So, people who have been posting about this. What am I missing? (<-- sincere question, in case the tone isn't clear)
Further reading...
SCOTUS decision:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
"tl;dr" summary of the issue from Slate:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/06/25/scotus_voting_rights_act_section_4_what_it_means_for_southern_politics.html
Two articles from Colorlines, one from before the decision and one from after, which together look like a pretty good analysis, and which have influenced my thinking about the issue:
http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/05/time_to_stick_a_fork_in_the_voting_rights_act.html
http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/06/supreme_court_purges_civil_rights_best_weapon_from_voting_rights_act.html
Wikipedia article with summary of the VRA, and a link to the law's text in the sidebar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act
Crossposted to Facebook, where discussion has ensued.
Section 5 of the act sets standards for pre-approval that have to be met before state voting laws can be changed.
BUT...
Those rules only apply to "covered districts", which are defined by a formula in section 4 of the act. That formula is based on the voting rights record of the district in question... from the 1960s and (after later amendments) 1970s. Only. Nothing past that.
From the SCOTUS decision:
"""
The coverage formula and preclearance requirement were initially
set to expire after five years, but the Act has been reauthorized several times. In 2006, the Act was reauthorized for an additional 25
years, but the coverage formula was not changed. Coverage still
turned on whether a jurisdiction had a voting test in the 1960s or
1970s, and had low voter registration or turnout at that time.
"""
The court's holding says this:
"""
Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formula
can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.
"""
...which, I've gotta say, kind of makes sense. Instead of rubber-stamping section 4 over and over, shouldn't Congress have been, you know, applying the VRA in *all* places that are exhibiting suspect behavior, not just those that did so 30+ years ago (or, ideally, uniformly across the board)?
The interim between the SCOTUS decision and when Congress can implement a more reasonable alternative to Section 4 is a scary thing to think about, but...
1) In the long-(or even mid, depending on how quickly Congress can act)-run, it's a solvable problem... right?
2) Is SCOTUS really the right place for blame? I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't thoroughly researched this, but it's looking to me like Congress acted stupidly and irresponsibly by not updating section 4 for decades, and now it's blown up in their faces.
So, people who have been posting about this. What am I missing? (<-- sincere question, in case the tone isn't clear)
Further reading...
SCOTUS decision:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
"tl;dr" summary of the issue from Slate:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/06/25/scotus_voting_rights_act_section_4_what_it_means_for_southern_politics.html
Two articles from Colorlines, one from before the decision and one from after, which together look like a pretty good analysis, and which have influenced my thinking about the issue:
http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/05/time_to_stick_a_fork_in_the_voting_rights_act.html
http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/06/supreme_court_purges_civil_rights_best_weapon_from_voting_rights_act.html
Wikipedia article with summary of the VRA, and a link to the law's text in the sidebar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act
Crossposted to Facebook, where discussion has ensued.
