Preclearance as we know it appears to soon be a thing of the past...

[g8rjd]

In one of the most awaited arguments of this term, it looks like the Supreme Court has a majority to overturn Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to seek DOJ preclearance for changes to election administration laws. Congress may be able to create a new formula for the process, but we will have to wait and see for what Congress can do if it chooses to revisit the issue.

At least that's Tom Goldstein's first-hand perception at SCOTUSblog (http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/from-the-shelby-county-argument/).

I'll post the transcript when it is available.

[gator996]

Scalia's "racial entitlement" comment is going to be remembered a long time...

If Section 5 is struck down expect alot of outrage & backlash
And that it may open redistricting up for alot more legal contest

[HudsonGator]

The Voting Rights Act was the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party.

If you no longer are required (or perhaps even allowed) to go out of your way to create a bunch of majority-minority districts, suddenly a whole bunch more heretofore safe Congressional districts for Republicans are going to be competitive for Democrats.

Be careful what you wish for...

[g8rjd]

As promised, the transcipt:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-96.pdf

[dudehead]

The Voting Rights Act was the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party.

If you no longer are required (or perhaps even allowed) to go out of your way to create a bunch of majority-minority districts, suddenly a whole bunch more heretofore safe Congressional districts for Republicans are going to be competitive for Democrats.

Be careful what you wish for...

Why is that? Please explain.

[HudsonGator]

Why is that? Please explain.




Because you'll no longer have a bunch of gerrymandered congressional districts that essentially guarantee a minority/Democrat will win. Instead you'll have congressional districts that will be more diverse, and thus less safe for Republicans.

By carving out a bunch of majority-minority districts, you end up with a whole bunch more districts which have very small minority populations and thus are basically Republican strongholds.

[LittleBlueLW]

Because ensuring one party wins is what really counts. If people think a two party system sucks, wait till the Dems get it all.

[dudehead]

Thanks

[g8rjd]

For those who enjoy Supreme Court humor, this part made me laugh:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, Mr. Rein -
MR. REIN: I wouldn't -
JUSTICE KAGAN: -- that is the question, isn't it? You said the problem has been solved. But who gets to make that judgment really? Is it you, is it the Court, or is it Congress?
MR. REIN: Well, it is certainly not me.
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: That's a good answer. I was hoping you would say that.

[swampbabe]

Preclearance has nothing to do with redistricting, which done by the state legislatures(with the exception of Iowa). In the decision Shaw v. Reno, the court held that you cannot use race as the "sole" determinant in redistricting, Hunt v. Shaw said that state legislatures could draw districts for political purposes, therefore making redistricting ripe for lawsuits every 10 years. this happens all of the time, in every state, by both parties. It is referred to as "packing" and "cracking".

[HudsonGator]

Preclearance has nothing to do with redistricting, which done by the state legislatures(with the exception of Iowa). In the decision Shaw v. Reno, the court held that you cannot use race as the "sole" determinant in redistricting, Hunt v. Shaw said that state legislatures could draw districts for political purposes, therefore making redistricting ripe for lawsuits every 10 years. this happens all of the time, in every state, by both parties. It is referred to as "packing" and "cracking".

You are only half correct, the fact of the matter is that DOJ has had the ability, through preclearance, to exercise a veto over Southern States' redistricting over the last half century which has had the effect that States have gerrymandered in order to get DOJ's approval.

[swampbabe]

You are only half correct, the fact of the matter is that DOJ has had the ability, through preclearance, to exercise a veto over Southern States' redistricting over the last half century which has had the effect that States have gerrymandered in order to get DOJ's approval.

Good info. When was the last time that the DOJ forced a change in redistricting? I can't remember one. Preclearance is past its prime. Intersting fact, black voter turnout is higher in Mississippi than it is in that bastion of liberalism, Massachusetts :joecool:

[HudsonGator]

I am friends with a few state legislators, they have told me that their own experts tell them in advance what is the configuration of districts that are likely to get clearance from DOJ, and that is what ultimately comes out of the legislature.

DOJ rarely ever needs to veto anymore, the various legislatures have been sufficiently trained on what they can and cannot do.

[gator996]

Good info. When was the last time that the DOJ forced a change in redistricting? I can't remember one. Preclearance is past its prime. Intersting fact, black voter turnout is higher in Mississippi than it is in that bastion of liberalism, Massachusetts :joecool:


http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/voting-rights-act-protecting-voters-nearly-five-decades


The Voting Rights Act is the most effective civil rights laws ever enacted, and it’s something we should all be proud of.

Section 5 is the heart of the Voting Rights Act. It requires covered jurisdictions to submit any proposed changes in voting procedures to the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal district court in D.C. — before it goes into effect — to ensure it does not harm minority voters. This blocks discrimination before it occurs.

Section 5 is an essential and proven tool. Although progress has been made since the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965, voting discrimination still persists. Between 1982 and 2006 (when Congress overwhelmingly renewed the law), the Voting Rights Act blocked more than 1,000 proposed discriminatory voting changes. Without Section 5’s protection, these changes would have gone into effect and harmed minority voters.





Last time because of redistricting?
The most recent election.

Texas, August 2011

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/texas-redistricting-plan-denied-preclearance-abbot/nRNrK/
In 2011, Texas lawmakers proposed redrawing political boundaries that would have created four new congressional districts. Despite the substantial growth in Texas’s minority population in the past decade, not one of the new districts created the ability for the Latino or African-American community to elect their candidate of choice. A federal district court found that the maps were enacted to intentionally discriminate against Latino and African-American voters, and Texas’s redistricting proposal was blocked under Section 5.



■ In the maps for Congress, three black Democratic representatives in Houston and Dallas were given new districts that excluded long-established offices where constituent services are provided. No Anglo incumbents were similarly inconvenienced, the court said.

The districts were further harmed when significant economic generators, including large businesses or universities, were relocated to adjacent Anglo districts, Griffith wrote.

"The only explanation Texas offers for this pattern is ‘coincidence.' But if this was coincidence, it was a striking one indeed," Griffith wrote. "It is difficult to believe that pure chance would lead to such results."


■ The Texas Senate map improperly targeted the Fort Worth district represented by Sen. Wendy Davis, a Democrat, by "cracking" the minority population — placing African American and Hispanic voters in three other districts that shared few common interests.

Texas lawyers said the move was best explained by partisan, not racial, goals — a "plausible explanation," Griffith noted, if not for the way the Senate map was drawn.

Sen. Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo and chairman of the redistricting committee, escorted many Republican senators into an anteroom off the Senate floor to review drafts of maps. Democrats, and Davis in particular, were excluded from providing input, Griffith wrote.

"One would expect a state that is as experienced with (voting rights) litigation as Texas to have ensured that its redistricting process was beyond reproach," he wrote.


■ The 150 Texas House districts were redrawn without adding one "Hispanic opportunity district" — where Hispanic voters have an opportunity to elect their preferred candidates — despite dramatic growth in the state's Latino population, the court found.



Moving polling places targeting minority voters?
The previous Presidential election

Pennsylvania, 2008

http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/03/pa_photo_voter_id_bill_is_now_law_hbcus_in_the_cro sshairs.html
On the topic of college students, they seem to be a group that have had a hard time voting in Pennsylvania historically, especially black college students. After the 2008 presidential elections, when hundreds of students from the HBCU Lincoln University stood up to seven hours in the rain to vote, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit on their behalf because the county had moved the polling place to a small facility far from Lincoln’s campus. At the university, voter registration drives had anticipated a record turnout for the election that brought about the first African-American president, but Chester County wouldn’t move the polling place to a larger facility on campus that could accommodate the huge swell of new registered voters.

“After voters complained about conditions in the 2008 election, in which some people waited as long as seven hours to vote, the county responded by moving the polling place even further away from campus,” ACLU’s Hoover told me.

They successfully sued the county.




Section 5 challenges from the last 2 census cycles.....


http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/voting-rights-act-protecting-voters-nearly-five-decades
•In 2001, the white mayor and all-white Board of Alderman for the city of Kilmichael, Mississippi attempted to cancel an election shortly after black citizens had become a majority of the registered voters. The Department of Justice denied preclearance under Section 5, finding that the cancelation was designed to worsen the voting strength of African-American voters. The town refused to reschedule the election until the Department of Justice forced it to hold one in 2003, at which time the citizens elected the town’s first African-American mayor and three African-American aldermen.

•After the 2000 Census showed that Latinos had become a majority in five of eight districts, the city of Seguin, Texas proposed dismantling a Latino-majority district. The Department of Justice indicated that preclearance was unlikely, and the city withdrew its preclearance request but promptly closed the candidate filing period to prevent any Latino candidate from competing in the district. A subsequent Section 5 enforcement action blocked this discrimination.

•In 2004, an Asian American candidate ran for city council for the first time in the history of Bayou La Batre, Alabama. The white incumbent and his supporters challenged about 50 Asian-American voters at the polls during the primary elections, claiming that if they “couldn’t speak good English, they possibly weren’t American citizens.” The Department of Justice determined these challenges were race-based . The Department of Justice prohibited the challenges in the 2004 general election because of Section 5. The Asian-American candidate won the council position in that election.

•One week before the New York City primary elections in 2001 — which had been rescheduled after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center — the Board of Elections planned to close a busy poll site in Manhattan's Chinatown without making any announcements in Chinese-language newspapers and without informing limited English proficient voters about this change. The Department of Justice informed the Board that the change could not take effect under Section 5. On primary day, hundreds of votes were cast at the original Chinatown poll site. Without Section 5, many of these voters would have lost their right to vote.



Section 5 blocked a number of disenfranchisement efforts in the 2012 election

http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/voting-rights-act-protecting-voters-nearly-five-decades ([URL="http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/voting-rights-act-protecting-voters-nearly-five-decades[/URL])
Section 5 is still needed to prevent and address real and continuing threats to Americans’ right to vote. States continue to enact laws to restrict minority voting access. Section 5 is a proven remedy to protect voters. In 2012, it blocked a highly-restrictive voter ID laws in Texas and a law in Florida that eliminated early voting days, which would have made it more difficult for hundreds of thousands of minority voters to cast a ballot.



Your final interesting point isn't an argument for disolving Section 5 but maybe for an expansion of Section 3...the "bail-in" mechanism


Another intersting point is that the "bail-out" mechanism allows for the relief Shelby county is seeking....

Before August 1984, this process required covered jurisdictions to demonstrate that the voting test that they used immediately before coverage was not used in a discriminatory fashion. The 1982 amendment included two significant changes.[18] First, Congress provided that where a state is covered in its entirety, individual counties in that state may separately bail out. Second, Congress completely redesigned the bailout standard. The post-1984 bailout standard requires that a covered jurisdiction demonstrate nondiscriminatory behavior during the 10 years prior to filing and while the action is pending and that it has taken affirmative steps to improve minority voting opportunities.[18][19]

On September 22, 2010, the first two jurisdictions outside the state of Virginia—Kings Mountain, North Carolina, and Sandy Springs, Georgia—successfully "bailed out" from Section 5 Preclearance requirements.[20] On November 15, 2012, New Hampshire sued to "bail out" from the requirements, which were originally imposed on ten towns that used a literacy test and had voting disparaties when the Act was passed.[21]




Hey Shelby county...want no preclearance?

Stop discriminating for a 10 year stretch...OK?