Discussion for article #229537
âŚâthat its change was not intended, and would not have the effect, of making minority voters worse off.â
YeahâŚriiiiiiiiiiiight.
1 Like
Well that would be nice, but they have already done so much damage to the rights of minority voters, that will stand in place for this election. Seeing that it is one of the most draconian voter registration laws, and seeing how they are getting away with this blatant tactic of telling people that they are out of the voter ID cards, after they have amassed all of the crap Texas requires of them to get one, and sometimes travel miles to where they have to go to get one.
The SCOTUS did their job of being the good little Kochfascists that is expected of the bought and sold majority, to make sure that tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands will not be able to vote in this election. I would love to see them be put back under restrictions with the Feds when wanting to change their voting laws, but the desired damage for this election has already been done. If even one person, who is qualified to vote, loses that right in this election, then that is one too many in this so called country of freedoms and liberties.
14 Likes
OTOH, the court deciding that the laws discriminate probable voters of one part or the other could lead to a Solomonic decision from the Supremes: they can sidestep the racial issue and scrutiny, but still strike down the law, allowing the conservatives a chance to draw up a craftier means of discrimination while not ratifying something all but the two or three worst deadenders in SCOTUS have to recognize is racially motivated.
1 Like
One other good thing: this could set the stage for invoking pre-clearance requirements in states outside the South, which I have always thought should have been done in the first place, but Iâm guessing it was not politically possible to do that and get sufficient support to pass the Act at all. There were a few individual jurisdictions outside the South that were subject to pre-clearance, but they were very much the exception to the rule.
6 Likes
Please, please, PLEASE Mess with Texas - Mess with Texas - BIG TIME.
12 Likes
But racism is over and gone! Black POTUSâŚBLACK POTUS!!!
4 Likes
âSadly, the courts may hold that discriminating on the basis of party (rather than race) is perfectly legal.â
In many contexts yes, but not in the context of discriminating against an individualâs right to vote.
1 Like
"One issue which will surely come up on appeal is whether what the trial judge characterized as racial discrimination is more properly thought of as discrimination against Democrats. Separating the two is kind of a silly exercise in Texas, where the majority Anglos are overwhelmingly Republicans and the majority of minority voters are overwhelmingly Democrats. "
This is how the SCOTUS will overrule the district court. Nevermind that there was evidence of explicit, literal intent to screw minority voters on the record before the federal district court. Nevermind the blatantly intentional disparate impact on the civil rights of minorities. Roberts et al will just say something like this:
âThe overarching reasons and goals for the changes to the electoral process were partisan in nature and therefore any âapparentâ racial animus was merely secondary at best. Therefore, the laws were not truly motivated by racism per se.â
I guarantee it. They will then hold that the VRA doesnât apply to such a situationâŚand Kennedy will go along with them because heâs a fucking asshole.
3 Likes
I say put every state and every municipality under preclearance for any change to voting laws. It was the formula and the fact that it was applied equally which the justices didnât like. If you apply it to everyone then you take that factor away.
4 Likes
Man, these fascist sonsofbitches are way ahead of us. This voter ID stuff is just a distraction compared to THIS:
4 Likes
It is really sad, but we are at the place where this so called shiny example of democracy, now really does need the UN to come in and oversee our elections.
7 Likes
I read the opinion that Judge Ramos wrote. The documentation and history cited is almost unbelievable. I grew up in Texas and always thought it was a little strange. After reading the opinion however there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the republicans, and the present governor particularly would stoop to what ever low levels are required to make sure the Hispanic and black citizens of Texas stay in their âplaceâ.
6 Likes
Texas is determined to prevent people from voting for Democrats. If this attempt should fail, theyâll simply come up with something else. They simply view their goal as a moving target.
2 Likes
Beware the Diebold machines. Theyâll stop at nothingâŚ
1 Like
Well, thatâs gotta be true because Scalia gets his information from talk radio and thatâs what they say there.
Fucking SCOTUS and their willful blindness to obvious voter suppression.
2 Likes
Okay⌠I understand how the whole discrimination against certain race would be ruled unconstitutional. I donât understand why - according to the TPM article - a ruling finding discrimination by party affiliation could be found legal.
But if the appellate courts see this as a political rather than racial
struggle, they could reverse any bail-in order of the trial court.
Sadly, the courts may hold that discriminating on the basis of party (rather than race) is perfectly legal.
Wouldnât that also fall under the âequal protectionâ clause of the 14th amendment? How can it be legal to discriminate based on a personâs preference of one party over another? Some guidance (in common English) on what Richard L. Hasen is trying to say would be very helpful. Thank you in advance!
2 Likes
In theory, yes, but Thomas is the oldest, whitest, most bigoted man on the Court.
This doesnât even need to use Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to impose preclearance for as long as the Court likes. This is a remedies section and since the Court made the finding based in Equity, the Judge is not constrained by the Law.
This is the up-to-date version of Green v. Mecklenburg County School District. That was the finding under the Civil Rights Act that Charlotteâs use of its ability to describe the school districts was inequitable and thus open the Judgeâs remedies to a vast array of remedies and duration of those remedies. That is why Charlotte spent 30 years under the supervision of the Federal Court Judge and was finally released by the judge when it was determined that Charlotte was no longer creating racially inequitable school districts. The school district couldnât make a single change to the district lines without preclearance from the **
COURT,** not the Justice Dept. That makes a big difference. The Court gets to monitor the School District annually so that the information is always up-to-date.
The same formula can be applied to this voting rights act. Texas has to seek preclearance from the COURT, which would be done anytime there is a change to the voting restrictions, the Court would have to review them. That meets the requirements of the Due Process clause, because it is a judicial determination, not an executive determination. It also meets the requirements of Shelby County v. Holder. That requirement being that the impact determination is made ANNUALLY, so the basis of the supervision is met in the âup-to-dateâ information requirement. The Justice Department would be well served to obtain COURT supervision, not the Justice Department supervision.