SCOTUS Weighing Voting Rights Act

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States is hearing Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District #1 v. Holder. The case centers on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

To borrow from SCOTUS blog's wiki:

Congress made part of the 1965 Act permanent and nationwide in its binding effect – the part that outlaws any state or local “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting” or any procedure that denies or abridges the right to vote based on “race or color.” But another part of the law – Section 5 -- was aimed mainly at the states in the South where there had been a sustained history of racial bias in voting. That part – Section 5 – was not made permanent. Initially, it was to be in effect for five years. But Congress has since extended it – in 1970 for five years, in 1975 for seven, in 1982, for 25, and, most recently, in 2006, for 25 more years, running through 2032.

I urge everyone to read about the case and consider the implication of overturning or gutting Section 5. Yes, in this case the Utility seems to be wanting to make voting easier but think big-picture... Yes, the U.S. has "made undeniable progress in ensuring the voting rights of citizens of all races," as Utility alleges. But to think that minority voters are fine now, and we can just do away with Section 5 is ludicrous at best and malicious at worst. Just look at the list of amici (friends of one side or other) for the appellee -- from the Asia Pacific American Bar Association to the North American South Asian Bar Association to the Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucuses to the Navajo Nation.

CPSAN is audiocasting the oral arguments and will archive them on CSPAN 3.

Comments

[cynematic]

The GOP workaround to outright suppression of the vote among minorities seems to be "voter ID" and "photo ID" bills that have cropped up in state legislatures around the country. In my own state, California, someone has already filed to start petitioning the public for signatures to put a photo ID ballot initiative for a vote.

Obviously, demanding any form of ID at the polls is suppressive, and allows individual poll workers to challenge far too many people according to personal bias.

We need to get in front of this, as you're calling attention to here, or we might see electoral gains in '08 eroded in future elections.

[dissertation writing]

Blogs are good for every one where we get lots of information for any topics nice job keep it up !!!

[dvdbestonline]

i always focus on your posts cause you always write recent hot topics and has novel ideas!