Courts & Law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Maybe the U.S. Supreme Court Justices should have attended to get a sense of history as to why the Voting Rights Act remains vitally important to voting rights in this country. Biden Leads Re-enactment of Voting Rights March – NYTimes.com:

Vice President Joe Biden and black leaders commemorating a famous civil rights march on Sunday said efforts to diminish the impact of African-Americans' votes haven't stopped in the years since the 1965 Voting Rights Act added millions to Southern voter rolls.

More than 5,000 people followed Vice President Joe Biden and U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma's annual Bridge Crossing Jubilee.

The event commemorates the "Bloody Sunday" beating of voting rights marchers — including a young Lewis — by state troopers as they began a march to Montgomery in March 1965. The 50-mile march prompted Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act that struck down impediments to voting by African-Americans and ended all-white rule in the South.

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Representative John Lewis of Georgia led more than 5,000 people over the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala.,to commemorate the 48th anniversary of Bloody Sunday. (By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS)

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Much has been written about the coded racism in Justice Antonin Scalia's line of questioning ("racial entitlement") regarding the Voting Rights Act, and his novel theory of judicial activism: "Congress is incapable of legislating so the Court will."

But Chief Justice John Roberts could barely hide his disdain for the Voting Rights Act as well. If you listen to the audio of the oral arguments, you can tell that Chief Justice Roberts just thought he was oh so clever (with a satisfied smirk). Too bad he was full of crap.

But Steve Benen writes in Massachusetts 1, John Roberts 0:

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has long opposed
the Voting Rights Act, so it didn't surprise anyone when he was
outwardly hostile towards the law during oral arguments this week.
Indeed, the jurist seemed well prepared with talking points he delivered
with great authority.

"Do you know which state has the worst
ratio of white voter turnout to African-American voter turnout?" Roberts
asked Solicitor General Don Verrilli. When Verrilli said he did not
know, Roberts answered the question for him: "Massachusetts." Moments
later, the chief justice did it again, asking, "Which state has the
greatest disparity in registration between white and
African American?" Again the solicitor general did not know, and again Roberts said, "Massachusetts."

James Carter took a closer look
at the latest information on voting and registration from the U.S.
Census Bureau and found that Roberts appeared to be completely wrong.
What's more, the Boston Globe talked to
Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin, who's eager to explain
just how mistaken the conservative justice is. "I'm calling him out,"
Galvin said.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: The Obama administration will file a brief in Hollingsworth v. Perry to overturn California's Prop. 8 before the deadline later today. Pete Williams at NBC News reports, Obama administration to express support for gay marriage before Supreme Court: Administration officials say the Justice Department will urge the U.S. Supreme Court to allow … Read more

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The New York Times editorial opinion today on the Voting Rights Act gets it exactly right. Congress’s Power to Protect the Vote:

The voter ID laws and other tactics that sprang up in several states last year to prevent minorities from casting their ballots offer incontestable proof of the need for strict voting rights laws.

Yet at the argument on Wednesday in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices left the ominous impression that they were willing to deny this reality and repudiate Congress’s power to enforce the right to vote by striking down a central provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires nine states (seven of them in the South) and parts of seven others with records of extreme discrimination against minority voters to get approval from the Justice Department or a special court in Washington before they can make any changes in how they hold elections. Without this provision, there would be no way to prevent new and devious efforts by local officials to block blacks and Hispanics from voting or to reduce their electoral power. In 2006, Congress overwhelmingly reauthorized the statute. It found that these places should remain “covered” by this “preclearance” requirement because voting discrimination remained both tangible and more concentrated and persistent in them than in other parts of the country. House members from those places strongly supported the renewal: of 110 members from covered jurisdictions, 90 voted for reauthorization.