It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Voting rights provision ruled unconstitutional

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Voting rights provision ruled unconstitutional


www.cnn.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court compromised Monday in a major voting rights case, finding that a powerful enforcement tool in the landmark Voting Rights Act was being applied too broadly.

However, the decision avoided the larger issue of whether the federal government should continue to have oversight to ensure local areas are free of voter discrimination.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
OK so what does all this mean? Well it looks as if some folks in Texas wanted to move their polling place for a specific election to the same place they use for all other voting situations, a local elementary school.

So it gets bigger than simply telling the federals to butt out...

Some folks saw this as a potential issue, as it was the Federal oversight that helped combat discriminatory voting practices...

Now what's real interesting is that former President (W) Bush actually led the charge to uphold this federal law... this baton was picked up by now President Obama...

This seems to be par for the course as Texas tries to "pry the cold hands" of the federal GOV from their comings and goings.

I think the Texans could have come up with a better argument though...

It's one thing to claim that they should be able to move their polling place to a location which was actually removing confusion without asking for preclearance... however, it's a completely different to claim that racial discrimination no longer exists...

Let me be clear... I'm all for the local govs ability to do this without oversight... but I think they fouled up the discussion by claiming that racial discrimination doesn't exist where they are...

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


[edit on 22/6/2009 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
I predict that soon Section 5 will be a rallying point for conservative activists. Conservatives are only opposed to judicial activism when it is liberal or progressive in nature.

The Supreme Court has thus far resisted examining the constitutionality of the provision, which could come under fire from those who maintain that it is an unwarranted intrusion upon the rights of the states to determine their own standards for compliance in the matter of voting rights.

Clarence Thomas notwithstanding, I think this country is in far too much haste to dismantle existing civil rights legislation of all kinds. From a historical perspective these laws have only been in place for a comparatively short time. Although we have come far as a society, the probability that civil rights abuses will again take place in the absence of laws protecting them is great.

The people who most loudly complain that we have moved way beyond that point tend to be very young, and their sense of historical time thus foreshortened, or they tend to be people who have always resisted civil rights initiatives.



new topics
 
0

log in

join