Liberals Brace for Supreme Court Decision on Voting Rights

Tom Curry, NBC News, June 19, 2013

Bracing for an impending Supreme Court decision that could limit the reach of the Voting Rights Act, liberal legal experts and advocates are assessing what to do if the court strikes down a central part of the law.

Addressing the annual convention of the liberal lawyers’ group the American Constitution Society, Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a pioneer of the civil rights movement, told an audience of more than 1,000 lawyers and law students in Washington, D.C., that as a young activist in the 1960s, he’d chosen to “get in trouble–good trouble, necessary trouble” using civil disobedience and street protests to win the right to vote. Now, Lewis said, “I think it’s time for all of us once again to get in trouble.”

Referring to the high court’s imminent decision on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Lewis said, “We’re at a crossroads. Something’s going to happen, maybe next Monday, maybe next Thursday, the court is going to say something.”

{snip}

In the Voting Rights Act case before the high court, Shelby County, Ala., is challenging the formula under which only some states, mostly in the South, are targeted and must get permission from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington for any attempt to change voting procedures.

“What’s unique about Section 5 is that we’ve never (before) had a federal statute that singles out particular parts of the country for unique control by the federal government,” said New York University law professor Richard Pildes, a voting rights expert and a legal adviser to the 2008 Obama campaign.

Shelby County’s lawyers argue that the coverage formula, which relies on election data from the 1960s and 1970s to determine which places Section 5 applies to, is outdated.

If the court does strike down Section 5, “the most likely way they’ll do it is to go after the coverage formula,” Steven Shapiro, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, told the American Constitution Society meeting. “If the court goes down that road–and I hope they do not–the important takeaway is that’s not the end of the game. That just puts it all back on Congress’s hands.”

{snip}

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Nathanwartooth

    So what do they think? The South will ban all Blacks from voting 5 seconds after the judge rules in their favor?

    Blacks should not have to vote anyway. Just add up the eligible Black voters, assign 90% to Black democrats and 5% to the Nation of Islam/Communist party and there ya go.

    • sbuffalonative

      What I see happening is that blacks will once again be forced to become slaves and pick cotton by hand and be made to sit in the back of the bus (where they love to sit now). That’s the ultimate goal of everything whites do, right? {end sarcasm}.

      • KevinPhillipsBong

        It seems that Southron Antebellum whites had a higher view of black contributions to civilization than I do. Blacks picked cotton?…I can’t imagine that good of a work ethic.

      • Gislia Jackson

        I had to use public transportation for an entire summer once, and–the blacks all sat in the back of the bus. Keekeeying, making remarks about the white wimmenz getting on and off the bus.

        Kind of random, but my dad was born and raised in Georgia. He joined the Navy at 17, and used his first liberty to return home. He got on a greyhound, one of those with the “bench” seat at the back, next to the “bathroom.” He was the only white person on the bus. He fell asleep on that bench seat, and when he woke up all the darkies were standing up, staring at him. They were afraid to sit down, since they were required to sit at the back of the bus behind yt.

    • Jefferson

      Bantus don’t ever vote 3rd party, even if that 3rd party leans left wing. Because the racial demographics of 3rd party groups like The Green Party are just equally White as The Republican Party.

      The Green Party is the epitome of SWPL. Their lack of “vibrant diversity” turns off the blacks.

      • Nathanwartooth

        I always just assumed that since Blacks vote for Republicans in such low numbers that the missing percentages were for some crazy third party, like the Communist party.

        But I just looked it up and it seems like the Communist party hasn’t run anyone since 1984.

        I honestly have no idea who the other Blacks are voting for.

        • AllSeeingEyeSpy

          “it seems like the Communist party hasn’t run anyone since 1984”.

          I think their offshoots were around for at least another election after that.

    • Paleoconn

      True they always vote in those proportions, but voter turnout is another important variable.

  • Section 5 is unconstitutional for the same reason that writing a Federal law that states that espionage is a crime in Iowa but not in Oregon is unconstitutional.

    If the court does strike down Section 5, “the most likely way they’ll do it is to go after the coverage formula,” Steven Shapiro, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, told the American Constitution Society meeting. “If the court goes down that road–and I hope they do not–the important takeaway is that’s not the end of the game. That just puts it all back on Congress’s hands.”

    I predict that if SCOTUS bonkers Section 5, then Congress will respond by making every place do preclearance.

    • BonusGift

      If anything, they are relentless aren’t they? Whenever I read about some “civil rights” activist acting like this before a judgment is even made (and not forgetting that the courts are heavily biased in their favor to begin with) I am reminded of the quote: “The floggings will continue until morale improves”.

  • The__Bobster

    Section 5 is as sacred to the Zulus as racial quotas. I’m looking for the SCOTUS to find some way to weasel out of making a Constitutional ruling.

    • sbuffalonative

      Me too. There will be some ambiguous compromise and no one will really know what the ruling means. It will again be left to the federal government to interpret and selectively enforce.

  • libertarian1234

    He’s the same egghead who claimed slave traders threw so many millions of slaves overboard it created a new channel for shark migration, too stupid to understand that slave traders weren’t about to destroy their assets and lose money.

    I’m guessing he’s the mentor for the brilliant Hank Johnson who warned against putting too many people on one side of the island of Guam, because it might tip over.

    On that score the intelligentsia within the CBC got their heads together and came up with a beauty in defense of such nonsense: They claimed Hank Johnson suffered a stroke and wasn’t in his right mind, obviously unaware that being incapacitated mentally and being dumb are not one and the same.

    It would be a shame if they all relocated to Africa. Where could we get a good laugh if they did that?

    • bigone4u

      “… too stupid to understand that slave traders weren’t about to destroy their assets and lose money.”

      Pretty obvious when you’re smart and don’t have a racial axe to grind that slaves were a bought and paid for asset and that you don’t destroy your assets.

    • evilsandmich

      Better to be eaten by a shark, perhaps, than by what eats people in Liberia.

  • sbuffalonative

    “If the court goes down that road–and I hope they do not–the important takeaway is that’s not the end of the game. That just puts it all back on Congress’s hands.”

    How many ‘progressive’ liberal laws have been overturned?

    ‘Progressive’ liberals never give up until their demands are written in stone.

    • Gun-Free School Zone Act got butchered.

      I still pay attention to gun laws, even though the Big One says I can’t have firearms.

  • bigone4u

    Blacks always vote for “gibsmedat.” They have no conception of the economic damage done by their dependency. When whites are gone, they will miss us as they sink further and further down the rathole of an 80 IQ society.

  • IstvanIN

    The CSA has been an occupied country since 1865.

  • WR_the_realist

    I doubt very much that the Southern states will try to prohibit blacks from voting. Unfortunately common sense measures to make sure that the voters of any race are capable of at least a minimal understanding of the issues, such as a basic literacy test, have been declared illegal. So we are left with rule by idiots.

  • OhWow

    I really don’t understand how anyone regardless of party lines can say no to an ID before voting. Would you want illegal immigrants voting who don’t even know the country? Seriously wtf?

    • George

      The Democrats would like that very much, actually.
      It means more votes for Democrats candidates.

  • AllSeeingEyeSpy

    “experts and advocates are assessing what to do if the court strikes down a central part of the law”.

    How about go out and vote?

  • evilsandmich

    liberal lawyers’ group the American Constitution Society

    They have their Orwell down though don’t they. I guess they call it the ‘Constitution Society” because that’s what they use during their ‘constitutionals’.