Supreme Court Does The Right Thing Strikes Down Key Element of Voting Rights Act of 1965

Supreme Court Strikes Down Heart of Voting Rights Act:'Our Country Has Changed' YAHOO NEWS


Triadwatch in the past years has had multiple blog post on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and what needed to be done for example

Bailout from Voting Rights Act

DOJ Pre Clearence Submission from Guilford County in Regards To The Outdated Voting Rights Act of 1965 , SCRIBD Version Embedded

here is a little bit from the article linked above

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act—reauthorized by Congress for an additional 25 years in 2006—gives the federal government the ability to pre-emptively reject changes to election law in states and counties that have a history of discriminating against minority voters. The law covers nine states and portions of seven more, most of them in the South. The formula used to decide which states are subject to this special scrutiny (set out in Section 4 of the law) is based on decades-old voter turnout and registration data, the justices ruled, which is unfair to the states covered under it. States that had a discriminatory poll test in the 1960s and low turnout among minority voters must seek special permission from the federal government to change their election laws, even though many of these states now have near-equal voter turnout rates between minorities and whites.

The court has effectively now put the ball back in Congress' court, writing in its decision that it is up to Congress to write a new formula that is based on current data. States or counties that fit the new formula could still be subject to federal "preclearance" of changes to their elections procedures. It remains to be seen whether Congress, which is now more partisanly divided than in 2006, would tackle the challenge of creating a new rubric to find and eradicate racial discrimination at the polls. The president called on Congress to pass legislation addressing the ruling in a statement on Tuesday.

As you can see from the above map in the Triad area only Rockingham and Guilford County were subject to the preclearance of the Voting Rights Act which to me was patently unfair using outdated data to determine this. Can anyone please send me a story in the past 10 or 20 years where minorities were denied to vote in Guilford County?  I am sure in the next few days plenty of lefties will be up in arms over this ruling but to me it was outdated and needs a complete overhaul to be more in tune with the times .

Voting Rights Act Chart Chief Roberts used in ruling from Business Insider

 

Look at the gap difference from 1965 to 2004 in these key states that are a part of the Voting Rights Act. Progress has been made in many states over the past 40 years and Chief Roberts said this in the article

 

"But Roberts said that the pre-clearance system for changes to voting laws no longer made sense — pointing to original conditions of pre-clearance included in the Voting Rights Act that were no longer necessary due to the gains in minority voter registration.
"Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices," he wrote. "The formula captures States by reference to literacy tests and low voter registration and turnout in the 1960s and early 1970s. But such tests have been banned nationwide for over 40 years. And voter registration and turnout numbers in the covered States have risen dramatically in the years since."

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. made a great ruling in this case .

Bailout for North Carolina Cities from the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Virginia Does It N.C. Needs To Start

Reading other newspapers all over the area and also in other states like Virginia.Triadwatch came across this article from the Roanoke Times titled "Roanoke Seeks Bailout from Voting Rights Act" CLICKHERE . In the article it talks about how plenty of cities and counties all over Virginia are hiring a lawyer to plead their case that they do not need to be a part of the watch list from the justice department.. Has anyone around the triad area ever heard of a bailout of the voting rights act of 1965?

Here is a few quotes from the article in the roanoke times:

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- signed into law 45 years ago Friday -- was put in place to outlaw discriminatory electoral practices such as poll taxes and literacy tests that prevented blacks and other minorities from voting.



It established federal oversight of elections, particularly in Southern states with a history of discrimination. Over the past 15 years, though, many city and county governments -- seeking ways to cut costs and save time by streamlining a lengthy federal process -- have applied to receive a "bailout" from certain sections.


Those parts require localities to receive approval from the Justice Department before taking any actions that affect voting, including moving precincts.


Seventeen counties and cities in Virginia have already received that bailout, including Salem, Botetourt County and Roanoke County. Bedford and Bedford County also are in the process of seeking a bailout from the Voting Rights Act.

then later in article there is this:

Congress renewed the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years in 2006, and last year the Supreme Court broadened the bailout provision to apply not just to cities and counties, but to other government jurisdictions as well. Those decisions, along with the pending need to redraw precincts for redistricting, has prompted an increasing number of bailout applications in recent years.



Alexandria lawyer Gerald Hebert has represented all of the Virginia localities seeking bailouts, starting with Fairfax in 1997.


"There's a list of things in the law that you have to prove, and they're fairly straightforward," Hebert said. "A jurisdiction that's not discriminating in its voting procedures normally has very little difficulty meeting them."


Hebert said the cost of a bailout -- about $5,000, mostly in lawyers' fees -- is quickly recouped when considering the expense to get preliminary clearance from the Justice Department to move a precinct.


"Even without lawyers, just in staff time, preclearance runs about $500," Hebert said. "If lawyers are involved, and it's a controversial or complicated one, then it can run into the thousands of dollars."


Obtaining a bailout would first require the council to take a vote in favor of pursuing the action. The city must then present data to the Justice Department demonstrating that it's eliminated any actions or devices that would discriminate against certain voters.


A three-judge panel ultimately makes a final decision on whether a locality has reached that point and is therefore entitled to be bailed out from the Voting Rights Act.


Why is this so important to cities all over North Carolina is because last year we had the Justice Department reverse the wishes of the citizens of Kinston N.C. to become a non partisan election . Here is a link to the whole situation with a post titled "U.S. Justice Department Spurns Kinston Decision on Elections" from the Carolina Journal online CLICKHERE . In the article here is a few quotes:

Sixty-four percent of Kinston voters said “yes” to a November ballot initiative that would have switched city elections from partisan to nonpartisan. The measure passed by a 4,977 to 2,819 margin, with seven of nine precincts approving the change. The DOJ decision leaves the city as one of five municipalities in North Carolina to hold partisan elections, and the only one east of Charlotte.



King, in a letter overturning the election, said the city did not meet its burden of proof that the change “has neither a discriminatory purpose nor a discriminatory effect.” King’s letter went on to declare, “Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office. In Kinston elections, voters base their choice more on the race of a candidate than his or her political affiliation, and without either the appeal to party loyalty or the ability to vote a straight ticket, the limited support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more. And given that the city’s electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, while the motivating factor for this change may be partisan, the effect will be strictly racial."

This type of ruling against a city who wanted to have non partisan elections like plenty of other cities all over the state is assinine to hear but hopefully we will see more municipalities look at what is going on across the border in Virginia and start bailing out of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

As you can see from the above photo it seems like only Guilford and Rockingham County are on the watch list from the Justice Department  in regards to the voting rights act in this area while surrounding counties do not have to follow. Triadwatch has been trying to find a complete list of cities and counties that have to follow this act but cannot find it online. If there is someone who can provide this information please do .

Hope the 2 articles enlighten everyone on this issue and understand what our Justice Department is doing lately.