Supreme Court narrows Voting Rights Act, but allows it to survive.
By on Jun 22nd, 2009 at 11:45 am
Supreme Court narrows Voting Rights Act, but allows it to survive.
Despite widespread fears that the Supreme Court would strike down an important provision of the Voting Rights Act, the Court instead handed down an 8-1 decision today that chips away at the landmark law, but allows an endangered provision to survive. The case involved Section 5 of the Act, which requires voting districts that have historically engaged in discrimination to “preclear” any new voting rules changes they make with a federal court or the Department of Justice. Under today’s decision, Section 5 will remain in effect, but voting districts are allowed to “bail out” of its requirements if they can show that they have not recently engaged in race discrimination and are not likely to do so in the future.
Update In a separate ruling today, the Supreme Court announced it will not give further consideration to a lawsuit brought by Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson against high ranking Bush administration officials, including former Vice President Dick Cheney.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Under today’s decision, Section 5 will remain in effect, but voting districts are allowed to “bail out” of its requirements if they can show that they have not recently engaged in race discrimination and are not likely to do so in the future.
How do you prove a negative?
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:53 amThe Court explained that voting districts may opt out of Section 5 if they meet the following criteria:
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Does having black panthers with baseball bats outside of a voting station count?
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:01 pmThanks, Ian. You just answered my question.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:02 pmHey, it’s good to know that treason by the Vice President is now legal. Joe Biden, get to it!!! Time to start outing undercover operatives for political gain, buddy!
First, Eric Holder’s inaction legalizes kidnapping, torture, and murder. Now the SCOTUS upholds treason. God Bless justice and democracy! Well, at least for the wealthy and those in power! Huzzah!
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:14 pmSo in order to protect national security it’s ok to release a secret agent’s name. President Obama, you failed on this.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:18 pmHow many failures does this make, bucket? I’ve lost track.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:34 pmWhen I was very young, 60 + years ago, got mad and knew I wasen’t suposto cuss use to go to my room and say out loud “shit, damn, hell”…Avoiding the soap in the mouth thingie…I’m older and allowed now, so, shit, damn, hell and adding WTF? …Dismanteling law’s one at a time…..No accountability..P, B, & J
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:37 pmValerie and Joe are awsome!
(I’ve met them)
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:44 pmIan M. Says:
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Thanks, Ian. I guess I just don’t trust any “opt out” option in regard to voting rights.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:50 pmUpdate: In a separate ruling today, the Supreme Court announced it will not give further consideration to a lawsuit brought by Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson against high ranking Bush administration officials, including former Vice President Dick Cheney.
SCOTUS provides cover for BushCo — doing the job they were chosen to do.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:54 pmAnonymouse, I speak my mind. I don’t goosestep behind, blindly being led. The irony here is that Bush’s abuse of powers have now been handed over to the Obama administration. Something that Bush/Cheney thought they needed so badly is now in the hands of another party. The losers are the american people.
You want to play titfortat, go ahead. I want justice.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:55 pmHow is it president Obama’s fault that the SCOTUS won’t review Mrs. Wilson’s case? Please point out the section of the constitution that grants the president the authority to pressure the supreme court to do what he wants.
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:12 pmsupreme court to do what he wants.
Supreme Court into doing what he wants.
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:15 pmDru Phlea, the current Justice Dept. has been taking the same side as the previous administration. They are using the same arguments as Bush did.
Don’t form a narrow question and expect the answer you want. There are many things not in the constitution that Presidents do. Signing statements come to mind.
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:24 pmSource
DOJ Filing
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:06 pmI would not have been surprised if the SCOTUS completely let this go. At least they realize that voter suppression still happens in this country.
I wonder who the dissenting vote was?
Too bad for Plame/Wilson, can’t say that I’m not surprised.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:20 pmSource: Supreme Court Opinion
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:25 pmYou sound like you’re looking for a forum for self-disclosure…AA is down the hall…No, I don’t care what you presume to ‘think’, please do not reply…
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:42 pmFML is just posting the same message everywhere.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:46 pmRacism is still a very real problem in America and this is not the time to tamper with the Voting Rights Act. It’s obvious that the current SCOTUS is out of touch with reality.
I don’t see how any blame for these SCOTUS decisions can be laid on the Obama Administration. The Obama Administration can not control SCOTUS rulings/decisions.
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:02 pmThe Supreme Court is denying Plame and Wilson their day in court because it will embarass Bush and Cheney and their acolytes.
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:07 pmLibertyLover Says:
I wonder who the dissenting vote was?
Let’s take a wild guess could it be the blackest sellout of the bunch, Justice Clarence “Uncle Tom” Thomas.
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:42 amFrom Truthout:
The Obama administration’s representative before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, had also sought the dismissal of the civil suit. Kagan argued that the Wilsons had no legitimate ground to sue and further argued that Ambassador Wilson failed to prove that he was harmed by the attacks he endured from Cheney and others for accusing the Bush administration of twisting prewar Iraq intelligence.
That was not the first time Obama’s Justice Department has backed the Bush administration’s position on issues related to the CIA leak case.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:06 pmSesli Chat
Sesli sohbet
Thanks
June 27th, 2009 at 4:16 pm