Idea: how about we amend the VRA to make it so that all states have to get Federal permission before changing their voting standards? It gets rid of the Jim Crow aspect that makes it sound so outdated.
Idea: how about we amend the VRA to make it so that all states have to get Federal permission before changing their voting standards? It gets rid of the Jim Crow aspect that makes it sound so outdated.
Voting regulations are delegated to the states by the Constitution.
Idea: how about we amend the VRA to make it so that all states have to get Federal permission before changing their voting standards? It gets rid of the Jim Crow aspect that makes it sound so outdated.
Voting regulations are delegated to the states by the Constitution.
VRA also applied to shit like changing a voting location for ANY reason. You know, like a building burns down so a temporary poling location is needed!!!
There wasn't a thread for it, and this was the major Supreme Court thread.
The VRA also applied to redistricting - it nicely prevented conservative state legislatures from manipulating existing district boundaries to effectively eliminate black votes.
Also, consider what a friend of mine just pointed out - without the need to appeal to the VRA, polling places in NYC will no longer need to post multilingual signs at polling places.
There wasn't a thread for it, and this was the major Supreme Court thread.
The VRA also applied to redistricting - it nicely prevented conservative state legislatures from manipulating existing district boundaries to effectively eliminate black votes.
Uh, no, it didn't. It may have attempted to, but it's obvious that it failed at it.
There wasn't a thread for it, and this was the major Supreme Court thread.
The VRA also applied to redistricting - it nicely prevented conservative state legislatures from manipulating existing district boundaries to effectively eliminate black votes.
Uh, no, it didn't. It may have attempted to, but it's obvious that it failed at it.
The VRA also only targeted states that had bad behavior in the 60's.
If state A was on "the bad list" and wanted to do anything involving voting it had to get federal approval. If state B that was not on the bad list wanted to do the same exact thing it did not need federal approval. Vice versa as well, if a "good" state wanted to enact bad changes to voting it was free to do so.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by the DOMA decision.
Also, the VRA does have a provision for adding states to the preclearance coverage based on bad behavior - this happened to Arkansas and New Mexico. There were frequent attempts and redistricting that were blocked by the law, which is why we have black representatives from the South.
If state A was on "the bad list" and wanted to do anything involving voting it had to get federal approval. If state B that was not on the bad list wanted to do the same exact thing it did not need federal approval. Vice versa as well, if a "good" state wanted to enact bad changes to voting it was free to do so.
Let's also ignore the fact that the VRA didn't so squat with respect to Gerrymandering. Sure, it could control how voter registration is handled, how and where to set up polling places, etc., but it's obvious that it failed in preventing Gerrymandering. This isn't to say that preventing Gerrymandering was part of its job -- it wasn't, at least not explicitly, but Gerrymandering still allowed the system to be gamed to minimize the voting rights of minorities.
Also, the VRA does have a provision for adding states to the preclearance coverage based on bad behavior - this happened to Arkansas and New Mexico. There were frequent attempts and redistricting that were blocked by the law, which is why we have black representatives from the South.
Yeah, though I feel bad for Arkansas. It was a sort of bad apple ruins the bunch, when Queen Mary called MLK a n---. Shouldn't have punished the whole state for it.
In other news, Prop 8 dismissed for lack of standing, Ninth Circuit vacated, remanded to the Circuit Court with instructions to dismiss the appeal. No ruling on its constitutionality.
In other news, Prop 8 dismissed for lack of standing, Ninth Circuit vacated, remanded to the Circuit Court with instructions to dismiss it. No ruling on its constitutionality.
The "standing" shenanigans around this bother me greatly. Are we going to see more of this shit in the future; government not defending the laws it is required to defend?
What if it were reversed and a law legalizing gay marriage was challenged and the government chose not to defend it?
The VRA prevented a large amount of gerrymandering in the areas it affected - Ginsburg's dissent has numerous examples.
No where near enough, IMHO. Alabama only has one black representative who happens to be the only democratic rep. Arkansas has 0. Georgia has 4, which is probably a reasonable amount for them. Kentucky has 0. Louisiana only has 1, who is again, their sole democratic representative. Mississippi has 1, again, their sole Democrat, but they only have 4 total, so that's probably okay. North Carolina only has 1. South Carolina only has 1. I haven't checked the other former confederate states yet to see how they stack up, but the numbers so far are pretty grim.
With the exception of Georgia and maybe Mississippi, I think for the most part minorities have been almost completely Gerrymandered out of any political power.
What if it were reversed and a law legalizing gay marriage was challenged and the government chose not to defend it?
An interesting proposition. I just read the syllabus on the opinion, and I might have an answer. California's courts allowed the petitioners for Prop 8 to defend it in the district court, and that initial decision is not actually being reversed by the Supreme Court. What they didn't have standing for is from the federal appeal - according to the Supreme Court,
One essential aspect of this requirement is that any person invoking the power of a federal court must demonstrate standing to do so. In other words, the litigant must seek a remedy for a personal and tangible harm.
The appeal was from the proponents of the bill, who could not significantly demonstrate that they received "harm" in any form from the District's decision, which was an injunction against state enforcement of the law.
Were the places reversed, proponents of gay marriage could defend the bill in the state court, and I'm pretty sure they (at least, gay couples supporting such a law) could demonstrate that a negative ruling on a law allowing gay marriage caused them "personal and tangible harm."
A better hypothetical might be a prop that imposes term limits. If the elected officials oppose term limits would they defend such a prop in court? I imagine an elected official could show harm and gain standing to challenge (their employment is in peril because they can not run again) but who would have standing to defend since their would be nothing in the prop preventing people from running and defeating the incumbent?
What about states that already define marriage as man+woman in their constitution? Can that be changed by a court or must it be changed via an amendment?
What about states that already define marriage as man+woman in their constitution? Can that be changed by a court or must it be changed via an amendment?
I think a federal court would have the power to invalidate that section under the equal protection clause of the federal constitution, but I have no idea whether they would actually make that ruling. I think the next case we're going to see will be one based on the "Full faith and credit" clause of Article IV vs. section 2 of DOMA, over whether one state has to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state.
What about states that already define marriage as man+woman in their constitution? Can that be changed by a court or must it be changed via an amendment?
I think a federal court would have the power to invalidate that section under the equal protection clause of the federal constitution, but I have no idea whether they would actually make that ruling. I think the next case we're going to see will be one based on the "Full faith and credit" clause of Article IV vs. section 2 of DOMA, over whether one state has to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state.
That will be very interesting. More so regarding how the opinion reads and if it leads to other "licenses" aside from marriage having to be recognized by other states.
What about states that already define marriage as man+woman in their constitution? Can that be changed by a court or must it be changed via an amendment?
Hmm, I believe it can be changed in a court if it violates the federal Constitution. For example, if a state were to pass an amendment legalizing slavery, it's still a violation of the federal Constitution and can be shot down in court. Of course, in the case of slavery, it's pretty cut-and-dry as the 13th amendment explicitly bans it. Same-sex marriage is a much more fuzzy issue as marriage itself isn't described anywhere in the Constitution, so it relies on interpretation of other clauses such as the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
I'm really looking forward to the sweet tears of various bloggers. Breitbart and Drudge have been fairly upbeat about it, although Free Republic is in fine form.
In realtalk, it's gonna be great to see the follow up debates. I'll probably pay close attention to what happens in NC, because they were one of the most recent amendments defining marriage.
What about states that already define marriage as man+woman in their constitution? Can that be changed by a court or must it be changed via an amendment?
Hmm, I believe it can be changed in a court if it violates the federal Constitution. For example, if a state were to pass an amendment legalizing slavery, it's still a violation of the federal Constitution and can be shot down in court. Of course, in the case of slavery, it's pretty cut-and-dry as the 13th amendment explicitly bans it. Same-sex marriage is a much more fuzzy issue as marriage itself isn't described anywhere in the Constitution, so it relies on interpretation of other clauses such as the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Would it still be a 14th issue if the state did not confer any special privileges on married couples? (Not likely because those privileges are pretty well ingrained.)
Wasn't that the crux of the case against DOMA? A same sex couple was hit with an inheritance tax because their legal marriage in Canada was not recognized in the states? Thus she was not treated equally to other married couples? (Gross simplification).
They also got married in New York, and were suing over the federal inheritance tax. Yeah, the argument was that DOMA was violating Constitutional promises of equal protection from the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The majority opinion declared Section 3 of DOMA (the one where the federal government doesn't recognize same-sex marriages) as a violation of the Fifth Amendment. This was on the basis that it singled out a class of marriages that received unequal protection.
However, they explicitly declined to comment on how the states can define marriage, so the question of whether a state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment is still up in the air.
I am also curious to see why the ruling was not unanimous. Did the dissenters think it went to far or not far enough or what?
It may have something to do with how the government is largely comprised of morally bereft old people who are disproportionally influenced by ultra wealthy special interest groups.
I am also curious to see why the ruling was not unanimous. Did the dissenters think it went to far or not far enough or what?
Scalia, at least, thought the question wasn't really one for the court - it's up to legislatures and the states to define what "marriage" means. (This conflicts interestingly with his willingness to go against Congress' decisions in Shelby County v. Holder yesterday...) Alito's dissent seemed to be worrying about the standing of the respondents (i.e. Congressional Republicans).
Comments
And here's the opinion in full
Regardless, wrong thread.
The VRA also applied to redistricting - it nicely prevented conservative state legislatures from manipulating existing district boundaries to effectively eliminate black votes.
Also, consider what a friend of mine just pointed out - without the need to appeal to the VRA, polling places in NYC will no longer need to post multilingual signs at polling places.
If state A was on "the bad list" and wanted to do anything involving voting it had to get federal approval. If state B that was not on the bad list wanted to do the same exact thing it did not need federal approval. Vice versa as well, if a "good" state wanted to enact bad changes to voting it was free to do so.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by the DOMA decision.
Also, the VRA does have a provision for adding states to the preclearance coverage based on bad behavior - this happened to Arkansas and New Mexico. There were frequent attempts and redistricting that were blocked by the law, which is why we have black representatives from the South.
In other news, Prop 8 dismissed for lack of standing, Ninth Circuit vacated, remanded to the Circuit Court with instructions to dismiss the appeal. No ruling on its constitutionality.
What if it were reversed and a law legalizing gay marriage was challenged and the government chose not to defend it?
With the exception of Georgia and maybe Mississippi, I think for the most part minorities have been almost completely Gerrymandered out of any political power.
Were the places reversed, proponents of gay marriage could defend the bill in the state court, and I'm pretty sure they (at least, gay couples supporting such a law) could demonstrate that a negative ruling on a law allowing gay marriage caused them "personal and tangible harm."
Yay, humanity!
What about states that already define marriage as man+woman in their constitution? Can that be changed by a court or must it be changed via an amendment?
In realtalk, it's gonna be great to see the follow up debates. I'll probably pay close attention to what happens in NC, because they were one of the most recent amendments defining marriage.
Wasn't that the crux of the case against DOMA? A same sex couple was hit with an inheritance tax because their legal marriage in Canada was not recognized in the states? Thus she was not treated equally to other married couples? (Gross simplification).
The majority opinion declared Section 3 of DOMA (the one where the federal government doesn't recognize same-sex marriages) as a violation of the Fifth Amendment. This was on the basis that it singled out a class of marriages that received unequal protection.
However, they explicitly declined to comment on how the states can define marriage, so the question of whether a state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment is still up in the air.
Alito's dissent seemed to be worrying about the standing of the respondents (i.e. Congressional Republicans).