View Single Post
  #44  
Old 06-25-2013, 07:53 PM
MysticCat MysticCat is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: A dark and very expensive forest
Posts: 12,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by HQWest View Post
The argument seems to be that - instead of highlighting particular counties or states for scrutiny or oversight because of past bad acts (more than 40 years ago), we should assume that these counties will not now revert to their past bad actions and that the money could be better used for general oversight or to responding to specific complaints. Does that sound about right?
No, that's not quite what the majority is saying, though they do talk about how things have changed. What they're saying is that if Congress believes that extra requirements and federal oversight of state and local laws affecting voting are still needed in some places, then the criteria for which places those are are need to be based on current data, not 40-year old data. They do state in their opinion that Congress can define a new formula for which jurisdictions should be subject to Section 5. Whether as a practical matter Congress has the will to pull that off or agree on a new formula is another matter.

Section 2, which applies to the whole country, wasn't affected by today's decision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Missouri Ivy View Post
I may be misreading the opinion (rather, the analysis of the opinion) but I thought the main issue was the data that was being used to decide areas needing congressional oversight. (Section IV). From what I understood, if recent data is collected demonstrating an area (county, state, etc...) is not compliant with the VRA, oversight can be reinstated, because Section V still stands. So, while as of right now, the areas are not bound by Congressional oversight, it isn't necessarily the case it will remain that way. I could be making a botch of it though.
Close. Section 5 requires some jurisdictions to get federal approval of changes in laws that have to do with voting. For now, Section 5 has no teeth, because the formula for which jurisdictions are subject to it has been struck down. Congress would have to come up with a new (and presumably acceptable) formula for Section 5 to come into play again.
__________________
AMONG MEN HARMONY
1898
Reply With Quote