SCOTUS's ruling on the Voting Rights Act

Discussion in 'Politics' started by monkjr, Jul 26, 2013.

  1. monkjr

    monkjr Senior Member

    Do you agree with the decision the SCOTUS made in striking down the federal oversight provisions of the Voting Rights Act?

    Especially now in retrospect of what immediate action state governments have done to enact legislation that seems redundant and wasteful spending of city budgets tax $:

    1. Early voting (helps everybody really and the economy since long lines for a day means that many people aren't producing something for the country)

    2. Voter ID laws that already consider the previous elections Voter ID documents invalid for representation of your right to vote the next time. (new process to get the proper voter identification papers and documentation ALL OVER again)


    EDIT: OK let's use Texas as an example of how states have reacted once parts of the Voting Rights Act was struck down.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#52583511
     
  2. Alternative_Thinker

    Alternative_Thinker Darth Mysterious

    You owe me one Monk, looking into this matter really gave me a headache, LOL. xD
    Well, joke aside....... Allow me to ask the following as I am not American and I can't quite relate to the US law system.

    So, this legislation was placed to ensure ALL Americans, regardless of their ethnic backgrounds, could vote in a racism-free environment, yes? But this section that was just struck down, from what I've read so far it was a guideline of sorts for determining which states SPECIFICALLY would be subjected to receiving extra scrutiny during the voting process and whatnot(to ensure no racial discrimination was taking place), am I understanding this correctly?

    See, if that were the case then I could see why SCOTUS would find it "unconstitutional". If there were specific states that were receiving an extra level of scrutiny based solely on their (past) notorious reputations, then wouldn't THAT also be a form of discrimination? The flaw right there, in my opinion(and an outsider's one at that), is that they didn't make this tight scrutiny concept a national, mandatory thing in the first place. Plus, let's face it, the legislation IS outdated. When it was originally placed, it might have served the intended purpose, the otherwise hypocritical nature of the regionally enhanced scrutiny aspect of this thing notwithstanding. But now in the 21st century? I think the whole thing needs to be reviewed and altered, if you ask me.

    HOWEVER, that is not to say I am for what the states like Texas are trying to achieve either, where their attempts to pass their own voting legislation are concerned. I believe this is something that should be handled on a federal level rather than state-by-state. With this kind of stuff, an emphasis on the enhanced scrutiny concept should not be placed only where racial discrimination rate is high, but rather this should be a national standard of sorts.

    That's what I think.
     
  3. monkjr

    monkjr Senior Member

    That's exactly right, you've understand the problem perfectly and it seems both perspectives as well.

    The more telling thing is, how are the states that just got those restrictions lifted, reacting? In many cases it seems that the way they're gerrymandering districts, restricting early voting, seems to suggest that voter suppression is not in the (PAST) because without the restrictions and extra scrutiny it still goes on.

    It's the equivalent of a parent paying extra scrutiny to the unruly children in a family, while the other children with better reputations don't get that level of scrutiny because of their history.

    If you know certain demographics of people (race, economic class ect.) vote between certain hours on voting day, and executive and legislative restrictions are placed upon those hours, one could say there is enough statistical evidence to make the claim voter discrimination is taking place in MODERN DAY because of who is affected.
     
  4. Alternative_Thinker

    Alternative_Thinker Darth Mysterious

    Well, the whole Shelby County v. Holder case - which I guess is the very case where SCOTUS struck down part of the federal voting legislation - is a great example of voter discrimination taking place TODAY. When you think about that, on the one hand you would recognize the flaw in the SCOTUS's decision of striking down a section of the legislation. It's like, discrimination has been taking place the WHOLE TIME, so why remove a section of the very law that is essentially designed to prohibit it, thus rendering it practically ineffective?

    On the other hand, though, this is where you might also recognize something else; if The Voting Rights Act was designed to ensure that ALL Americans could vote in a discrimination-free environment, and yet discrimination was still happening all these years even with this legislation being placed, then what good is it??

    I'm looking at this from a non-political perspective, though. I'm not a politically inclined person. I'm just trying to express what I think from the perspective that actually makes sense to me. What does NOT make sense to me is how some Americans can STILL hold racist views when America is a multicultural country.
     
  5. Sig

    Sig Senior Member

    We are? Could have fooled me.
     
  6. monkjr

    monkjr Senior Member

    Haha, the sarcasm. But to your credit it's true, depending on where you live in the USA, one could question whether the USA is a multicultural nation.

    Surely you see it in more urban areas, like Los Angeles and New York.
     
  7. Sig

    Sig Senior Member

    I live in a urban setting (Twin Cities). There is certainly ethnic/racial diversity here but I think it isn't as pronounced as the places you mentioned. Even then, I wouldn't call the area "multicultural". Then again, I don't buy into the whole concept that multiculturalism is a good thing.
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice