One of the big three rulings has just been offered from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Liberals are spinning this very hard as a push… but it is anything but. Very much an invalidation of the statute, specifically with regards to preclearance.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a civil rights law that requires some states to get federal permission to change their voting rules, but it struck down the map of which jurisdictions are covered.
…and the folks at MSNBC are naturally livid, but ready with the pre-drafted talking points.
The decision, announced Monday morning, invalidates—at least for now—Section 5, a crucial tool for fighting racial discrimination in voting, and comes at a time of rising concern over efforts to restrict access to the ballot box. It represents a victory for conservatives, and a blow to the voting rights of millions of non-white Americans.
“If the Court struck down or weakened Section 5, it would lead to the largest rollback of American democracy since the end of Reconstruction,” Wade Henderson, the president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, told reporters recently in advance of the ruling.
For those unfamiliar with the process, advocacy groups effectively pre-game most of their responses before the ruling comes down on issues of import. So with regards to this, what you are reading from MSNBC is the “doomsday scenario” predraft from Mr. Henderson.
You can read the opinion yourself here.
UPDATE: Section 4 of the 1964 Civil Rights Voting Act is unconstitutional? Holy wow…
Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2. We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions.
Interesting… “unconstitutional in light of current conditions.”
That’s innovative… and not in a good sense.
UPDATE x2: Now here is an interesting tidbit:
Regardless of how one looks at that record, no one can fairly say that it shows anything approaching the “pervasive,” “flagrant,” “widespread,” and “rampant” discrimination that clearly distinguished the covered jurisdictions from the rest of the Nation in 1965.
It’s pretty clear that the SCOTUS isn’t very impressed by hyperbole or pressure campaigns.
UPDATE x3: Amy Howe over at SCOTUS Blog has more:
In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts that was joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, the Court did not invalidate the principle that preclearance can be required. But much more importantly, it held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which sets out the formula that is used to determine which state and local governments must comply with Section 5’s preapproval requirement, is unconstitutional and can no longer be used. Thus, although Section 5 survives, it will have no actual effect unless and until Congress can enact a new statute to determine who should be covered by it.
In plain English, there it is.
