Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSotomayor's Dissent in the Big Voter-Purge Case Points to How the Law Might Still Be Struck Down
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/sonia-sotomayors-husted-dissent-points-the-way-forward-on-racist-voter-purge-laws.htmlSonia Sotomayors Dissent in the Big Voter-Purge Case Points to How the Law Might Still Be Struck Down
By Richard L. Hasen
June 11, 2018
12:33 PM
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a controversial Ohio voter-purge law which allows the state to begin the process of removing voters from the rolls based upon their failure to vote in a single election. No doubt other Republican states will follow suit and adopt Ohios procedures, leading to the removal of a disproportionate number of minority, low-income, and veteran voters from the list of eligible voters. It is an unfortunate decision, but Justice Sonia Sotomayors lone dissent provides two paths forward to mount new attacks on these voter-suppression laws based on their discriminatory impact.
snip//
Whether Alito or Breyer had the stronger analysis of the interplay of the statutory provisions is unclear to me, but both opinions said little about the key political issue underlying the case, an issue Justice Sotomayor flagged in her separate dissent. After noting that Congress passed the Motor Voter law in light of a history of using restrictive registration and purge rules to suppress the vote, the Justice pointed to evidence showing that the process has disproportionately affected minority, low-income, disabled, and veteran voters. She noted evidence that in Hamilton County, Ohio, African-American-majority neighborhoods in downtown Cincinnati had 10% of their voters removed due to inactivity since 2012, as compared to only 4% of voters in a suburban, majority-white neighborhood. She also cited amicus briefs explaining at length how low voter turnout rates, language-access problems, mail delivery issues, inflexible work schedules, and transportation issues, among other obstacles, make it more difficult for many minority, low-income, disabled, homeless, and veteran voters to cast a ballot or return a notice, rendering them particularly vulnerable to unwarranted removal under Ohios process.
Justice Sotomayor pointed out that another provision of the Motor Voter law requires that any removal program be uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act, and this part of the law provides a potential path forward. As more states enact laws like Ohios, it will become further apparent that these laws have discriminatory effects.
And aside from lawsuits, worries about voter suppression have energized the left to fight such laws politically. In at least some states, discriminatory laws like Ohios can be fought through legislative battles and at the ballot box.
Justice Alitos response to Justice Sotomayor is quite telling. He rightly noted that the challenge in this case was not about whether Ohios law was discriminatory. But he added that Justice Sotomayor did not point to any evidence in the record that Ohio instituted or has carried out its program with discriminatory intent.
Contrary to Justice Alitos intimation, plaintiffs alleging a violation of the Voting Rights Act need not prove discriminatory intent; discriminatory impact is enough. Justice Alito may be subtly signaling where the Courts conservative majority is likely to go in future years. At some point the Court may well consider striking down as unconstitutional that part of the Voting Rights Act that holds it is illegal for states to pass voting laws that have a discriminatory impact. He may require plaintiffs to come up with proof of intentional racial discrimination, which is much harder to do.
Fortunately, as of now this part of the Voting Rights Act still stands, and Justice Sotomayor has laid out a two-part strategy to try to reverse discriminatory laws like Ohios. Today voting-rights activists lost the battle, but the war is not yet over.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 875 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (13)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sotomayor's Dissent in the Big Voter-Purge Case Points to How the Law Might Still Be Struck Down (Original Post)
babylonsister
Jun 2018
OP
pandr32
(11,617 posts)1. To Justice Alito...
No evidence? For what other purpose could this law be crafted for in the first place?
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)2. Alito ".. with discriminatory intent." !!!! WTF !?!? He's ignoring decades worth of discrimination
... laws !!
Intent is irrelevant the impact is !!
Fuckin bastard,
Hitler: " I didn't ... intend ... to kill Jews on an industrial scale"
Alito: " OK, you're good "