General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt's a twofer:Although Section 5 is technically left intact, it is effectively nullified
<snip>
The court, split on ideological lines, did not go as far as striking down Section 5 of the law, known as the preclearance provision, which requires certain states to get approval from the Justice Department or a federal court before making election-law changes.
But a majority did invalidate Section 4 of the act, which sets the formula for states covered by Section 5 and was based on historic patterns of discrimination against minority voters.
Although Section 5 is technically left intact, it is effectively nullified, at least for the near future, as Congress would now need to pass new legislation setting a new formula before it can be applied again.
As a result, the ruling is a heavy blow for civil rights advocates, who believe the loss of a working preclearance program could lead to an increase in attempts to deter minorities from voting. They say that 31 proposals made by covered jurisdictions to modify election laws have been blocked by the Justice Department under Section 5 since the law was re-enacted in 2006.
<snip>
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE95O0TU20130625?irpc=932
Partisan asshats!
byeya
(2,842 posts)MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,907 posts)I'm being sent on a blind date with some guy named Jim Crow. How do you think I feel?