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
North Carolina
Related: About this forumHolder seeks to restore key Voting Rights Act protections in Texas
Last edited Thu Jul 25, 2013, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)
Attorney General Eric Holder announced Thursday morning that the Department of Justice would seek to "bail in" the state of Texas to the preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act, citing "intentional" and "pervasive" racial discrimination in the state's voting laws. Because of that history of discrimination, Holder said, "we believe the state of Texas should be subject" to the VRA's preclearance provision, which would require the state to seek approval from the Federal government before changing any of its voting laws.
Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that the formula used by Congress to determine which states and localities should be subject to preclearance was unconstitutional, but it left intact the preclearance provision itself as well as the mechanism for "bailing in" state and local governments on an ad hoc basis.
After the court's ruling, Texas immediately declared plans to impose new voting restrictions that would make it more difficult for racial and ethnic minorities to vote. The state's attorney general gleefully boasted that Eric Holder "could no longer deny" Texas the ability to remake voting rights in the state. With today's news, it appears he may have spoken too quickly.
In his remarks, Holder indicated that the Texas decision was just the beginning of a DOJ inititiative to use the bail in provision.
This is the departments first action to protect voting rights following the Shelby County decision, but it will not be our last, Mr. Holder said. Even as Congress considers updates to the Voting Rights Act in light of the courts ruling, we plan, in the meantime, to fully utilize the laws remaining sections to subject states to preclearance as necessary. My colleagues and I are determined to use every tool at our disposal to stand against such discrimination wherever it is found.
Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that the formula used by Congress to determine which states and localities should be subject to preclearance was unconstitutional, but it left intact the preclearance provision itself as well as the mechanism for "bailing in" state and local governments on an ad hoc basis.
After the court's ruling, Texas immediately declared plans to impose new voting restrictions that would make it more difficult for racial and ethnic minorities to vote. The state's attorney general gleefully boasted that Eric Holder "could no longer deny" Texas the ability to remake voting rights in the state. With today's news, it appears he may have spoken too quickly.
In his remarks, Holder indicated that the Texas decision was just the beginning of a DOJ inititiative to use the bail in provision.
This is the departments first action to protect voting rights following the Shelby County decision, but it will not be our last, Mr. Holder said. Even as Congress considers updates to the Voting Rights Act in light of the courts ruling, we plan, in the meantime, to fully utilize the laws remaining sections to subject states to preclearance as necessary. My colleagues and I are determined to use every tool at our disposal to stand against such discrimination wherever it is found.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/25/1226425/-Holder-seeks-to-restore-key-Voting-Rights-Act-protections-in-Texas?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29
I believe the Justice Dept will step in here.
Update from Progress NC BREAKING NEWS: The U.S. Justice Department announced this morning that it will file new law suits against states that have passed anti-voting laws with voter ID requirements and other limitations. Actions are expected to be filed against 21 states -- and North Carolina will become one of them if the NC House passes HB589 as expected. Will our lawmakers expose NC to millions in legal fees by passing this bill? We will know by the end of the afternoon. Please see The Washington Post for details.
https://www.facebook.com/ProgressNorthCarolinaAction?ref=br_tf
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)
3 replies, 1494 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 (4)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Holder seeks to restore key Voting Rights Act protections in Texas (Original Post)
octoberlib
Jul 2013
OP
nclib
(1,013 posts)1. Thank you. I sure hope so.
And I hope there is something they can do.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)2. This is good news.
North Carolina next, hopefully.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)3. If the bill passes today , we should be nt