VRA Section 4 Overturned

[Bacon King]

"Unconstitutional in light of current conditions"

"Congress may draft a new formula based on current conditions"; Section 5 isn't touched

5-4 split, expected division

[krazen1211]

Excellent news!

Remains to be seen if this immediately moots all the Section V decisions.

[Bacon King]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf

[Bacon King]

Excellent news!

Remains to be seen if this immediately moots all the Section V decisions.

"We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions"

[krazen1211]

Excellent news!

Remains to be seen if this immediately moots all the Section V decisions.

"We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions"

Well, that really doesn't answer the question, particularly if no coverage formula is passed at all.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As expected.  And since Roberts delivered the opinion, unless he wrote the marriage case opinions as well, that's likely all for today.

Excellent news!

Remains to be seen if this immediately moots all the Section V decisions.

Nope.  Only Thomas was for booting section 5.  Roberts' opinion was explicitly that section 4 was constitutional when written, but changing conditions have rendered it a problem.

[minionofmidas]

I also don't think the Court will go as far as to actually strike down Section 5 of the VRA in its entirety. A more limited ruling going after the coverage formula (i.e. Section 4) seems more likely, which kicks the ball over to Congress. Any of the conservative Justices could conceivably write that opinion. However, if Roberts somehow doesn't take the affirmative action case, he'll definitely at least take the VRA case.

Nor should progressives be all that upset if the Court strikes down the coverage formula in the VRA while not touching the concept of preclearance.  The Court already gave a large hint in an earlier case and practically begged Congress to revisit it, so such a ruling would be no surprise, plus the formula is pathetically out of date and in need of an update.

I agree from the Court's perspective, but I don't see how this Congress could come to an agreement on a new formula. I could see Sect 5 with no covered jurisdictions as a result.

Kudos to all of you.

[krazen1211]

http://texasredistricting.tumblr.com/


The Texas Legislature completed the process this weekend of adopting the 2012 interim maps as permanent maps (with just the most minor of changes to the state house map). Those bills now are on Gov. Perry’s desk, awaiting signature.

On the other hand, right now, there is no longer any preclearance bar, and the maps passed by the Texas Legislature back in 2011 are technically legally operative (Plan C185, Plan S148, Plan H283).

Governor Perry now has to decide what to do next.

In some Republican quarters, there conceivably could be a call for return to those maps.

[krazen1211]

As expected.  And since Roberts delivered the opinion, unless he wrote the marriage case opinions as well, that's likely all for today.

Excellent news!

Remains to be seen if this immediately moots all the Section V decisions.

Nope.  Only Thomas was for booting section 5.  Roberts' opinion was explicitly that section 4 was constitutional when written, but changing conditions have rendered it a problem.

Texas redistricting blog suggests that voter ID can be immediately implemented, as it would be in a noncovered jurisdiction.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Before you get all ecstatic krazen, keep in mind that jurisdictions can still be sued over changes to their voting laws, and that changes could be subject to court stays until the court has ruled.  This doesn't give the states carte blanche to start doing whatever they want with no regard to the discriminatory effects of such actions.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Dred Scott is back.

I hope one of these five f**kers retires/dies in the next 3 1/2 years.

[Supersonic]

Good sensible decision.

I would have preferred Section 5 to have been dumped too, but oh well.

[muon2]

I also don't think the Court will go as far as to actually strike down Section 5 of the VRA in its entirety. A more limited ruling going after the coverage formula (i.e. Section 4) seems more likely, which kicks the ball over to Congress. Any of the conservative Justices could conceivably write that opinion. However, if Roberts somehow doesn't take the affirmative action case, he'll definitely at least take the VRA case.

Nor should progressives be all that upset if the Court strikes down the coverage formula in the VRA while not touching the concept of preclearance.  The Court already gave a large hint in an earlier case and practically begged Congress to revisit it, so such a ruling would be no surprise, plus the formula is pathetically out of date and in need of an update.

I agree from the Court's perspective, but I don't see how this Congress could come to an agreement on a new formula. I could see Sect 5 with no covered jurisdictions as a result.

Kudos to all of you.

In fact the way the dissent comes across is primarily as a defense of Sect 5. They seem to recognize without saying that striking Sect 4 and asking Congress to replace it is tantamount to striking Sect 5. My feeling is that the dissenters would like Sect 5 to apply everywhere, and that would resolve the issue at hand, but in lieu of that they want to preserve Sect 5 where it is in effect.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Yeah, this seemingly neuters Section 5 for the time being.

[minionofmidas]

I also don't think the Court will go as far as to actually strike down Section 5 of the VRA in its entirety. A more limited ruling going after the coverage formula (i.e. Section 4) seems more likely, which kicks the ball over to Congress. Any of the conservative Justices could conceivably write that opinion. However, if Roberts somehow doesn't take the affirmative action case, he'll definitely at least take the VRA case.

Nor should progressives be all that upset if the Court strikes down the coverage formula in the VRA while not touching the concept of preclearance.  The Court already gave a large hint in an earlier case and practically begged Congress to revisit it, so such a ruling would be no surprise, plus the formula is pathetically out of date and in need of an update.

I agree from the Court's perspective, but I don't see how this Congress could come to an agreement on a new formula. I could see Sect 5 with no covered jurisdictions as a result.

Kudos to all of you.

In fact the way the dissent comes across is primarily as a defense of Sect 5. They seem to recognize without saying that striking Sect 4 and asking Congress to replace it is tantamount to striking Sect 5.

Well, it is. Or more to the point tantamount to repealing it without banning its reintroduction forever.