|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 03:12 PM EDT |
<a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/
we-gave-you-a-chance-todays-shelby-county
-decision-in-plain-english/">Here</a>, in plain English, is an
explanation on SCOTUSblog.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 03:45 PM EDT |
The decision as I understand it removes the requirement that 9 states and parts
of others get permission from DoJ before changing any voting laws and rules.
Including I believe redistricting.
The effect is that rules enacted in some states have been objected to by DoJ in
the 'pre-clearance" states.
It is still illegal to discriminate against voters.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jaken97 on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
What I read of the judgment is this, The court feels Congress was wrong for not
updating the formula(Section 5 of the law) that places states on the watch list
for voting rights when they last re-passed the law in 2006, and that using 40
year old criteria is unjust and that Congress needs to take changes that have
occurred in the last 40 years into account.
Quoted: "Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated
practices. The formula captures States by reference to literacy tests and low
voter registration and turnout in the 1960s and early 1970s. But such tests have
been banned nationwide for over 40 years. And voter registration and turnout
numbers in the covered States have risen dramatically in the years since."
Section 2 of the law, the part the prohibits voter discrimination remains intact
but is temporarily neutered until Congress pass a new section 5 formula.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
