Supreme Court to review law on minority voting rights - Reuters

D

Diablo

New member
  • Tweet
  • Share this
  • Email
  • Print

[h=3]Related News[/h]



[h=3]Analysis & Opinion[/h]



[h=3]Related Interactive[/h]



r
People line up for admission at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington October 1, 2012.
Credit: Reuters/Gary Cameron


Fri Nov 9, 2012 4:40pm EST

(Reuters) - The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to review a legal challenge to the Voting Rights Act, a landmark law adopted in 1965 to protect African-American voters who had faced decades of discrimination at the polls.
The high court accepted an appeal brought by Shelby County, Alabama, challenging a core provision of the act that requires nine states and several local governments with a history of bias to get federal permission to change their election procedures.
Arguments in the case will likely be heard by the Supreme Court in early 2013, with a decision expected by the end of June.
Shelby County sued in 2010, challenging Section 5 of the law, which demands that places with a history of discrimination obtain approval from the Justice Department or a special court for new district lines, ballot rules or other election changes.
The federal screening aims to ensure that any proposed changes do not impair voting rights based on race. It covers all or part of 16 states, most of them in the South.
The suit contends that the preclearance requirement is a federal encroachment on state sovereignty that is no longer needed after more than 40 years of fighting racial discrimination.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a 2-1 decision in May upheld the federal preclearance requirement, saying Congress had enough evidence of recent racial discrimination to justify reauthorizing the law in 2006.
In its petition to the Supreme Court, Shelby County's lawyer argued the statute's coverage formula was based on data more than 35 years old, and that discrimination no longer existed in the places singled out for screening.
The case is Shelby County, Alabama, v. Holder, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-96.
(Reporting by Terry Baynes and Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Peter Cooney)

  • Tweet this
  • Link this
  • Share this
  • Digg this
  • Email
  • Reprints

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
Oh, you mean the same Supreme Court that threw America and her Constitution under the bus over Obamacare? Don’t bother. You have made yourself irrelevant to anything dealing with serious issues. Go away.

Nov 09, 2012 4:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse

I like folks like AZWarrior. They show the exact ideological ranting/illogical arguments that cost the GOP the election.
What in the world does a decision on a health care law have to do with voting rights? Look, you guys lost the election, get over it and get to compromising. Actually, you know what? Don’t. Hopefully the GOP falls then and Libertarians will take their place instead.

Nov 09, 2012 4:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse

When it comes to voting there is NO minority or majority. There is only eligible or not eligible. Illegal immigrants are NOT eligible. Non-citizens are NOT eligible. How do we know who is or who is not eligible because we cannot trust those that are NOT eligible to be honest because they are breaking the law by trying to vote (or are being encouraged to try and vote-now who would do that?)? They(everyone) have to have an ID to PROVE they are eligible. Why is that so hard? And I am not even a lawyer-just a citizen.

Nov 09, 2012 5:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse

See All Comments » Add Your Comment



p-89EKCgBk8MZdE.gif
 
Back
Top