So it was passed under LBJ because of the practices of some Southern states, but the law itself applied to all the states, right? If it did, this sounds a lot like the John Lewis Act to me.
So it was passed under LBJ because of the practices of some Southern states, but the law itself applied to all the states, right? If it did, this sounds a lot like the John Lewis Act to me.
Yeah I was mostly familiar with the "Racism doesn't exist anymore so we don't need this law" argument; that was the rationale I had read the conservatives used, and RBG's dissent that just because it isn't raining right now doesn't mean we should get rid of the umbrella.
But as far as the original VRA, under that law, could a state not originally targeted by the law have decided to start practicing some of the suppression tactics banned by the law in the old Jim Crow states, and not be prohibited from using such tactics by the VRA?
I don't think so. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the VRA prohibited racial discrimination in voting everywhere. What was special about targeted states was that the were required to obtain pre-clearance for *any* changes to voting procedures from the federal government before implementing them. They couldn't just enact changes and wait to defend the inevitable lawsuit.
In other words, they had to ask permission; they couldn't opt to ask forgiveness instead.
Right. According to a Justice Department document on the 2013 "Shelby County vs. Heller" decision, "Section 5 was enacted to freeze changes in election practices or procedures in covered jurisdictions until the new procedures have been determined, either after administrative review by the Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, to have neither discriminatory purpose or effect." So it sounds like if any monitored jurisdiction had tried to tempt fate and sneak something in without pre-approval, any lawsuit filed in opposition would have elicited an immediate stay against its enforcement until the suit was resolved. So there would have been no point. Other jurisdictions might have been able to get away with putting something into effect and enforcing it until a final judgement was issued.
Fingers crossed! A federal law that applied to states selectively seems nuts to me, but if that's what the VRA was, then I could see why it should have been tossed out.
But only states in the Jim Crow south were preventing Blacks from voting by means of a poll tax, literacy tests and a white primary. Also fraud and intimidation. If the other states had done the same, it would have applied to them. But they didn't.
So it was passed under LBJ because of the practices of some Southern states, but the law itself applied to all the states, right? If it did, this sounds a lot like the John Lewis Act to me.
Yeah I was mostly familiar with the "Racism doesn't exist anymore so we don't need this law" argument; that was the rationale I had read the conservatives used, and RBG's dissent that just because it isn't raining right now doesn't mean we should get rid of the umbrella.
But as far as the original VRA, under that law, could a state not originally targeted by the law have decided to start practicing some of the suppression tactics banned by the law in the old Jim Crow states, and not be prohibited from using such tactics by the VRA?
I don't think so. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the VRA prohibited racial discrimination in voting everywhere. What was special about targeted states was that the were required to obtain pre-clearance for *any* changes to voting procedures from the federal government before implementing them. They couldn't just enact changes and wait to defend the inevitable lawsuit.
In other words, they had to ask permission; they couldn't opt to ask forgiveness instead.
OK, so certain states needed the pre-clearance, and others did not? I remember talk of pre-clearance.
Right. According to a Justice Department document on the 2013 "Shelby County vs. Heller" decision, "Section 5 was enacted to freeze changes in election practices or procedures in covered jurisdictions until the new procedures have been determined, either after administrative review by the Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, to have neither discriminatory purpose or effect." So it sounds like if any monitored jurisdiction had tried to tempt fate and sneak something in without pre-approval, any lawsuit filed in opposition would have elicited an immediate stay against its enforcement until the suit was resolved. So there would have been no point. Other jurisdictions might have been able to get away with putting something into effect and enforcing it until a final judgement was issued.
Don't mean to correct you but, it's Shelby County v Holder. Heller is the individual right to a gun decision. Maybe you mistyped?
Oops ... thought that sounded off when I typed it. Thanks!
Among this crowd, corrections are welcome and appreciated! Heller sounded so right, too, but you're definitely right on Holder.
Oh. Good to know. My first thought was, "There's two Heller decisions?" So I looked it up.
Thanks a lot, that makes perfect sense. I appreciate it.
Fingers crossed! A federal law that applied to states selectively seems nuts to me, but if that's what the VRA was, then I could see why it should have been tossed out.
But only states in the Jim Crow south were preventing Blacks from voting by means of a poll tax, literacy tests and a white primary. Also fraud and intimidation. If the other states had done the same, it would have applied to them. But they didn't.