{"id":32983,"date":"2017-05-08T16:45:50","date_gmt":"2017-05-08T20:45:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sidebarforplaintiffs.naomifein.net\/?p=32983"},"modified":"2017-05-08T16:45:50","modified_gmt":"2017-05-08T20:45:50","slug":"the-voting-rights-act-may-be-coming-back-from-the-dead","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sidebarforplaintiffs.naomifein.net\/?p=32983","title":{"rendered":"“The Voting Rights Act May Be Coming Back From the Dead”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Source: The Voting Rights Act May Be Coming Back From the Dead | Mother Jones<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

I don’t want you all to get too excited about this. I’m too excited. Let me bear the entire burden.<\/p>\n

And just when the racist, gerrymandering, voter suppressing GOP thought it was safe to jump back into the water!<\/p>\n

And just when I wrote about Shelby!<\/a><\/p>\n

And and and…here’s your appetizer (sorry, the formatting seems to have gone a bit haywire but the text of the first three paragraphs is here and complete):<\/p>\n

\u00a0On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court killed the core provision of the Voting Rights Act. Four years later, it may be coming back from the dead.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Before Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 case, the 1965 Voting Rights Act barred nine states<\/a> with a history of discrimination against minority voters, and portions of six others, from passing new voting laws without federal approval. The court’s 5-4 decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, found that the formula for determining which jurisdictions needed approval\u2014or “preclearance”\u2014was outdated and therefore unconstitutional.<\/em><\/p>\n

“Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices,” Roberts wrote, and “‘current burdens’ must be justified by ‘current needs.'” In other words, states couldn’t be subject to preclearance based on the pervasive discrimination of the Jim Crow era, which Roberts wrote was now firmly in the past. Implicit in that ruling was the idea that states could be brought back under preclearance if they showed new evidence of discrimination. The law contains a provision specifically for that purpose, allowing courts to place jurisdictions under preclearance if they demonstrate intentional discrimination.<\/em><\/p>\n

Once more into the breach: boo hiss, John Roberts! You are such a legal sleaze.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Actually, I’d read about this possibility regarding Texas, maybe in the Times. But it feels real now, after this, from Mother Jones. News feels real and factual after at least two other reputable journals publish it. Confirmation, you know.<\/p>\n

I get to republish this from Mother Jones (I picked it up from Twitter) because I just donated to Mother Jones (it’s a pro bono investigative organization).<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Source: The Voting Rights Act May Be Coming Back From the Dead | Mother Jones I don’t want you all to get too excited about this. I’m too excited. Let me bear the entire burden. And just when the racist, … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1095,1175,1265],"tags":[1217,1406,868,1405],"class_list":["post-32983","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics","category-the-facts-of-life","category-voting-rights","tag-mother-jones","tag-shelby-v-holder","tag-supreme-court-of-the-united-states","tag-voting-rights-act-of-1965"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t