Quantcast
Connect with us

The fight isn’t over: Voting rights may be headed back to the Supreme Court

Published

on

This story originally appeared at BillMoyers.com

In the summer of 2012, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R) bragged that the voter ID law he’d helped pass was “gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.” That law was short-lived: a federal judge issued a ruling that, as the New York Times reported, the law “hampered the ability of hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians to cast their ballots, with the burden falling most heavily on elderly, disabled and low-income residents, and that the state’s reason for the law — that it was needed to combat voter fraud — was not supported by the facts.”

ADVERTISEMENT

This summer, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp was caught in a moment of candor when he warned a crowd of fellow Republicans: “The Democrats are working hard… registering all these minority voters that are out there and others that are sitting on the sidelines, [and] if they can do that, they can win these elections in November.”

When the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act last June, it was an open invitation to states with a history of voting discrimination – previously required to clear voting restrictions with the Department of Justice – to enact laws that made it harder for traditionally Democratic-leaning groups to cast a ballot. The demographic headwinds facing the GOP, rather than the mythical specter of voter fraud, motivated those legislatures to do so with gusto. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 22 states have enacted new voting restrictions since the Republican “wave” election in 2010. For 15 of them, this November will be the first test.

But the fight for voting rights continues in the courts. On Thursday, Richard Wolf reported for USA Today that a series of challenges to various states’ restrictive voting laws may ultimately send the Voting Rights Act back to the Supreme Court. Wolf writes:

 The Supreme Court’s decision last year eliminating a barrier against voting procedure changes in mostly Southern states came with a caveat: Chief Justice John Roberts warned that the Voting Rights Act still included a “permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting.”

Now federal courts from Texas to Wisconsin are on the verge of deciding whether Roberts was right — or if what remains of the 1965 law after the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling is less able to stop states from making it harder to vote.

An appeals court hearing Friday in the Wisconsin case, following a two-week trial in a Texas district court, might point the way back to the Supreme Court. Cases in North Carolina and Ohio also could be headed that way.

Those states and others have made voting more difficult in recent years to combat what they claim are instances of voter fraud. Texas imposed strict new photo identification rules hours after the Supreme Court ruling. North Carolina cut back on early voting, same-day registration and provisional balloting.

They were among 15 states freed in whole or in part from Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires states with a history of discrimination to clear any changes with the Justice Department. The high court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder struck down the list of states dating back a half century.

Wisconsin and Ohio were not Section 5 states. But Wisconsin’s list of restrictions and Ohio’s cutback on early voting are targets for the next-best defense against discrimination: Section 2, which puts the burden of proof on victims to prove racial discrimination in voting once changes have been enacted.

“This is a test for how strong Section 2 can be, how strong a bulwark it’s going to be against voting discrimination going forward,” says Wendy Weiser of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. “I think it is highly likely that one or more of those cases will end up before the U.S. Supreme Court at some point.”

There’s more. Read the whole story at USA Today.

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

‘Recipe for disaster’: Officials in Florida city say they face ‘unimaginable’ potential death from COVID-19

Published

on

Officials in the Florida city of Hialeah are warning that they are uniquely vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic and face the possibility of "unimaginable" death from the disease.

In interviews with The Daily Beast, the officials explained how their large population of senior citizens is at grave risk if Hialeah erupts as a major COVID-19 hotspot.

"I think it is going to get a lot worse," Hialeah Councilman Jesus Tundidor tells The Daily Beast. “The experts have been telling us to expect a peak [in Florida] near the end of the month. As we get more testing sites up and running, the more positive cases we will see. And that will create more fear."

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

November 2019 intel report warned of COVID-19 ‘cataclysmic event’ — even as Trump still insists no one saw it coming

Published

on

An intelligence report issued in November 2019 warned that COVID-19 could severely disrupt daily life throughout the world and described it as a potential "cataclysmic event."

ABC News reports that the military's National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI) late last year issued a report that raised alarms about "an out-of-control disease" that "would pose a serious threat to U.S. forces in Asia."

"Analysts concluded it could be a cataclysmic event," one source tells ABC News, who also says that the report was briefed "multiple times" to the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s Joint Staff and the White House.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Increasingly detached Trump frequently fantasizes about proving critics wrong about unproven coronavirus treatment: report

Published

on

President Donald Trump is leaning on the comfort of Fox News pals, Rudy Giuliani and his family as the coronavirus overwhelms his presidency and keeps him from the campaign trail.

The president has grown even more detached and distrustful of the government he oversees and the medical experts trying to guide him through the pandemic, and he's betting heavily on the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine as a miracle cure for the virus, reported The Daily Beast.

Continue Reading
 
 
You need honest news coverage. Help us deliver it. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free.
close-image