Quote Of The Day - Texas Voter Suppression Edition

"The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters."  -- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who along with Justices Sotomayor and Kagan dissented with the right-wing majority decision to let the Texas voter I.D.  suppression law stand.  Earlier, U.S. District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos had issued an order throwing out the Texas law on the grounds that it constituted an unconstitutional poll tax and was clearly designed to suppress voting by Democratic constituencies. After the Republican-majority 5th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed Judge Ramos' ruling, the Justice Department and civil rights groups had appealed to the Supreme Court for relief.

This is why we needed the Voting Rights Act, and why its gutting by the Republican Supreme Court was so important to the desperate anti-democratic forces of the far right.

NBA Bans Sterling For Life

With breaking news that National Basketball Association Commissioner Adam Silver has banned L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling for life as a result of Sterling's racist comments, we thought we'd run this segment from Jon Stewart last night.   Once again, thank you Chief Justice Roberts and your white, right-wing Republican brethren on the Court for declaring that Racism is Dead (someone just forgot to tell Sterling and Cliven "Hoof" Bundy).

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

A Lifeline for Voting Rights?

In addition to possible, but unlikely, Congressional action focusing on fixes to Section 4 of the VRA, there's certain legal action on the horizon utilizing the VRA's Section 2 to halt discriminatory voting procedures:

There is, however, a possible hurdle for those waging the "war on voting." The Supreme Court undermined the Voting Rights Act by targeting Section 5 of the law -- the provision related to pre-clearance -- ordering Congress to come up with new standards and leaving this area of the law unenforceable. But Section 2 of the VRA -- described by Chief Justice John Roberts in his ruling as "permanent" and applicable "nationwide" -- remains intact.

What does Section 2 of the VRA do?  It

...bans voting procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups.... To win a Section 2 case, the Justice Department or a plaintiff doesn't need to prove that a voting procedure had an invidious intent -- only that it had the result of denying a racial or language minority an opportunity to take part in the political process.

That just might be a legal threshold voting rights advocates can reach;  however, whether courts would hear such an argument prior to a voting procedure being employed during an election is doubtful.  The outcome would also depend, of course, on a fair and impartial hearing (eg., unlike that given the VRA by the antebellum, partisan Roberts court, with its made-up rationales).  Still, it's another possible tool to fight back against Rethuglican voter suppression until we have a Court that can overturn the Shelby County v. Holder decision.

Polling on Voting Rights and Marriage Equality

It appears that not only does the arc of the moral universe bend toward justice, but so does the American public -- and it's not even close.   From the latest ABC/ Washington Post poll:

Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the U.S. Supreme Court’'s decision providing legally married same-sex couples with the same federal benefits given to other married couples?
Approve: 56
Disapprove: 41

Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the U.S. Supreme Court'’s decision striking down a key part of the federal law overseeing voting rights for minorities?
Approve: 33
Disapprove: 51

Letters We Wish We'd Written Dept. -- Voting Rights Edition

From today's once great Washington Post Kaplan Daily:

Regarding the June 26 front-page article “Court blocks key part of Voting Rights Act”:

The Supreme Court majority in the voting rights decision has forgotten some bitter history. In the 1890s, “redeemer” movements managed to cancel the protections of the 15th Amendment and to disenfranchise voters whose right to vote is protected by it. That sweeping counter-movement, featuring literacy tests, poll taxes and other obstructive devices, was heralded — and licensed — by a similarly improvident Supreme Court decision. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) the majority of that day held, airily, that “separate but equal” signified racial inferiority only insofar as those disadvantaged by the doctrine perceived it that way.

Justice John Marshall Harlan, a Kentuckian and former Confederate officer, dissented. He knew his history and understood the dangers and potential mischief that could take many decades to correct. He saw that the court had fastened a “badge of inferiority” on black people.

Speaking of the 15th Amendment, many will wonder how the Roberts court could hold unconstitutional what the Constitution itself empowers Congress to do by “appropriate legislation.” Is this court a better judge of what is constitutionally appropriate than Congress? That is the paramount question this foolish decision raises. Judicial arrogance can hardly go further.

Edwin M. Yoder Jr., Alexandria

Well put, sir.  (See also blog posting below.)

Quote of the Day -- SCOTUS Edition

“[T]he Court’s opinion can hardly be described as an exemplar of restrained and moderate decision making.  Quite the opposite. Hubris is a fit word for today’s demolition of the VRA.”  -- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, in her dissenting opinion following the Supreme Court's gutting of the VRA today in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder et al.

UPDATE:  With these cases being decided by assholes restrained and moderate jurists like this,  what's the big deal?

Court Undermines Voting Rights Act

The 5-member right-wing majority of the Supreme Court today struck down the section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that established a formula for determining whether States and local jurisdictions were engaged in discrimination in laws concerning voting.  The Court indicated that Congress needed to update the formula to make it contemporary with current voting patterns.   Without a determining formula, the Court effectively undermines the provision in the Voting Rights Act that requires States and local jurisdictions subject to the formula to "pre clear" any changes to their voting requirements with the Justice Department, such as changes in polling places, voter ID requirements, etc.

Clearly, the Court's right-wing majority intends that the obstructionist Rethugs in Congress will do absolutely nothing to update the law to restrict voter suppression measures against minority voters who vote overwhelmingly against them.  Along with Rethug obstruction on immigration reform, we're confident that the green light that the right-wing Court majority gave to voter suppression will mobilize the targets of their partisan war like never before.