NYT Defends Wrong Way To Defend Voting Rights



Opinion/Editorial

 

  Is it me or should the New York Times just shut up when talking about the rights of others and first of all understand what they are supposedly defending. Most often they don't even understand what they're Opining about.

  This mornings lead OPED entitled "A New Defense of Voting Rights" is just an example.

  It begins "On Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. took an important step toward repairing the damage from last month’s Supreme Court ruling striking down a central element of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He is right to adopt an aggressive approach to defending the most fundamental right in our democracy."

  Yeah please like the NYT believes in any fundamental rights when it comes to a democracy,they only want to defend rights of those who buy into their warped socialist political leftist agenda.

  It goes on "In a federal lawsuit first brought by black and Hispanic voters against Texas over its redistricting maps, the Justice Department relied on a rarely used provision of the act, Section 3, to ask a federal court to require Texas to get permission before making any voting changes in the state."

  In true left wing fashion if all else fails bring a law suit. Asking permission of who the Big HUGE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT how about the 10 the amendment. On another point I would be willing to bet that the Hispanic voters most of them are probably illegal immigrants (oh for you idiotic liberals out there your favorite politically correct term "undocumented immigrants")

   The remainder of the hyperbull "Until last month, Texas already had to get such permission under the act’s “preclearance” process. This process had long been the most effective means of preventing racial bias in voting laws in states with histories of discrimination. It required state and local governments that wanted to change the laws to first show there would be no discriminatory effect. In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the act as unconstitutional; that provision laid out the formula that determined which jurisdictions had to get permission.

In theory, the court’s ruling allows Congress to update the list of nine states and parts of six others identified by Section 4. But given the dysfunction of Congress, that will not happen anytime soon.

This is why Mr. Holder’s decision to rely on Section 3 in the Texas case is so significant. Section 3 — also known as the “bail-in” provision — may be the most promising tool we have to protect voting rights after Shelby. It allows courts to identify jurisdictions that are passing intentionally discriminatory voting laws and then “bail” them in as needed — that is, require them to get permission before establishing new voting rules.

This is functionally similar to the system the court struck down last month, but Section 3 has several distinguishing features. It does not contain a preset list of jurisdictions, and it is forward-looking: instead of relying primarily on historical evidence of discrimination, it allows individual voters or the government to ask courts to zero in on any jurisdiction, like Texas, that continues to try to impose racially discriminatory voting laws.

Section 3 is also flexible. The period of coverage for preclearance under Section 3 is determined by court order, and may last for only as long as a federal judge deems it necessary to overcome voting discrimination in that jurisdiction.

These features make Section 3 a useful provision, but it has its weaknesses. The preclearance may be imposed only if a federal judge determines that the jurisdiction’s laws are intentionally discriminatory. When the Voting Rights Act was passed, such laws were much easier to identify. But lawmakers have since discovered countless ways to discriminate on the basis of race without saying so explicitly, and will continue to do so.

In the Texas case, a Federal District Court in Washington found that state redistricting maps showed intentional discrimination — among other things, black and Hispanic lawmakers were excluded from the map-drawing process, and districts were drawn to minimize the power of minority voters in ways that “could not have happened by accident,” including one district shaped like a lightning bolt. While the Texas record is full of clear evidence of discriminatory intent, in most places such a claim is harder to show. To address that problem, the Congressional Black Caucus has called for Section 3 to be amended to apply to voting laws that have a discriminatory effect, whether or not intent can be proved. If Congress is serious about protecting voting rights, it should pass this amendment immediately.

Some Republicans, like Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, have spoken out recently in favor of Section 3 as a method of protecting voting rights after Shelby. But Republican support for any amendment is uncertain at best, and some party members have vowed to oppose any fixes to the Voting Rights Act in light of the Justice Department’s filing.

Texas remains a hothouse of voter discrimination, where laws of dubious legality seem to sprout every day. The Justice Department’s brief cited four instances in the last three years alone in which local jurisdictions failed to show that proposed voting changes did not have a discriminatory purpose. That’s not including either the redistricting case or a separate suit filed over Texas’s new voter ID law, which will also be put on hold if the Section 3 request is successful.

Gov. Rick Perry has complained that the Justice Department’s action was an “end run” around the Supreme Court and cast “unfair aspersions” on his state. He should be more concerned with reversing Texas’s long run of discriminatory voting laws."

  Does the NYT think we are stupid apparently this is so.But as Constitutionalists such as those of you who follow this blog know that the only reason why the NYT picked Texas because it isn't a politically correct blue leaning state and a state that believes in it's constitutional rights.