SCOTUS on “preclearance” laws: Uh, we’ll get back to you
June 22nd, 2009 by Rightwing Czar at 5:54 pmLook on the bright side: A quiet Court is a whole lot better than a meddlesome one:
The Supreme Court compromised Monday in a major voting rights case, finding that a powerful enforcement tool in the landmark Voting Rights Act was being applied too broadly.
However, the decision avoided the larger issue of whether the federal government should continue to have oversight to ensure that local areas are free of voter discrimination.
The Court basically said that in this very specific instance the preclearance laws are being used too broadly – and that’s pretty much a no-brainer when you look at the details of the case. But as Roberts put it, the real constitutional question about whether or not preclearance laws are even remotely constitutional was avoided:
But Roberts noted in his ruling that the preclearance provision raises “serious constitutional questions.” And he added that it “represents an intrusion into areas of state and local responsibility that is unfamiliar to our federal system.”
Preclearance laws in general don’t bother me a great deal, because let’s face it, the South engaged in some viscious voter discrimination in the past that we can’t necessarily say has gone completely away. But you know what, if the federal government is going to be in the business of monitoring the integrity of the polls, it isn’t just the South they should be keeping an eye on.
I’m not going to give my opinion on whether or not preclearance laws are even constitutional because I’m no scholar – but it does seem like there should be some way for areas like the one here in Texas can “prove” themselves capable of non-discriminatory elections and rid themselves of having to go through Washington to move a polling location.
So who in the audience thinks that fighting preclearance laws will be easier once we get a “wise Latina woman” who supports absurd levels of affirmative action on the court?