tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8446351548038522890.post7505834065125005651..comments2024-03-08T13:21:43.158-05:00Comments on Saideman's Semi-Spew: How Short is Your Memory?Steve Saidemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881915512311951902noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8446351548038522890.post-39125630796554627452013-02-28T10:47:27.013-05:002013-02-28T10:47:27.013-05:00I agree that voter suppression is a real and prese...I agree that voter suppression is a real and present problem. But a problem with section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, as currently applied, is that Congress didn't do its job the last time they reauthorized the Act (in 2006). The list of covered jurisdictions is basically the same as in 1965, based on data from the 1960 and 1964 elections. Thus Louisiana has to get preclearance for changes to voting procedures, but Kentucky does not. Certain counties in North Carolina have to get preclearance from DOJ or a panel of judges, but no county in Ohio needs to do so. Congress did not seek updated information to see where section 5 should be applied. Are we sure that voter suppression is a bigger issue in Georgia than in Tennessee? (GA is covered by section 5, TN is not.) Why is Texas covered, but not Oklahoma?<br /><br />Congress could have made studies, gathered data, set forth updated legislative findings, and provided sound justification for the selective application of section 5. As I understand it, they chose not to do so.<br /><br />Thus at oral arguments we get exchanges like this was between Solicitor General Verrilli and Justice Alito:<br /><br />GENERAL VERRILLI: I'll point out there's a certain irony in the argument that what -- that what Petitioner wants is to substitute Section 2 litigation of that kind for the Section 5 process, which is much more efficient and much more -- and much speedier, much more efficient and much more cost effective.<br />JUSTICE ALITO: Then why shouldn't it apply everywhere in the country?<br /><br />Later, Justice Kennedy picked up the same theme:<br /><br />JUSTICE KENNEDY: Do you think the preclearance device could be enacted for the entire United States.<br />GENERAL VERRILLI: I don't think there is a record that would substantiate that. But I do think Congress was -<br />JUSTICE KENNEDY: And that is because that there is a federalism interest in each State being responsible to ensure that it has a political system that acts in a democratic and a civil and a decent and a proper and a constitutional way.<br /><br />One solution to the current legal challenge to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act would be to make section 5 apply to <i>everyone</i>. Voter suppression and election day chicanery are not limited to any one region of the country, or to only certain cities or certain precincts. <br /><br /><i>Make every jurisdiction in the country get preclearance</i>. Make every jurisdiction in the country get pre-clearance for their changes to election procedures. Make every state get the DOJ or a panel of judges to sign off on their latest district maps and their egregious gerrymandering. Make every city council think twice before it closes a certain polling station.<br /><br />This will never happen, because it would be a huge increase in workload for the Justice Department and federal judges, and it would be monstrously expensive, and Congress has little incentive to make it happen. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com