Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
→‎The Voting Rights Act of 1965: remove factor that was probably considered by the VRA's authors (preliminary injunctions require passing a 4-factor test plus litigation costs)
Line 98: Line 98:     
The basis for the law and where it applies is this:  if there is any evidence of racial discrimination in how elections are run by a State or local government, then it can be designated as subject to the Voting Rights Act for future elections.  The Act was enacted by an overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled Congress and president in order to exert greater federal control over the election process in response to Southern states continually inventing new devices that prevented or abridged the ability for blacks to vote.  Congress declared the purpose of its pre-clearance provision to shift the burden to States: {{cquote|Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims.}}
 
The basis for the law and where it applies is this:  if there is any evidence of racial discrimination in how elections are run by a State or local government, then it can be designated as subject to the Voting Rights Act for future elections.  The Act was enacted by an overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled Congress and president in order to exert greater federal control over the election process in response to Southern states continually inventing new devices that prevented or abridged the ability for blacks to vote.  Congress declared the purpose of its pre-clearance provision to shift the burden to States: {{cquote|Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims.}}
−
''South Carolina v. Katzenbach'', 383 U.S. 301, 328 (1966) (citation omitted).  But today federal courts issue injunctions within days, if not hours, of any racial discrimination by a state, so the state justification for the pre-clearance requirement seems more political than grounded in reality.
+
''South Carolina v. Katzenbach'', 383 U.S. 301, 328 (1966) (citation omitted).
    
You might be surprised what is considered to be racial discrimination that triggers application of the Voting Rights Act for all future elections.  In Texas, officials did not print a Spanish version of the ballot in one election, and in a 1975 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the criteria for coverage under Section 4 were written to include Texas based upon this action.  Indeed, ballots now have to be printed at enormous local expense in numerous foreign languages, or else the Voting Rights Act could be applied against the state or local government.
 
You might be surprised what is considered to be racial discrimination that triggers application of the Voting Rights Act for all future elections.  In Texas, officials did not print a Spanish version of the ballot in one election, and in a 1975 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the criteria for coverage under Section 4 were written to include Texas based upon this action.  Indeed, ballots now have to be printed at enormous local expense in numerous foreign languages, or else the Voting Rights Act could be applied against the state or local government.
Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
3,135

edits

Navigation menu