From Ballotpedia Show
BackgroundSee also: Voting Rights ActWhen enacting the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Congress had determined that racial discrimination in voting was more prevalent in certain areas of the country, via practices such as gerrymandering. Sections 4 and 5 were established to end these practices.[1] Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires certain state and local governments to clear changes in election laws with the United States Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia prior to their enactment. This process is known as preclearance. Section 4(b) contains a formula used to determine which governments are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5. [1] The formula covered jurisdictions that had maintained prohibitive voter registration and voting policies, and in which less than 50 percent of the voting age population was registered to vote or had voted in the last presidential election. Section 4(a) allowed jurisdictions subject to Section 5 that had made sufficient progress in ending discriminatory practices to end their preclearance requirement. Preclearance requirements were set to expire five years after enactment in 1965, but amendments passed in 1970, 1975, and 1982 to reauthorize Section 5. The Supreme Court upheld these changes in 1973, 1980, and 1999. In 2006, Congress again reauthorized Section 5, for 25 additional years. The 1970 and 1975 amendments also updated the coverage formula.[1][2] In 2006, in the case Northwest Austin Municipal v. Holder, a Texas utility district sought to end the preclearance requirement, and challenged the constitutionality of Section 5. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2009 that government entities that did not register voters had the right to file suit to end preclearance. The court declined to address the constitutionality of Section 5.[3] Case historyIn 2010, Shelby County, Alabama, an area subject to preclearance, sued the United States Attorney General, challenging Section 4(b) and 5 as unconstitutional. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in 2011 that the evidence before Congress in 2006 was sufficient to justify the re-authorization of Section 5 and the continued use of the formula in Section 4(b). Shelby County appealed. On May 18, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the previous decision, concluding that the use of Section 5 was still justified and that the coverage formula was still acceptable.[4][5] Shelby County appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case on the question of "whether Congress' decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution." [6] Decision Chief Justice John Roberts On June 25, 2013, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) as unconstitutional, as it exceeded Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The majority opinion was delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. The majority reasoned that the disparate treatment of the states was "based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day" and that a state cannot be subject to preclearance because of past discrimination.[7] The court did not determine whether Section 5 is also unconstitutional. However, because Section 5 is only applied to jurisdictions covered by 4(b), Section 5 is effectively rendered inoperable unless Section 4(b) is replaced.[7] Roberts wrote the following for the majority opinion:[7]
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. The dissent argued that Congress had sufficient evidence to determine that the formula of Section 4(b) was still valid. The dissent acknowledged voter discrimination had decreased, but attributed it to the Voting Rights Act itself.[7] Ginsburg wrote the following for the dissent:[7]
ImpactThe following states, as a whole, had been subject to preclearance before the ruling: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. Portions of the following states were also subject to preclearance: California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota.[9] AlabamaSee also: Redistricting in AlabamaOn August 10, 2012, state Democrats, black lawmakers and others filed suit to block implementation of state legislative redistricting plans. According to the lawsuit, the plans diluted minority voting strength, violated the "one person, one vote" principle, and illegally split counties in order to consolidate Republican dominance in other districts. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers argued that "they were complying with the Voting Rights Act in moving black voters to existing majority-minority districts."[10][11] A three-judge federal district court panel rejected the challenge, but the case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. On March 25, 2015, the court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the lower court's initial ruling was "legally erroneous." In the court's majority opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote, "That Alabama expressly adopted and applied a policy of prioritizing mechanical racial targets above all other districting criteria (save one-person, one-vote) provides evidence that race motivated the drawing of particular lines in multiple districts in the State." The court stopped short of deeming the district lines unconstitutional, however. Instead, the court sent the case back to federal district court for further review.[11][12] North CarolinaSee also: Voter identification laws by stateNorth Carolina was the first state to approve a voter identification law after the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Shelby County v. Holder. On July 25, 2013, the North Carolina legislature passed a voter identification law. The law "limits the kind of identification that voters can use at the polls to a North Carolina driver’s license, a state-issued ID card, a military ID, or a U.S. passport." Governor Pat McCrory (R) signed the bill into law on August 12, 2013. Parts of the law took effect in 2014, although primary photo identification requirements were not scheduled to take effect until 2016. Two lawsuits were filed after the governor signed the bill. These suits alleged that the law discriminated against minority groups. On September 30, 2013, the United States Department of Justice sued the state over the requirements, charging that the law's new limits on voting discriminated against minorities and thus violated the Voting Rights Act.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] On June 18, 2015, the General Assembly of North Carolina voted to relax the photo identification requirement set to take effect in 2016. As a result, a voter who does not possess a valid form of identification may cast a ballot by providing poll workers with his or her birthdate, the last four digits of his or her Social Security number, and an affidavit "stating that there is a 'reasonable impediment' to [his or her] ability to present a photo ID."[21][22] See also
External links
Footnotes
Why is it difficult to split an existing county to make a new county in California?Why is it difficult to split an existing county to make a new county in California? The state's constitution requires affirmative majority votes in both the entire county affected and the territory of the proposed new county.
Which of the following are reasons why developers have not built more housing in California in recent years?Which of the following are reasons why developers have not built more housing in California in recent years? There is a shortage of construction labor.
What do Local Agency Formation Commission LAFCo do quizlet?-The county's LAFCo engages in an extensive review of all incorporation plans. -The process of municipal incorporation is not finalized until the state legislature and governor approve the incorporation plan.
What is the purpose of the governor's using the line item veto quizlet?Correct Answer(s): -The line-item veto permits the governor to reduce or delete any appropriation in a spending bill.
|
Why is it difficult to split an existing county to make a new county in california? quizlet
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 IlerngutCOM Inc.
