Political Crossfire Forums

I say good. I liked their reasoning, and singling out certain states because of stuff 40 years ago is dumb.

well the only reason it was held up in 1966 was because "exceptional conditions can justify legislative measures not otherwise appropriate" (quoting South Carolina v. Katzenbach), as the entire thing is actually unconstitutional. congress has no business telling the states what to do there, nor does it have business singling out certain states over others. but anyway, are you going to tell me that the situation from 1966 to 2013 has unchanged in that it is still "exceptional"? that doesn't seem very "exceptional" to me, that seems like the rule. and sadly as we have devolved into a land where men trump laws, the real law in this case, the constitution, would have never allowed the voting rights act, and the supreme court acknowledged that in 1966

Oh My God, the SCOTUS actually got one right.

so you are saying that "exceptional conditions", the basis for the 1966 ruling, no longer exist?

sure, they said "may". doesn't matter, the important part is why they said it was "legal": exceptional conditions. so why is it unconstitutional? because the 10th amendment ensures states can regulate elections. that some formula makes some states have to ask permission to make any changes is outrageous as it violates the principle of equal sovereignty of the states: why should one state get a pass and another not? the only reason is because of "exceptional conditions", which don't exist anymore. it's using a formula of "did you used to have literacy tests and if so, was voter turn out in 1964 12 points or more less than the national average" and if they meet those conditions, they then have to ask the feds for permission to move polling places down the street. literacy tests... what is this, 1964? nope. it's 2013. there hasn't been literacy tests in two generations but it's still beholden to that