Chapter 6B Voting: rights and IDs

What were two arguments that Justice Ginsburg had for leaving the law in place (section 4)?

- "...facilitate completion of impressive gains thus far made" -"...would guard against back sliding"

What did the court find involving Section 4?

- It infringed state's rights under the 10th amendment and doctrine of equal treatment of states. -Law required all and any changes to voting laws by "covered states" be submitted for federal review -"Non-covered states" could make same voting law changes without pre-clearance; if feds sued, these states would still not be as disadvantaged as a "covered state" (a state on the preclearance list) -Congress "has ignored progress made" by covered states

What were the Historical and now Denounced Tactics used?

- White Primaries -Poll Taxes and other Barriers

What did the Shelby County v. Holder do to Section 5?

- allowed it to stand but left it toothless -Now applied to no one

What are current controversial procedures involving voting?

- registration limitations/barriers -voter ID requirements

Why could White ("only") Primaries take place?

-Because primary elections were run by parties, and parties were private organizations, primaries were not subject to 15th amendment at the time.

In 2016 what was the court's decision on Texas NAACP v. Steen?

-Concurs and orders district judge to work with Texas to modify voter ID requirements for November 2016 election so they would not illegally discriminate -State of Texas agreed to accept sworn affidavits instead of picture IDs in certain cases

Court stated that congress may do what involving section 4?

-Draft a new coverage formula (section 4) based on current conditions -most likely will never happen

In Justice Ginsburg's book what was another sufficient reason for the court to let the law stand?

-Separation of powers -Congress has sweeping powers under the Constitution to oversee voting rights -"Overwhelming support" in both Houses reauthorized this law -Therefore, the Court should defer to Congress here

What was the law of the Voting Rights Act in 1965?

-Suspended all voting barriers -Section 4 of the law contained the "coverage formula" determined which states/localities had to comply with section 5 -Section 5 of the law required states with History of discriminatory voting practices to seek federal "pre-clearance" of any proposed change to their voting laws -In some cases extreme case feds could send federal monitors or even registrars to state/local elections -Has been renewed regularly by congress, most recently in 2006 for 25 more years

In Shelby County v. Holder (2013) the supreme court declared Section 4 of the 1965 voting rights act what?

-Unconstitutional -Decision cleared the previous list of "covered states" and dismantled the Congressionally approved means of building a new list based on the previous criteria.

What did the 1970 Voting Rights Act do?

-gave you the right to vote at 18 years of age -permits students to vote in Brazos county or at home

What did Chief Justice Roberts have to say about the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

-having used "extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem" -Section 4 had outlived its usefulness -Section 4 could not be justified by current needs

How did the state of Texas react to the Shelby County v. Holder Decision?

-moved two voting-related laws still pending pre-clearance with Federal Government -voter ID law and Redistricting Plan

What were some examples of registration barriers?

-poll tax- pay in advance; minorities given no advance notice -Literacy test -Testing understanding of Texas Constitution -Good character reference from community

how did the book Dissenting opinion challenge majority's logic?

-stating that if the court believes that the VRA's success in eliminating the specific devices extant in 1965 means that pre-clearance is non longer needed -With that belief, and argument derived from it, history repeats itself.

What did the Chief Justice Roberts state about the courts involving the Shelby County v. Holder?

-they did not think that past problems were completely resolved -openly acknowledged that voting discrimination still exists -reaffirmed at "permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting"

In 1964 what did the Civil Rights Act prohibit?

-unequal standards for who can vote, but only in Federal elections - Supreme court extended to all elections in 1965

What book did Justice Ginsburg write?

Dissenting opinion

Slide 31 chpt. 6B has question.

We got this!!! 100 for everyone on exam 2

In 2015 what was the court's decision on Texas NAACP v. Steen?

agreed it was "discriminatory in effect"

In 2014 what was the court's decision on Texas NAACP v. Steen?

declared that Texas Law to be Unconstitutional