Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Appeals Court overturns restrictive voting laws in North Carolina

The U. S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has over-turned restrictions placed on voting in North Carolina in the wake of the 2013 gutting of the Civil Rights Act by the U. S. Supreme Court.

Because of its history of discrimination against African-American voters, North Carolina had been one of the states that was required to get prior Justice Department approval for any changes to election laws.    That prior approval was what SCOTUS eliminated, and -- as was entirely predictable -- a number of southern states immediately proved the need for that continued protection by passing laws to suppress minority voting.

Here is some of the 4th Court's language: 
"[W]hether the number is thirty or thirty-thousand, surely some North Carolina minority voters will be disproportionately adversely affected in the upcoming election . . . [and] there could be no do-over and no redress [once the election is over]. . . .  The injury to these voters is real and completely irreparable if nothing is done to enjoin this law."

Listen up, conservative SCOTUS Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito.   Don't you know what's going on in the real world?  Don't you care?

In their defense, it should be said that they didn't say that protections are no longer needed;  they said that the states required to get prior approval should be based on more up to date history.    

But that's where the conservative justices are out of touch with the real world.  To think that politicians in conservative states would not do what they most surely have being doing since their ruling is just pure naive fantasy.   Instead of just gutting the law, they could have ordered a review and re-categorization without eliminating the protection in the meantime.  

Such a re-categorization would probably take years of Justice Department court orders and suits, years of appeals, and then time to implement.   Meanwhile, rogue states would do just what was predicted they would do -- and have done:   pass laws to disenfranchise voters who they know will vote disproportionately against them.

Ralph

No comments:

Post a Comment