Will SCOTUS hear Kinston, NC and Shelby County, AL cases, or will Constitutional issues “continue to fester”? The Shelby County case challenges Section 5 as it existed before the 2006 reauthorization, as well as Section 4(b), which lays out the formula for coverage under Section 5. The Kinston case challenges Section 5 as it now reads. Both petitioners note that Congress has taken no action in the three years since Northwest Austin v. Holder in response to the Constitutional concerns expressed by the Court in that 2009 opinion. Thus, Shelby County argues, a new assessment is necessary to judge “whether Section 5′s current needs justify its current burdens.” When Congress in 2006 renewed Section 5 for an additional 25 years, it imposed added requirements on state and local governments covered by that section. The challengers in the Kinston litigation argued that those new burdens prove even more convincingly that Section 5 is now unconstitutionally broad as it applies to the state and local governments that remain the only ones targeted by Section 5. . . . “This Court should grant review of both cases,” the North Carolina petition argued, in order “to facilitate a timely and definitive resolution of the exceptionally important question whether the 2006 version of Section 5 is facially valid.” In its petition, Shelby County said that Section 5 interferes directly in “the basic operation of state and local government,” which has the practical effect of barring “the implementation of more than 100,000 electoral changes unless and until they are pre-cleared by federal officials in Washington, D.C.” . . . Shelby County did not file its lawsuit after having a voting change vetoed by the Justice Department or by a federal court. Instead, it filed a lawsuit seeking to strike down the 2006 renewal as written, so that, if this challenge succeeded, the law could not be validly applied in any factual situation. Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, tells AL.com, “This case presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to strike down an outdated and unnecessary portion of the Voting Rights Act that punishes some states for voting transgressions that are long gone.”
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court received two petitions to hear cases challenging the Constitutionality of certain sections of the Voting Rights Act and is expected to add at least one to its docket for next term.
Two challenges to “outdated” preclearance sections of Voting Rights Act
Will SCOTUS hear Kinston, NC and Shelby County, AL cases, or will Constitutional issues “continue to fester”? The Shelby County case challenges Section 5 as it existed before the 2006 reauthorization, as well as Section 4(b), which lays out the formula for coverage under Section 5. The Kinston case challenges Section 5 as it now reads. Both petitioners note that Congress has taken no action in the three years since Northwest Austin v. Holder in response to the Constitutional concerns expressed by the Court in that 2009 opinion. Thus, Shelby County argues, a new assessment is necessary to judge “whether Section 5′s current needs justify its current burdens.” When Congress in 2006 renewed Section 5 for an additional 25 years, it imposed added requirements on state and local governments covered by that section. The challengers in the Kinston litigation argued that those new burdens prove even more convincingly that Section 5 is now unconstitutionally broad as it applies to the state and local governments that remain the only ones targeted by Section 5. . . . “This Court should grant review of both cases,” the North Carolina petition argued, in order “to facilitate a timely and definitive resolution of the exceptionally important question whether the 2006 version of Section 5 is facially valid.” In its petition, Shelby County said that Section 5 interferes directly in “the basic operation of state and local government,” which has the practical effect of barring “the implementation of more than 100,000 electoral changes unless and until they are pre-cleared by federal officials in Washington, D.C.” . . . Shelby County did not file its lawsuit after having a voting change vetoed by the Justice Department or by a federal court. Instead, it filed a lawsuit seeking to strike down the 2006 renewal as written, so that, if this challenge succeeded, the law could not be validly applied in any factual situation. Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, tells AL.com, “This case presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to strike down an outdated and unnecessary portion of the Voting Rights Act that punishes some states for voting transgressions that are long gone.”
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court received two petitions to hear cases challenging the Constitutionality of certain sections of the Voting Rights Act and is expected to add at least one to its docket for next term.
“Unregistered Latino Voters Large Enough To Transform Red States Into Swing States”
Huffingtonpost article on potential Hispanic electoral clout.
Right now in 10 battleground states — places where both the Obama and Romney campaigns say victory is feasible — there are 12.1 million unregistered, but potentially eligible, Latino adults, according to new data released late Thursday by the Center for American Progress, a Washington, D.C., think tank. In uber-important Florida, the state’s 1.4 million unregistered, potentially eligible Latino adults represent a group of voters five times larger than Obama’s margin of victory in 2008.
“If just a portion of these potential voters do come out and vote they could swing the election,” said Philip Wolgin, an immigration policy analyst at the center. “And while I don’t think that Texas is going to become a swing state tomorrow, I also don’t think that four years ago anyone thought that Arizona would be either. Look at it now.”
In Arizona, 405,300 Latino U.S. citizens do not have voting credentials. And another 575,300 Latino permanent legal residents could become naturalized citizens, register and vote.
“Unregistered Latino Voters Large Enough To Transform Red States Into Swing States”
Huffingtonpost article on potential Hispanic electoral clout.
Right now in 10 battleground states — places where both the Obama and Romney campaigns say victory is feasible — there are 12.1 million unregistered, but potentially eligible, Latino adults, according to new data released late Thursday by the Center for American Progress, a Washington, D.C., think tank. In uber-important Florida, the state’s 1.4 million unregistered, potentially eligible Latino adults represent a group of voters five times larger than Obama’s margin of victory in 2008.
“If just a portion of these potential voters do come out and vote they could swing the election,” said Philip Wolgin, an immigration policy analyst at the center. “And while I don’t think that Texas is going to become a swing state tomorrow, I also don’t think that four years ago anyone thought that Arizona would be either. Look at it now.”
In Arizona, 405,300 Latino U.S. citizens do not have voting credentials. And another 575,300 Latino permanent legal residents could become naturalized citizens, register and vote.
“US Supreme Court may get Shelby voting rights law challenge”
The latest on the Shelby County challenge to mend not end the Voting Rights Act. Shelby County is appealing two recent lower court decisions that upheld the constitutionality of the landmark civil rights-era law. If the justices agree to accept the case, they’ll schedule it for oral arguments sometime after they return in October, and it would be one of the highest-profile cases of the court’s 2012-13 term.
Shelby County took its challenge of the Voting Rights Act to the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, asking the justices to declare part of the 1965 law an unfair burden on states such as Alabama where the federal government still keeps a close watch on elections for evidence of racial discrimination.
A bit from the petition.
…”It is this court’s duty to ensure that Congress appropriately remedies Fifteenth Amendment violations without usurping the states’ sovereign powers,” according to Shelby County’s petition. “Shelby County asks the court to protect this important federalism interest.”
…”Congress needed to find that Section 5 was justified under actual conditions uniquely present in the covered jurisdictions; it could not proceed from an unsubstantiated and unbounded assumption that the covered jurisdictions have a latent desire to discriminate that does not exist elsewhere in the country,” the petition states.
“US Supreme Court may get Shelby voting rights law challenge”
The latest on the Shelby County challenge to mend not end the Voting Rights Act. Shelby County is appealing two recent lower court decisions that upheld the constitutionality of the landmark civil rights-era law. If the justices agree to accept the case, they’ll schedule it for oral arguments sometime after they return in October, and it would be one of the highest-profile cases of the court’s 2012-13 term.
Shelby County took its challenge of the Voting Rights Act to the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, asking the justices to declare part of the 1965 law an unfair burden on states such as Alabama where the federal government still keeps a close watch on elections for evidence of racial discrimination.
A bit from the petition.
…”It is this court’s duty to ensure that Congress appropriately remedies Fifteenth Amendment violations without usurping the states’ sovereign powers,” according to Shelby County’s petition. “Shelby County asks the court to protect this important federalism interest.”
…”Congress needed to find that Section 5 was justified under actual conditions uniquely present in the covered jurisdictions; it could not proceed from an unsubstantiated and unbounded assumption that the covered jurisdictions have a latent desire to discriminate that does not exist elsewhere in the country,” the petition states.
“Lawsuit seeks to force Indiana to remove deceased, those who have moved”
Several Southwestern Indiana counties are among those that have caught the attention of election watchers for failing to purge their voter rolls of people who have died or left town.
A national group called Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit in an effort to force Indiana to clean up its voter rolls, and the U.S. Department of Justice has told the state in a letter that it, too, sees a problem. The Justice Department says Indiana has at least 10 counties with more registered voters than possibly eligible voters, and Judicial Watch says there are 12 — and even more that are close to having more registered voters than eligible voters.
..”Indiana’s election officials are shirking their responsibility to maintain clean voter registration lists. The citizens of Indiana should be outraged by the indifferent attitude their election officials have taken with respect to the National Voter Registration Act and to clean elections,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
full story at the Courier Press.
“Lawsuit seeks to force Indiana to remove deceased, those who have moved”
Several Southwestern Indiana counties are among those that have caught the attention of election watchers for failing to purge their voter rolls of people who have died or left town.
A national group called Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit in an effort to force Indiana to clean up its voter rolls, and the U.S. Department of Justice has told the state in a letter that it, too, sees a problem. The Justice Department says Indiana has at least 10 counties with more registered voters than possibly eligible voters, and Judicial Watch says there are 12 — and even more that are close to having more registered voters than eligible voters.
..”Indiana’s election officials are shirking their responsibility to maintain clean voter registration lists. The citizens of Indiana should be outraged by the indifferent attitude their election officials have taken with respect to the National Voter Registration Act and to clean elections,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
full story at the Courier Press.
“No Vote Fraud? Union didn’t get the memo”
Via Commentary magazine, the Washington Free Beacon reported that the (Wisconsin) DA’s office demanded the Service Employees International Union
(SEIU) hand over records that relate to the conduct of their officials
who may have voted in the city earlier this year while using a Marriott
hotel as a residence and using out of state IDs.
“No Vote Fraud? Union didn’t get the memo”
Via Commentary magazine, the Washington Free Beacon reported that the (Wisconsin) DA’s office demanded the Service Employees International Union
(SEIU) hand over records that relate to the conduct of their officials
who may have voted in the city earlier this year while using a Marriott
hotel as a residence and using out of state IDs.