2 thoughts on ““Supreme Court to rule on scope of federal powers in Voting Rights case””
Jinsky Jean-Pois
The Supreme Court of the United States should adjudicate the constitutionality of the coverage formula (Section 4B) and preclearance edict (Section 5) of the Voting Rights Act. The preclearance jurisdictions have a history of voter suppression on account of racial/language minority status. The jurisprudential standard of congruence and proportionality (City of Boerne v. Flores) pronounced to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment should apply to enforce the Thirteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments to the Federal Constitution. The coverage formula plus the preclearance edict for conducting elections is no longer appropriate to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment when it is not congruent and proportional to intentional racial discrimination in suffrage to justify the Article I legislative power of Congress to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment with this prophylaxis or remedial legislation and thereby breaches the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the Federal Constitution. States that have approved voter-ID laws in Alabama and Mississippi could enforce those laws without federal approval if the Section 5 preclearance edict is actually rendered unconstitutional as a facial nullity in all of the particular circumstances suggested by Shelby County. The Northwest Austin litigation, which invoked constitutional avoidance signals the constitutional problems of the coverage formula and preclearance edict by intrusion into the sovereign prerogatives of the states relative to electoral regulation and the equal sovereignty of the states under the principles of federalism secured by the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the Federal Constitution. If IN could adopt a voter-ID edict to regulate the electoral process, then why should the SC and TX voter-ID edicts be adjudged on different standards. The VRA preclearance jurisdictions have significantly improved the electoral conditions for racial/language minority voters because newly-enacted voting regulations are suspended pending the evaluation by federal officials. The bail-in and bail-out provisions of the Voting Rights Act are not narrowly tailored to effectuate a compelling federal government interest in the electoral process. The preclearance regime should be rendered unconstitutional because it is not valid in any circumstance to appropriately enforce the Fifteenth Amendment by the 2006 VRA Re-Authorization Statute approved by the 109th Congress and approved by the Bush 43 Administration. The Shelby County case represents a landmark constitutional question on how Article I power should be exercised to necessarily and properly enforce the Fifteenth Amendment with appropriate legislation. Section 5 preclearance applies to 16 jurisdictions that have a history of discrimination in the electoral process. Section 5 preclearance should be abrogated since there is no congruence and proportionality to intentional discrimination on the basis of racial/language minority status in elections.
Rose Cavalcanti
THE VOTE ID IS ESSENTIAL TO PREVENT FRAUD. ANYONE THAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH IT IS THINKING ONLY IN COMMITTING FRAUD. PERIOD!
The Supreme Court of the United States should adjudicate the constitutionality of the coverage formula (Section 4B) and preclearance edict (Section 5) of the Voting Rights Act. The preclearance jurisdictions have a history of voter suppression on account of racial/language minority status. The jurisprudential standard of congruence and proportionality (City of Boerne v. Flores) pronounced to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment should apply to enforce the Thirteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments to the Federal Constitution. The coverage formula plus the preclearance edict for conducting elections is no longer appropriate to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment when it is not congruent and proportional to intentional racial discrimination in suffrage to justify the Article I legislative power of Congress to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment with this prophylaxis or remedial legislation and thereby breaches the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the Federal Constitution. States that have approved voter-ID laws in Alabama and Mississippi could enforce those laws without federal approval if the Section 5 preclearance edict is actually rendered unconstitutional as a facial nullity in all of the particular circumstances suggested by Shelby County. The Northwest Austin litigation, which invoked constitutional avoidance signals the constitutional problems of the coverage formula and preclearance edict by intrusion into the sovereign prerogatives of the states relative to electoral regulation and the equal sovereignty of the states under the principles of federalism secured by the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the Federal Constitution. If IN could adopt a voter-ID edict to regulate the electoral process, then why should the SC and TX voter-ID edicts be adjudged on different standards. The VRA preclearance jurisdictions have significantly improved the electoral conditions for racial/language minority voters because newly-enacted voting regulations are suspended pending the evaluation by federal officials. The bail-in and bail-out provisions of the Voting Rights Act are not narrowly tailored to effectuate a compelling federal government interest in the electoral process. The preclearance regime should be rendered unconstitutional because it is not valid in any circumstance to appropriately enforce the Fifteenth Amendment by the 2006 VRA Re-Authorization Statute approved by the 109th Congress and approved by the Bush 43 Administration. The Shelby County case represents a landmark constitutional question on how Article I power should be exercised to necessarily and properly enforce the Fifteenth Amendment with appropriate legislation. Section 5 preclearance applies to 16 jurisdictions that have a history of discrimination in the electoral process. Section 5 preclearance should be abrogated since there is no congruence and proportionality to intentional discrimination on the basis of racial/language minority status in elections.
THE VOTE ID IS ESSENTIAL TO PREVENT FRAUD. ANYONE THAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH IT IS THINKING ONLY IN COMMITTING FRAUD. PERIOD!