Page 46 - Preclearance News Today

Cases, and we know now when theyll be argued. the court announced that today. theyll be argued the last two argument days in march. on march 26th the court will hear the challenge to californias proposition 8, thats the voter approve ed initiative that put a stop to same-sex marriage. and then the next day on the 27th, it will hear the legal arguments in a challenge to the fird defen federal defense of marriage act, the federal law that prevents the government from recognizes same-sex marriages ...

Voters is a referendum on american democracy, not we as videos are. >> its hard to make a case, you look where this is happening, bastions, states that have republican held legislatures, the republican power with the older, southern under educated white workers, how can you say this is not a political ish. >> >> i covered the reauthorization issue, in the house, the vote was basically the 30 were white southern republicans. the house was so polarized bushs popularity dropping, jim sensen brenner...

Hairs. section 5 required mostly southern states with the history of disenfranchised voters to get federal preclearance before they can make any changes in their voting laws. thats anything from redrawing congressional districts to moving polling locations. this years election section 5 was the shield that the justice department used to defend democracy against voter suppression in southern states that tried to implement new laws. now its up for discussion. so if this is a process president and ...

If that part of the law is struck down, then the states can do whatever they want but they would still be subject to lawsuits from people who were claiming they were discriminated against minority voters. >> when the voting rights act came up for renewal in 2006 i remember this issue of preclearance divided the republican party. where you had the northern republicans and democrats uniting but a bloc of i think it was 90 southern republicans saying no because of the preclearance issues. theres an...

Trying to resist the efforts. >> thank goodness there are a few good judges left. >> what we found in this report, lets be clear, this kind of effort to stop people from voting, this kind of intimidation, it is illegal under the voting rights act. we looked at ten states here. there are broad voter intimidation laws. voting should be free, fair, accessible for all eligible americans. there are laws on the books that need to be enforced. >> i appreciate this point. you are right. they are not cov...

Are under the preclearance, but texas and south carolina is. explain to me the different courts in which these things will be challenged. >> yes, just to take a step back, were under that voting rights act. there are certain states with such a negative history of restricting the franchise in the basis of race, they have to engage in preclearance. so texas and south carolina are two of them. the reason this isnt an issue in ohio or pennsylvania, those two states are not preclearance states. so vo...

Individual to make their case. whats happening in pennsylvania and ohio, the court is saying, well weigh this, and basically were going to look at the potential for voter fraud, and the burden on potentially disenfranchised voters. because of the negative history that this particular state has had, the thumb is heavily on the scale against the state and for the plaintiff. so wheat happening now, a lot of states are complaining, saying the voting rights act itself is unconstitutional. we dont nee...

Rules of the voting rights act. texas is, south carolina is. explain to me the different courts in which these things will be challenged. >> absolutely. just to take a step back for viewers, were talking about the voting rights act of 1965, and under the voting rights act still in effect, under section 5, certain states have such a negative history of reflecting the franchise on the basis of race, they have to engage in preclearance before they make change to the election law. texas and south ca...

Make voting possible -- >> that preclearance could be struck down. so not in its entirety, but in the preclearance -- and in the 2009 case, john roberts sort of -- theres an 8-1 decision, and the court took a bye, and the statute allowed it, but the constitutional question is does congress have the power to enact section five of the voting rights act. and that question could be quarely presented before the court as early as this. >> and its because these states are saying we dont disgrim nat any...

Part of a pattern when it comes to other states that have done this there are. when youre talking about south carolina and texas, the department of justice denied them preclearance. theyre now appealing to a federal district course about that. in indiana, that case went to the supreme court in 2008 and the supreme court ruled that law was constitutional and the state did have a legitimate reason to want to improve the electoral process. so ultimately this will be decided by the courts. >> mara, ...