Page 37 - Preclearance News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Point to where people would think they would have to do anything. who would do anything as outrageous as we're seeing after the 2020 elections. >> to remind the audience, because you and i are a little too read in on this. >> okay. >> so you had john roberts lead a 5-4 court majority, a narrow majority, as they say, saying there is no more need for preclearance of specific states as provided in the voting rights act. one of those states was arizona. instead he said that the legislature should craft a new solution. the new solution was obviously nothing or as you suggested preclearance for all ...

Within inches of his life. are you going to be on the side of those with dogs and fire hoses? you can't be against the voting rights act without desecrating the martyrs who fought for it unless you're john roberts. the conservative unelected chief justice of the supreme court. he doesn't have to have any voters vote for him, right? a lifetime appointment. in 2019 they invented a new principle to gut the voting rights act called preclearance. it had discriminatory voting practices. roberts could do that without any political consequences. in fact, he came up with this tortured ruling. the formu...

They are recognizing that that both of them are part of the process. >> what do you expect to be done in congress. we saw the defeat of hr 1. what about hr 4, the john lewis bill? >> it is very important. it is the subject of the court decision, and senator manchin about the possibility of building a bipartisan consensus around the john lewis voting rights act coupled with other measures. so we'll have to see how that develops, that conversation is ongoing. >> in 2013 the shelby decision in the supreme court really eliminated preclearance in all of those states and that is an enormous defeat f...

Decision today in section 2 rather than what we call the preclearance which was basically section 4, the civil rights act, preclearance 5 but 4 is where the formula was and so we have not submitted legislation yet in this congress on that question so i think it's a little bit different, though i agree that what the court did here was do the section 2, what will lead, i think to more onerous burdens on people of -- let's say lesser means because what we're talking about here is people who move and then have to -- last thing you think about when you move is

Section 5 required jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to get preclearance. that was knocked down. after that, it became easier for jurisdictions to put in restrictive laws. arizona is the best example of this. they had one of these two that was at issue here, they tried to put it in place in 2011. the justice department asked them for more information. they withdrew it. shelby county is decided in 2013 and now it's in place and now it's the law. because of this big law, and this notion that we must or states must crack down on this specter of fraud, many states generally republican...