Awful day for freedom.

[Dechipher]

Voting Rights Act.

Texas Republicans.

The only branch of our government that I'm not extremely disappointed in right now is the Executive Branch.

[Mercy]

Voting Rights Act.

How is it constitutional that some states are subjected to stricter federal regulations than others?

The only branch of our government that I'm not extremely disappointed in right now is the Executive Branch.

My bad, I thought you were in the US.

[Glenn the Great]

How is it constitutional that some states are subjected to stricter federal regulations than others?

For the same reasons that children are subjected to stricter federal regulations than are adults.

[CJC]

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was a birthday thread for @Freedom .

----

How is it constitutional that some states are subjected to stricter federal regulations than others?

I agree with Mercy. The Federal Government's policies should apply to every state equally. Either all states should be subjected to the stricter regulations, or none of them should be. Giving certain states preferential treatment (in this case, the states that were not subject to the stricter policy in the first place) not only muddies the law, but confuses the purpose of a central government in general--that purpose being centralized legislation.

I hope they DO put it back in place, but as an actual Federal regulation that applies to all fifty states, and any others that would follow in the future. The matter isn't about voting; it's about the Federal government giving itself leave to give out preferential treatment. Preferential treatment applied to states damages the cohesion of our union, and such practices should never be adopted.

[Glenn the Great]

Either all states should be subjected to the stricter regulations, or none of them should be. Giving certain states preferential treatment (in this case, the states that were not subject to the stricter policy in the first place) not only muddies the law, but confuses the purpose of a central government in general--that purpose being centralized legislation.

The restrictions on certain states (mostly former Slave-owning/Jim Crow states) are there to prevent the racist legislators in charge of those states from disenfranchising the black vote through laws that, while not racist on the surface, are carefully engineered for the same end result.

As much as people want to believe that racism is dead in our day and age, it is not, and those regulations are still needed.

[CJC]

The restrictions on certain states (mostly former Slave-owning/Jim Crow states) are there to prevent the racist legislators in charge of those states from disenfranchising the black vote through laws that, while not racist on the surface, are carefully engineered for the same end result.

As much as people want to believe that racism is dead in our day and age, it is not, and those regulations are still needed.

Given an indefinite length of time, though, ANY state could have a significant change in legislators. Since these regulations were put in place to prevent discriminating policies (like a Jim Crow Law), what would have been the harm in having it apply to ALL of the states from the get go? Northern states are forever infallible, because they were good at the time? That sounds like a load of crap. It's just very poorly executed.


My point is not about preventing the Federal Government from passing laws and regulations on State Governments. My point is that those laws... ANY Federal law... should apply to every state by default. It's a FEDERAL law, after all. It reflects a decision made by our entire union (both evenly by Senate and through population by the House), so it should apply to our entire union.
What harm would have been done if those stricter regulations had applied to EVERY state from the get go? Extra federal expenses? Pheh, it generates jobs too, which have always been more important.
So I'm not saying that the regulation was not necessary (nor that it is no longer needed). I'm saying its initial execution was incorrect, which damages its position as a viable federal law.


It's funny. Here I am, a libertarian against big government, and I'm arguing on the side of stricter government regulations for the sake of a simpler federal model.

Law in general is needlessly complicated.

[Glenn the Great]

Since these regulations were put in place to prevent discriminating policies (like a Jim Crow Law), what would have been the harm in having it apply to ALL of the states from the get go?

I was going to say extra federal expenses but you said "pheh" to that, so I guess there's no convincing you.

[Mercy]

Law in general is needlessly complicated.

So much this. Laws should have built-in expiration dates. If they are worth being re-enacted, they will stay on the books. At least then we might not have people getting away with rape because the victim was not married.

For the same reasons that children are subjected to stricter federal regulations than are adults.

Wrong. You can try again but we both know that pithy does not equate with constitutional. It was a fine response, though so you get points for wit.

I was not really interested in discussing if the VRA was good or bad and agree with CJC that it should be either all or no one in regards to federal laws. I also tend to think there should be fewer federal laws but that does not really pertain to any part of this discussion. If the law is right and just, then it is right and just when applied to everyone, equally. Otherwise, you just have another farce like the Emancipation Proclamation saying bigotry is only wrong when certain people do it.

Racism is not dead but this Band*Aid legislation has lost its usefulness and is just dangling there, waiting to fall into the cook pot and ruin a lot of appetites. The disparities in Minority* voting are either gone or tilted in the opposite direction from where they were when the formulas were developed to balance the numbers out. In other words, in districts/regions the VRA is applied to where Minority voter registration and turn-out was much lower than white voter registration and turn-out, the numbers are now either even or there is greater Minority registration and turn-out. The VRA can actually be used in those areas to now show preference to white voters where they are now the voting minority.

The VRA also facilitates affirmative action of sorts in regards to legislative and bureaucratic positions which is evil or not in its own right but let's go on as if it's the greatest thing ever. So now, as a hypothetical example, there are twelve district seats to be filled and it is guaranteed that three of them will be Minority held. Those three seats are assumed to be filled by winning candidates of the three Minority-ist districts and whites "respectfully" decline to run in those districts. The Minority candidates know a. those three districts are the most likely to vote for a fellow Minority just because and b. they will not have to compete against white candidates and their money (white candidates generally have larger war chests than Minority candidates). Big fish, little pond-thinking. This often leads to most or all of the Minority candidates running in the few Minority districts while the remaining majority of seats are filled by whites. This happens in states/counties/cities where the VRA is not applicable, too, but the VRA fosters this sort of bureaucratic bamboozle rather than dissuades it.

Ultimately, I do not believe racism can die in this country so long as we continue to legislate based on its existence. Other changes will also need to occur but change always comes eventually.



*Big M Minority="official" minorities ie, blacks, Latinos, Native Americans; little m minorities=a subset less than 50% of the given group

[Tim]

The same reason they get paid six figures to halt progress. "Moving forward" my ass.

[Saffith]

I don't disagree with the court's ruling, per se; it's been a long time, and the preclearance formula is out-of-date. The problem's only gotten worse, and the requirement should absolutely apply to every state. But by striking down the old formula, they've left us with none at all, which is even worse. And they left it up to Congress to come up with a new one. There's no chance in Hell they'll get it right.