On Friday, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced he was doubling the number of attorneys at the Justice Department who are dedicated to enforcing voting rights in America.
I am hopeful, knowing it is still hard work to hold the line on some things. Still hopeful that enough of the good people will do the right thing and outweigh the ones who just want to push us backwards.
As to that mention of “some conservatives would allow a defense that a law is “race-neutral” on its face, even though this would result in a disparate impact”, doesn’t this seem like it falls under the same ol’ “separate but equal” rationale? Seems like it should be tough to defend on that basis IMO.
Is the Voting Rights act strictly about equal access to voting based on race or language minorities? It seems to me that DOJ and/or Dems should also pursue equal access based on some of these "neutral" actions that end up limiting voting access to all those who live in left-leaning areas. For example, Texas' "one ballot box per county" scam: EVERYONE in the heavily populated counties had less access to voting boxes than those in sparsely populated counties. Yes, it affected persons of color to a greater percentage, but laws like this have the effect of making voting access unequal to everyone. Similarly laws that limit polling stations, voting hours, etc, will have a greater impact in areas with more population. Any laws that allocate resources or opportunity for voting WITHOUT scaling them to the population of the voting districts creates unequal access to voting.
Considering a couple very stupid GOP members have openly said the laws were enacted to suppress voting, in some of the cases it may be easy to prove intent.
I am just a bit concerned about the current Supreme Court, especially since it was the Supreme Court's decision that got us into this mess. But I am still holding on to hope! Thank you for the excellent summary, as always.
I am hopeful, knowing it is still hard work to hold the line on some things. Still hopeful that enough of the good people will do the right thing and outweigh the ones who just want to push us backwards.
As to that mention of “some conservatives would allow a defense that a law is “race-neutral” on its face, even though this would result in a disparate impact”, doesn’t this seem like it falls under the same ol’ “separate but equal” rationale? Seems like it should be tough to defend on that basis IMO.
Is the Voting Rights act strictly about equal access to voting based on race or language minorities? It seems to me that DOJ and/or Dems should also pursue equal access based on some of these "neutral" actions that end up limiting voting access to all those who live in left-leaning areas. For example, Texas' "one ballot box per county" scam: EVERYONE in the heavily populated counties had less access to voting boxes than those in sparsely populated counties. Yes, it affected persons of color to a greater percentage, but laws like this have the effect of making voting access unequal to everyone. Similarly laws that limit polling stations, voting hours, etc, will have a greater impact in areas with more population. Any laws that allocate resources or opportunity for voting WITHOUT scaling them to the population of the voting districts creates unequal access to voting.
Considering a couple very stupid GOP members have openly said the laws were enacted to suppress voting, in some of the cases it may be easy to prove intent.
Excellent explanation. Gives hope that there’s another avenue for voter protection and equity.
I am just a bit concerned about the current Supreme Court, especially since it was the Supreme Court's decision that got us into this mess. But I am still holding on to hope! Thank you for the excellent summary, as always.