I found the Voting Rights panel today to be very fitting with what we are discussing in class. The talk today focused on the recent Shelby County v Holder case, which ruled Section 4(b) of the 1965 Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. This part of the law defined the states who had to be pre-cleared before making changes to their elections law. In the decision, the Court found that this section burdened individual states by denying them equal protection based on 50-year old data.
This particular case reflects the complexity involved in protecting the rights of citizens. Currently, our protection of civil rights (like freedom of speech, right to vote, etc.) comes from not only Amendments to the constitution, but also proceeding statute as well as court interpretations. Thus, each civil right that we consider a part of our country is truly both protected and threatened by this relationship.
1 comment:
Interesting op-ed written by Richard Hasen, a law professor at UC-Irvine. He argues that current voter restrictions are based on both party and race (as the two are intertwined) and are therefore flawed. Hasen's solution is a voter protection principle that alleviates all burdens on voters. Definitely a strongly opinionated piece, but it's an interesting take on the recent Supreme Court decision over the Voting Rights Act.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/opinion/voter-suppressions-new-pretext.html?src=recg
Post a Comment