This conversation is closed.

What evidence do we have that the SCOTUS decision to strike down portoins of the voting rights act of 1965 was right or wrong?

In one decision the SCOTUS has declared that the need for southern states to get federal permission to change voting regulations is no longer needed because racism is not significant enough to necessitate the continuation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as we know it. This, in an era where voter suppression in southern states was obvious, seems to contradict reality. This, in an era where a TV personality on the food network uses the 'n' word when she described a party she would like to have and where the Confederate flag is flown proudly in southern states, seems incongruous.

  • Jun 27 2013: Why should a few states be held to an arbitrary set of rules that do not apply to the rest of the country? The main failing of Justice Dept. case was that they hadn't changed their criteria for enforcement in over 40 years. It never was intended to keep those states under DOJ supervision forever.

    What makes the south racists--two governors are of east Indian decent, the only black republican senator is from the South, Hispanic senators also. The south is more diverse in its elected officials than the majority of the country. Since 1965 more racist acts have occurred in South Boston over busing, Howard Beach in NYC, Blacks against Hasidic Jews and Korean store owners in major northern urban centers.

    The DOJ's argument was based more on a balance of GOP/DEM power than actual racism.
  • Jun 26 2013: I am not sure whether you are actually looking for evidence or are actually trying to start a debate about this decision.

    Since you chose the question classification, I think you will find the evidence in the court documents, which should be publicly available.

    The issues involved are not limited to racism. This case also involves states rights, equality issues, and the limits of federal authority. I have no opinion about the correctness of this decision because I have very little knowledge of the issues involved and the relevant precedents.