The Constitution, however, prohibits only intentional discrimination, and so that is the only reason Congress can impose the extraordinary preclearance regime. Obviously, showing that a government in one case has merely violated the statistical disparate impact test does not show that the government is likely to engage in unconstitutional violations. Once again, Congress is exceeding its constitutional bounds. Whats more, under the proposed bill extremely low minority turnout would be considered a voting rights violation that would count toward triggering preclearance, even if a jurisdiction engages in no discriminatory conduct. While low turnout might have been a plausible indicator of racial disenfranchisement in 1964, it is not plausible today. Even worse, under the bill, low turnout by white voters would not count as a violation, even if they are a minority of voters in the district. If adopted, this would mark the first time that the Voting Rights Act actually excluded some Americans from protection based on their race. Other violations triggering coverage would include objections filed by the U.S. attorney general, which dont require any finding of intentional discrimination. A discriminatory effect based on statistical disparity is sufficient—disparate impact once again. This is especially galling given the many past court decisions castigating the Justice Department for filing unwarranted objections under Section 5. In 2012, a federal court overturned Attorney General Eric Holders objection to South Carolinas voter ID law—but it cost the state $3.5 million to beat the Justice Department. Most jurisdictions dont have the resources to fight the department.
Posted on: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:37:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015