In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted that “things have changed dramatically” in the South and other jurisdictions covered by pre-clearance. Yet, he said, the Voting Rights Act continued to rely on “decades-old data and eradicated practices” in determining which jurisdictions would be subject to pre-clearance.
The court was wrong and reckless in second-guessing the judgment of Congress, which is entrusted by the Constitution with enforcing the prohibiting racial discrimination in voting. Still, Roberts made it clear that Congress could restore the pre-clearance mandate by establishing a new formula based on more recent data., which would require pre-clearance in states with numerous voting rights violations over the last 25 years. The bill was passed by the House in December, but a similar proposal has languished in the Senate.
opinion reinvigorate?
opinion Would MoscowMitchMcConnell do that? Appearance rather than substance is paramount for the party of Hypocrites and Cowards which continues to enable the monster
opinion I'd be surprised if it happens. The only way republicans can win is by cheating.
opinion Honor who?
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: harpersbazaarus - 🏆 467. / 52 Read more »
Source: politico - 🏆 381. / 59 Read more »
Source: CNN - 🏆 4. / 95 Read more »