Posts: 24,926
Threads: 4,391
Joined: Nov 2024
Reputation:
0
"what it does is establish the assumption that, without constant monitoring at a federal level, voting rights compliance will never be maintained." - cbelt3
That assumption is obviously the case. There are constant pressures against voting rights. With less monitoring, it will only get worse.
Posts: 25,452
Threads: 2,519
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
The civil rights division of DOJ already monitors every state's voting laws, and they have recently objected to voter ID laws in states that are not subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
So I don't think we need any new laws regarding federal supervision of voting, but given the behavior of South Carolina, Texas, Alabama and other southern states regarding strict photo ID laws, I see no reason to remove Section 5 now.
If those states were making this request without simultaneously trying to impose unnecessary restrictions on voting, that might look a little different.
But the fact is they are pursuing those restrictions, alleging non-existent voter fraud. That's the issue that makes maintenance of Section 5 crucial, IMO.
Posts: 13,934
Threads: 1,261
Joined: May 2025
I saw a report that said that by Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act, Federal judges can add jurisdictions to the original list if the jurisdiction has been shown to the judge to be persistent in their discrimination. Since the Voting Rights Act was passed, 18 jurisdictions (mostly counties) have been added to the list of places that are monitored under Section 5.