02-27-2013, 04:46 PM
Ted-
My understanding (from the NPR bit this morning that I heard) is that the actual law is not in question, but the application of sustained federal oversight for even the most casual changes (The school burned down, we need to do voting at city hall) for certain specially identified voting districts.
FEC and DOJ oversight still exists over ALL voting districts in the US, and the requirements to comply with the law and enforcement of the law are not in question.
Empirically the last time this was looked at, the net results is the legal statement of "once racist, always racist". It's that prejudgemental assumption that I am questioning, and it is the root of the latest case before the Supremes.
My understanding (from the NPR bit this morning that I heard) is that the actual law is not in question, but the application of sustained federal oversight for even the most casual changes (The school burned down, we need to do voting at city hall) for certain specially identified voting districts.
FEC and DOJ oversight still exists over ALL voting districts in the US, and the requirements to comply with the law and enforcement of the law are not in question.
Empirically the last time this was looked at, the net results is the legal statement of "once racist, always racist". It's that prejudgemental assumption that I am questioning, and it is the root of the latest case before the Supremes.