02-27-2013, 08:10 PM
Ted-
That's an interesting concept. However... what it does is establish the assumption that, without constant monitoring at a federal level, voting rights compliance will never be maintained. The law as it stands assumed that voting compliance would be suspect in many areas, and established a time in which monitoring was necessary.
The state's empirical contention is that monitoring is no longer necessary, and the bureaucratic oversight and effort is no longer required.
Think of it as a difference between 'electoral probation' and 'electoral predator' marking.
Your point is better taken, though. If populations migrate (and have) over time, and the status of voting rights is still considered 'shaky', then it would be most fair for a periodic audit of each voting district across the nation.
That's an interesting concept. However... what it does is establish the assumption that, without constant monitoring at a federal level, voting rights compliance will never be maintained. The law as it stands assumed that voting compliance would be suspect in many areas, and established a time in which monitoring was necessary.
The state's empirical contention is that monitoring is no longer necessary, and the bureaucratic oversight and effort is no longer required.
Think of it as a difference between 'electoral probation' and 'electoral predator' marking.
Your point is better taken, though. If populations migrate (and have) over time, and the status of voting rights is still considered 'shaky', then it would be most fair for a periodic audit of each voting district across the nation.