Attorney General Eric Holder has no case against Texas voting laws
Voting shouldn’t be easy. I want informed voters who care about the issues. If you don’t care to register or show an ID, why should the collective want your opinion?
Check it out:
In response to the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, Attorney General Eric Holder announced Thursday a new legal tactic to combat voting laws he views as racially discriminatory. Texas, which has indicated that it plans to go ahead with its broadly popular voter ID law, will apparently be Holder’s first target.
Fortunately, racial-polarization politics works better in the political sphere than it does in the courtroom.
In contrast to the liberal hyperventilation over the Supreme Court’s Shelby County v. Holder decision — lamenting the return to “Jim Crow” or complaining that the Court would now permit “egregious infringements” on voting rights — other sections of the VRA actually do permit the Attorney General to correct violations of voting rights by the states.
Unlike the now defunct Section 4 of the VRA, which identified a decades-old list of states requiring “preclearance” before making any changes to their voting laws, Holder is relying on Section 3, which permits aggrieved parties or the Attorney General to ask federal courts to require preclearance for jurisdictions which have committed recent Constitutional voting-rights violations.
This rarely used section of the VRA, sometimes referred to as the “pocket trigger,” allows courts to craft preclearance requirements for offending states that did not fit under the coverage formula previously contained in Section 4. The June decision in Shelby overturned Section 4, but left the other sections intact.