Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens, along with some other savvy attorneys general, are leading the way in relations with Eric Holder’s Justice Department. Georgia is one of the states that must get every single election law change approved by the Voting Section at the DOJ. Georgia has realized that bypassing the DOJ and going directly to federal court (states have a choice) is the way to get election law changes approved more quickly, cheaply and fairly. Rome News notes of Olens:
He’s also not shy about challenging the feds on his own. He sued the U.S. Department of Justice to get approval to enact Georgia’s process for verifying the citizenship of people registering to vote.
“Part of the reason they have had good luck is because they are finally going to court,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and former Justice Department political appointee.In court, Justice Department ideologues, von Spakovsky argues, can’t base their reasoning on rumor or philosophy to convince the judge the way they can in their administrative decisions. Instead, they have to argue the law and legal precedent.
That willingness to sue may be why the department gave preclearance last week to a controversial state law allowing governors to remove elected school-board members from office for unprofessional comments or behavior. Since all the school board members referred to by sponsors of the legislation were black, preclearance was expected to be iffy.
Covered states like North Carolina, Texas, South Carolina, Florida, Arizona, Alaska and Alabama must still obtain federal approval for a variety of laws ranging from Voter ID to redistricting. Will attorneys general in those states follow Olens’ (and Virginia AG Cuccinelli’s) lead and go straight to district court, or will they become Eric Holder’s pinata??
Perhaps there could be some review as to why “some states are more equal than others” in this regard….
Becasue of an extensive history of racial discrimination in some states, Supreme Court opinions upholding Section 5 and more likely than not, your Congressman and both Senators voting to reauthorize the law in the summer of 2006. There are cases now challenging Section 5 but they face a tough climb. The Supreme Court has express skepticism about Section 5 but striking down the triggers (on the states currently challenging their triggers (some triggers are not being challenged)) will be an enormous ruling if it happens.
I’d assumed that it was something like that, but didn’t Reconstruction end in 1877?
Not in the collective minds of the Democratic Party.
Reconstruction ended. But the 15th Amendment to the Constitution is still in effect. And the Voting Rights Act, passed pursuant to Section 2 of the 15th Amendment of the Constitution is still in effect also.
So, why the hell is this applicable to Texas?
Why Texas?
The answers to your question can be found here:
http://www.maldef.org/resources/publications/TexasVRA.pdf
Add to it the fact that most Texas members of Congress voted in 2006 to keep it applicable to Texas.
Add to that that Texas has never challenged its inclusion in federal court.
Politicians still support it, because they do not want to be accused of being racist for ending the nonsense. They don’t want that fight.