SC and Voting Rights Act

acaudill75

Can anyone give me the Cliff's Notes version of why this recent decision is bad or good?

TIA

acaudill75

The SC shot down a portion of the Voting Rights Act from the 60s that says certain Southern states (and other districts) have to get permission from the Federal government before they change their voting rules.

I see why it was necessary then, so no gerrymandering and redistricting to screw minorities. I was just wondering if anyone was keeping up with it, because I am too tired to form an opinion on the current situation and wanted to borrow someone else's.

acaudill75

ItsAllGravy7:

I'm pretty sure South Carolina is trying to get more states rights back when it comes to changing voter rights. Right now states have to get preclearance from the DOJ before just changing voter laws. This is mainly to protect minority voters who've been singled out by southern states in the past. SC is all "we aren't stupid and racist" even though we all know the South is. If the supreme court sides with the states it could send voter rights spiraling backward or give the south the opportunity to prove that they don't suck.

I would love it if they did prove they don't suck. I would also like the minorities in those states and districts to take back the vote, so to speak. I know it can happen, but I just can't get my head around it that this late in the game that King Cotton still has a stranglehold on the South. I understand the sentiment still thrives, but I can't understand how it can thrive in the governments on such a large scale.

Difference between de facto and de jure.