Post by Old Badger on Feb 22, 2020 16:21:39 GMT -5
Over the past few days a couple of court decisions have don a great deal to help protect voting rights, particularly but not exclusively for minorities. In North Carolina, a state Court of Appeals tossed out the 2018 voter ID law on the grounds that the “primary motivating factor” behind it was to reduce voting by African-Americans. It did so by disallowing the kind of ID that AAs typically have available. “Such a choice speaks more of an intention to target African American voters rather than a desire to comply with the newly created Amendment in a fair and balanced manner. Defendants have yet to show [the law] would have been enacted in its current form irrespective of any alleged underlying discriminatory intent.” In other words, the state could not come up with a rationale for the statute that did not included racial discrimination. This law already was under a federal injunction, but that might be lifted before the election; the state court's almost certainly will not. link
Then came a decision in Florida, where voters approved restoration of voting rights to felons who have completed their terms, but the Legislature's implementing statute included a requirement that they first pay any fines or fees related to their cases. The US 11th Circuit panel upheld a federal judge's ruling that this was a poll tax (prohibited by the 24th Amendment) and without a rational basis. Up to 1.6 million voters could be affected, in a deep purple state. link
These may be temporary victories. The record of the Roberts Court, and specifically the CJ's personal animosity to the Voting Rights Act, do not inspire confidence that these rulings, and similar ones in other states, will be sustained. But at least for now it looks as if some of the atrocious attempts to bring back Jim Crow voting laws in diluted form are being slowed down.
Then came a decision in Florida, where voters approved restoration of voting rights to felons who have completed their terms, but the Legislature's implementing statute included a requirement that they first pay any fines or fees related to their cases. The US 11th Circuit panel upheld a federal judge's ruling that this was a poll tax (prohibited by the 24th Amendment) and without a rational basis. Up to 1.6 million voters could be affected, in a deep purple state. link
These may be temporary victories. The record of the Roberts Court, and specifically the CJ's personal animosity to the Voting Rights Act, do not inspire confidence that these rulings, and similar ones in other states, will be sustained. But at least for now it looks as if some of the atrocious attempts to bring back Jim Crow voting laws in diluted form are being slowed down.