Voting Rights II

 

How Long ( Has This Been Going On?)

Oh, your friends and their gentle persuasion
Don't admit that it's part of a scheme,
But I can't help but have my suspicions,
'Cause I ain't quite as dumb as I seem.

How long is too long?

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 established preclearance rules for states, counties, and townships that had in the past acted to restrict voting rights.  If those jurisdictions wished to enact changes in voting procedures, they had to pre-clear those changes with the Federal Government before those new procedures could take effect.  In 2013, the Supreme Court in Shelby vs. Holder held that the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which determines which jurisdictions are covered, is unconstitutional because it is based on an old formula.  They effectively ruled that after nearly fifty years, those mostly southern states who were covered under the VRA have learned their lesson and deserved relief.  It is true that those who enacted and enforced those restrictions were probably no longer in power and proposing new procedures.  But that is besides the point.  The restrictions were government actions, not those of individuals.  States, counties, and townships do not die, even if the individuals in those jurisdictions have died.  No one who is alive today participated in the 1916 Turkish death marches of Armenians.  So obviously Turks and Armenians must have agreed to let bygones be bygones!  The battle of the Boyne happened in 1690, so clearly Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants have gotten over it!

How long should preclearance be required?  To paraphrase Jesus, seven years might seem like a long time, but shouldn’t the standard be seven times seventy.  It is a matter of trust.  Preclearance means that the changes in the voting procedures are not forbidden, they just are not trusted.  When ever I fly, TSA assumes that I am not to be trusted.  They have required that I remove my belt and shoes, subject my carry-ons to x-rays, forbid liquids, etc.  I do not expect those restrictions, which were enacted after September 11th, to be lifted anytime soon.  Why does SCOTUS think that those governments that have demonstrated that they should not be trusted in the past, should be trusted now. A crime is a crime regardless of when it was committed.  Being based on an old formula does not mean that it was not a valid formula at that time.  Bills of attainder are unconstitutional.  You can not make an action that was not a crime at the time, retroactively a crime.  Similarly, you should not be able to make a past action, which was a crime, not a crime.  You can be pardoned, but it was still a crime.  How long?  How about forever. If you asked for preclearance to be eliminated, to me this is pretty convincing proof that your preclearance should NOT be eliminated.