Advertisement
Voter Rights Act of 1964 debated in the SCOTUS~!!
Monday the US Supreme Court here: tinyurl.com/2w9pq) heard oral arguments (here: tinyurl.com/23n838) in the case Riley v. Kennedy (docket here: tinyurl.com/2y6vfo). The US Supreme Court ( has herd oral arguments Monday in Riley v. Kennedy (Cornel Law School Bulletin: tinyurl.com/2bpgcd) (merit briefs here: tinyurl.com/27jqpw [near bottom of page]).
The precise question presented to the court is:
“This appeal presents the following questions:
1. Whether the decision of a covered jurisdiction’s highest court that a precleared State law is unconstitutional and, thereby, invalid as a matter of State law is a change that affects voting that must be precleared before it can be enforced.
2. Whether the preclearance of a trial court’s ruling that affects voting while that ruling is on appeal and subject to possible reversal establishes a baseline such that the reversal of that decision is a change that must be precleared before it may be enforced.”
Riley v. Kennedy is a voting rights case.
The SCOTUS must contemplate whether Alabama and its Governor (Bob Riley) are required to obtain Federal approval prior to appointing a person to a elected county commission seat when that seat was prematurely left open by a member of the political party opposite from that of the person the governor seeks to appoint.
(Republican being appointed to a seat left open by a Democrat or visa versa)
Adding to the complexity of the question are racial issues because this specific case involves a voting district that is composed of a specific minority population with a political demographic that is substantially other than that party affiliation of the person the Governor wishes to appoint.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Some DOJ Background info here: tinyurl.com/258wn9 ) mandates such federal approval be obtained from the DOJ before any election procedure changes is those procedures were in place on or before November 1, 1964 and also if those proposed changes might effect minority voters.
Of interest is whether this voting act violates the Tenth Amendment by federal encroachment onto states rights or if it violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution which reads in pertinent part: “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” See Yick Wo v. Hopkins (here: tinyurl.com/ytj7da) and its progeny (here: tinyurl.com/2fkfde & tinyurl.com/2ggl9f & tinyurl.com/ytk4g9) which lay and articulate the foundation for the interpretation of the Constitution that no state or federal rights may be encumbered based on immutable characteristics.
The Voting Rights act of 1965 may be invalid on it’s face because precisely because it brings into play immutable characteristics issue as a foundation for disparate treatment of persons based on race.
The facts:
Bob Riley filled an empty county commissioner seat by appointing Republican Juan Chastang. This was in Mobile County (here: tinyurl.com/25rpc8).
The Democrats from Mobile County objected insisting that a special election was the correct way to find the replacement.
They brought their objections to the DOJ which January 2007 held that the governor’s appointment has the appearance of negatively affecting minority voters. The US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama then voided the appointment.
Some have said that among the SCOUTS: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg are favoring Riley (more here: tinyurl.com/yqdest)
Monday the US Supreme Court here: tinyurl.com/2w9pq) heard oral arguments (here: tinyurl.com/23n838) in the case Riley v. Kennedy (docket here: tinyurl.com/2y6vfo). The US Supreme Court ( has herd oral arguments Monday in Riley v. Kennedy (Cornel Law School Bulletin: tinyurl.com/2bpgcd) (merit briefs here: tinyurl.com/27jqpw [near bottom of page]).
The precise question presented to the court is:
“This appeal presents the following questions:
1. Whether the decision of a covered jurisdiction’s highest court that a precleared State law is unconstitutional and, thereby, invalid as a matter of State law is a change that affects voting that must be precleared before it can be enforced.
2. Whether the preclearance of a trial court’s ruling that affects voting while that ruling is on appeal and subject to possible reversal establishes a baseline such that the reversal of that decision is a change that must be precleared before it may be enforced.”
Riley v. Kennedy is a voting rights case.
The SCOTUS must contemplate whether Alabama and its Governor (Bob Riley) are required to obtain Federal approval prior to appointing a person to a elected county commission seat when that seat was prematurely left open by a member of the political party opposite from that of the person the governor seeks to appoint.
(Republican being appointed to a seat left open by a Democrat or visa versa)
Adding to the complexity of the question are racial issues because this specific case involves a voting district that is composed of a specific minority population with a political demographic that is substantially other than that party affiliation of the person the Governor wishes to appoint.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Some DOJ Background info here: tinyurl.com/258wn9 ) mandates such federal approval be obtained from the DOJ before any election procedure changes is those procedures were in place on or before November 1, 1964 and also if those proposed changes might effect minority voters.
Of interest is whether this voting act violates the Tenth Amendment by federal encroachment onto states rights or if it violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution which reads in pertinent part: “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” See Yick Wo v. Hopkins (here: tinyurl.com/ytj7da) and its progeny (here: tinyurl.com/2fkfde & tinyurl.com/2ggl9f & tinyurl.com/ytk4g9) which lay and articulate the foundation for the interpretation of the Constitution that no state or federal rights may be encumbered based on immutable characteristics.
The Voting Rights act of 1965 may be invalid on it’s face because precisely because it brings into play immutable characteristics issue as a foundation for disparate treatment of persons based on race.
The facts:
Bob Riley filled an empty county commissioner seat by appointing Republican Juan Chastang. This was in Mobile County (here: tinyurl.com/25rpc8).
The Democrats from Mobile County objected insisting that a special election was the correct way to find the replacement.
They brought their objections to the DOJ which January 2007 held that the governor’s appointment has the appearance of negatively affecting minority voters. The US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama then voided the appointment.
Some have said that among the SCOUTS: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg are favoring Riley (more here: tinyurl.com/yqdest)
posted by:
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
