http://www.thenation.com/blog/175761/three-questions-will-decide-fate-voting-rights-north-carolina#axzz2d6xBUYD5
1. Can Section 2 replace Section 5 of the VRA?
Conservatives opposed to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act strenuously made the argument before and after the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder thatSection 2 was an adequate replacement for Section 5, which forced states with the worst history of voting discrimination to approve their voting changes with the federal government. “Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in Section 2,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority.
Testifying before the House, Hans van Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation calledSection 2 “the heart of the VRA” and said “there’s no reason for Congress to take any action” to resurrect Section 5 with a new coverage map.Under Section 5, the burden would have been on North Carolina to prove that its voting changes were not discriminatory. Given the overwhelming facts of disparate racial impact in the law, DOJ or the courts would have almost certainly blocked its implementation.The strong evidence of racial discrimination in this case shows the urgent need for Congress to resurrect Section 5
but if they refuse to admit the existence of suppression and the SCOTUS backs them up, how do we get back on the truth track and reinstate this the DOJ has it's work cut out, time is ticking at an accelerated pace we need to hear here is some positive movement.
now we need the DOJ before Nov. 6th 2014
The outcome under Section 2 “will depend on a lot of discretionary factors instead of a straightforward law, which is why Congress needs to update the VRA,” says Overton. “It’s uncharted territory, so no one really knows what will happen,” says Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s voting rights project. The federal lawsuits have been assigned to Judge Thomas Schroeder of the Middle District of North Carolina, a George W. Bush appointee regarded as an establishment Republican.that's encouraging, like sticking your hand in fire you feel pretty comfortable with the fact that it will resemble a match when you pull it back.
2. Did North Carolina Republicans intentionally discriminate against minority voters?
Lawsuits brought by the North Carolina NAACP and the ACLU ask that North Carolina be covered under Section 3 of the VRA, so that they must seek federal approval of their voting changes for a period of time, based on a “preponderance of evidence” of intentional discrimination. DOJ recently asked a court to do this with Texas. “The General Assembly has discriminated against African Americans and other voters of color in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus coverage under Section 3(c) is mandated under the Voting Rights Act,” the ACLU plaintiffs in North Carolina write.The lawsuits argue that clear evidence of the law’s discriminatory burden on African-Americans—who were disproportionately more likely to lack ID and to use early voting and same-day voter registration, for example—was presented during the legislative debate and that Republican sponsors of the bill did nothing to alter the legislation. “AfterShelby County v. Holder, the courts are going to have to take these intent claims seriously,” says Penda Hair, co-director of the Advancement Project, which filed suit on behalf of the North Carolina NAACP.But North Carolina could argue, like Texas, that its law was simply aimed atdisenfranchising Democrats, not minorities, and thus is not intentionally discriminatory.
this leaves the chicken coop in the charge of the foxes, it will take the DOJ and "we the people" to make a lot of noise, or get drowned out by their laughter. recognize, realize exercise your rights while you still have them. we have to not vote in those that have put in place the very laws that are depriving us of fair and honest voting
