http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/07/watch-out-in-the-covered-jurisdictions/ Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:41:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/07/watch-out-in-the-covered-jurisdictions/comment-page-1/#comment-70699 RogerClegg Thu, 07 Feb 2013 17:15:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=17666#comment-70699 Re " ... if you look at the Justice Department’s pre-clearance enforcement over the past 30 years, what stands out is that a disproportionate number of pre-clearance denials involved vote dilution on the local level": That's true, but another way to put that is that the principal use of Section 5 has become the coercion of jurisdictions to adopt and maintain racially gerrymandered and segregated voting districts. That is quite at odds with the original ideals of the Civil Rights Movement, and there is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to pass legislation institutionalizing such coercion -- which is one of the reasons that Section 5 is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court should strike it down. Re ” … if you look at the Justice Department’s pre-clearance enforcement over the past 30 years, what stands out is that a disproportionate number of pre-clearance denials involved vote dilution on the local level”: That’s true, but another way to put that is that the principal use of Section 5 has become the coercion of jurisdictions to adopt and maintain racially gerrymandered and segregated voting districts. That is quite at odds with the original ideals of the Civil Rights Movement, and there is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to pass legislation institutionalizing such coercion — which is one of the reasons that Section 5 is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court should strike it down.

]]>