Sign up for our daily newsletter

Legal-Courts

SUPCO to hear Alabama suit against Eric Holder

Chad Groening   (OneNewsNow.com) Wednesday, November 14, 2012

A black conservative organization is pleased that the Supreme Court has agreed to review a controversial section of the Voting Rights Act, which it believes is outdated and unfair to a number of states.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case Shelby County Alabama v. Eric H. Holder Jr. At issue is the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which treats modern-day state and local government decisions as if they were made by the Dixiecrats of long ago. Specifically, the plaintiff contends that the "Preclearance" Standard is now being enforced in Shelby County, Alabama, as if George Wallace was still governor -- as he was from the early 1960s through the late 1980s.            

Almasi, David (Project 21)David Almasi is a spokesman for Project 21, which has filed an amicus brief in favor of the plaintiff. He says Congress should have amended this statute in 2006 when they reauthorized the Voting Rights Act until 2031. He says the Obama administration has taken advantage of Section 5 to prevent states like Texas and South Carolina from passing voter ID laws.

"Of course, that could go either way, and they want to make sure that people realize that either it is constitutional to continue to hold perceptions from generations ago or that things need to be changed, he tells OneNewsNow.

"They need to see that Congress refused to do its job back in 2006, and they're going to strike down the portion of the act that says [basically that] You have to judge a locality by what happened decades and decades ago."

Almasi says the high court is not expected to hear arguments on the case until the fall of 2013 and will not issue a ruling until June of 2014.


We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. (More on this policy)
comments powered by Disqus