Chief Justice Roberts displayed incredible logic in his decision striking down section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. It’s so brilliant, we just wanted to pointed out some of the other ways that the same logic could be applied.
First, the court’s decision, written by Roberts, can be seen in full; however, the gist of the argument is this:
Section 4 of the act identified just a few states and counties required to pre-clear their changes to voting procedures, in order to ensure that they did not disenfranchise minority voters. The areas identified were those where Congress found “evidence of actual voting discrimination,” and the covered jurisdictions shared two characteristics: “the use of tests and devices for voter registration, and a voting rate in the 1964 presidential election at least 12 points below the national average.”
Quoting from Page 3 of the court document: “Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. Largely because of the Voting Rights Act [emphasis added], voter turnout and registration rates in covered jurisdictions now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.”
Roberts, backed by a majority of the court, concludes that because the conditions that lead to the act are no longer true, the act is no longer needed.
There is a rumor that, during afternoon cocktail parties, Roberts was also willing to go on and give advice on other topics. For example…
Sex and Romance:
Thank you for your great font of wisdom, Justice Roberts. Bravo.