![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Because it's not like nonwhite people or those otherwise known to vote "wrong" ever get turned away from the polls due to spurious horseshit these days.
Oh wait no that is in fact the case.
Seriously, literally all that section 5 said was that particularly hate-crime-prone states have to show changes to their voting procedures or redistricting plans to the Justice Department before implementing them. This is done on the basis that common sense suggests that they are more likely than other places to require "Arabian-looking" people to sing the Star-Spangled Banner in order to access the polls, or chop a primarily-black community into nineteen separate voting districts, or whatever.
So it's not exactly an unreasonable requirement. The only problem with it is that it's too limited; it does not, for example, cover my ridiculous state, home of the nation's largest concentration of KKK members. Because we're super responsible about electoral shit.
Here's an overly-mild description of the decision's implications by a someone at the Washington Post. There are four things he fails to address adequately:
( Read more... )
Oh wait no that is in fact the case.
Seriously, literally all that section 5 said was that particularly hate-crime-prone states have to show changes to their voting procedures or redistricting plans to the Justice Department before implementing them. This is done on the basis that common sense suggests that they are more likely than other places to require "Arabian-looking" people to sing the Star-Spangled Banner in order to access the polls, or chop a primarily-black community into nineteen separate voting districts, or whatever.
So it's not exactly an unreasonable requirement. The only problem with it is that it's too limited; it does not, for example, cover my ridiculous state, home of the nation's largest concentration of KKK members. Because we're super responsible about electoral shit.
Here's an overly-mild description of the decision's implications by a someone at the Washington Post. There are four things he fails to address adequately:
( Read more... )
