{"id":13785,"date":"2013-12-05T04:14:00","date_gmt":"2013-12-05T04:14:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/articles\/in-the-courtroom-as-scotus-considers-the-future-of-the-voting-rights-act\/"},"modified":"2013-12-05T04:14:00","modified_gmt":"2013-12-05T04:14:00","slug":"im-gerichtssaal-wahrend-der-oberste-gerichtshof-uber-die-zukunft-des-wahlrechtsgesetzes-berat","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/de\/articles\/in-the-courtroom-as-scotus-considers-the-future-of-the-voting-rights-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Im Gerichtssaal, w\u00e4hrend der Oberste Gerichtshof \u00fcber die Zukunft des Wahlrechtsgesetzes ber\u00e4t"},"template":"","class_list":["post-13785","article","type-article","status-publish","hentry","article_type-blog-post"],"acf":{"details":{"summary":"","featured_image":null,"article_type":1103,"authors":["{\"site_id\":\"1\",\"post_type\":\"person\",\"post_id\":8888}"],"related_issues":[169,2066],"related_work":false,"location":null},"sidebar":{"helper_enable_sidebar":false,"helper_media_contact":{"heading":"Media Contact","manually_enter_person":false,"person":null,"name":"","role":"","phone":"","email":""},"helper_links_downloads":{"heading":"Links & Downloads","links":null}},"page_layout":[{"acf_fc_layout":"layout_wysiwyg","_acfe_flexible_toggle":null,"component_wysiwyg":{"content":"

Ich habe am Mittwoch an der m\u00fcndlichen Verhandlung teilgenommen in Shelby County gegen Holder<\/em>, the case challenging the Section 5 \"pre-clearance\" provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act. Common Cause joined in filing an Amicus Curiae-Schriftsatz<\/a> to the Supreme Court in support of upholding the law. Keep in mind: the Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of Section 5 four times before -- in 1966<\/a>, 1973<\/a>, 1980<\/a>, Und 1999<\/a>. This is far from a matter of first impression to the nation's highest court.<\/p>

(Eine Zusammenfassung unseres Briefings finden Sie hier.) Hier<\/a>, eine Erkl\u00e4rung, warum wir noch immer Abschnitt 5 brauchen Hier<\/a> und gro\u00dfartige SCOTUSBlog-Berichterstattung \u00fcber den Fall Hier<\/a>.)<\/p>

As a reminder, Section 5 requires \"abgedeckte Gerichtsbarkeiten<\/a>\" with a history of severe discrimination to seek approval from the federal government before changing their voting practices or procedures. The law protects American voters from unjust efforts to make it harder for them to vote, and requires some specific jurisdictions to bear the burden of proving why their changes to election administration procedures will not unjustly discriminate against certain voters. Congress established a formula to determine which jurisdictions are \"covered,\" and reauthorized the formula in 2006 for another 25 years, just as it did in 1982.<\/p>

Shelby County im Bundesstaat Alabama hat diesen Fall bis vor den Obersten Gerichtshof gebracht, weil es diesen Abschnitt des Wahlrechtsgesetzes f\u00fcr verfassungswidrig h\u00e4lt.<\/p>

Der Gerichtssaal war bis auf den letzten Platz gef\u00fcllt mit Mitgliedern der \u00d6ffentlichkeit, Dutzenden von Reportern und reihenweise Anw\u00e4lten. Der Kongressabgeordnete John Lewis, die Ikone der B\u00fcrgerrechte, die in den 1960er Jahren bei einem Marsch f\u00fcr das Wahlrecht in Alabama fast zu Tode gepr\u00fcgelt wurde, sa\u00df mit anderen Kongressmitgliedern zusammen. Neben ihm sa\u00df Martin Luther King III, das \u00e4lteste lebende Kind des Nationalhelden.<\/p>

P\u00fcnktlich um 10:00 Uhr traten die Richter hinter den schweren Vorh\u00e4ngen hervor und nahmen ihre Pl\u00e4tze ein.<\/p>

Questioning was sharp. Justice Sonia Sotomayor started asking about the appropriateness of Shelby County as the party challenging the Voting Rights Act, given Section 5's role in protecting Shelby County residents from over 240 proposed changes in voting laws. Isn't Shelby County the wrong party to bring this case, she asked, given that it is \"the Inbegriff<\/strong> of what caused passage of this law to start with?\" Shelby County responded that it has made vast improvements, but Congress irrationally held it to old and outdated standards.<\/p>

The argument focused most particularly on whether Congress could continue to rely on data from the 1970s in determining whether to extend the Voting Rights Act. Justices Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer explained in their questions that no one doubts that there's been progress in battling discrimination, but said Congress decided as recently as 2006 -- in 15,000 pages of record compiled over the course of 21 hearings - that discrimination was still egregious in the covered jurisdictions, and much more so than in non-covered jurisdictions. Thus, they asserted, Congress should be afforded due deference when it exercised its 14th and 15th Amendment powers to protect the vote and extend the law's life. As Breyer said, Congress identified in the Voting Rights Act a remedy for the disease of discrimination that was far more prevalent in some regions of the country than others. And while the disease is not as malignant as it was fifty years ago -- Congress decided to keep the remedy, backed its decision up with an exhaustive record, and decided not to \"change horses mid-stream.\"<\/p>

By far, one of the most disturbing questions came from Justice Antonin Scalia. He worried that without court intervention, the Voting Rights Act would live on forever because of a \"perpetuation of racial entitlement.\"<\/p>

As often happens during oral argument, Justice Sotomayor appeared to respond to Justice Scalia by asking a question of her own of Shelby County's attorney: \"Do you think the right to vote is a racial entitlement in Section 5?\" The attorney failed to answer the question directly.<\/p>

Although I'd caution against putting too much stock in predicting how the Court will ultimately rule, the questions indicated a hostility to the law among the five conservative justices. Whether there are five votes to completely strike down Section 5, or merely to strike down the formula used to determine which states and counties can be considered \"covered jurisdictions\" is something that the justices will hash out in the drafting of the Court's opinion. But the skepticism in the questions of Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Samuel Alito was more than apparent. Chief Justice Roberts tipped his hand most recently in a 2009 case that considered a different question about the Voting Rights Act, in Northwest Austin Municipality District gegen Holder<\/em>. He said then \"the coverage formula is based on data that is now more than 35 years old, and there is considerable evidence that it fails to account for current political conditions.\"<\/p>

Der Kongress ist nat\u00fcrlich anderer Meinung.<\/p>

Eine Stellungnahme in Shelby County gegen Holder<\/em> wird vor der Sommerpause des Gerichts im Juni erwartet.<\/p>"}}]},"yoast_head":"\nIn the courtroom as SCOTUS considers the future of the Voting Rights Act - Common Cause<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/de\/artikel-2\/im-gerichtssaal-wahrend-der-oberste-gerichtshof-uber-die-zukunft-des-wahlrechtsgesetzes-berat\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"de_DE\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"In the courtroom as SCOTUS considers the future of the Voting Rights Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/de\/artikel-2\/im-gerichtssaal-wahrend-der-oberste-gerichtshof-uber-die-zukunft-des-wahlrechtsgesetzes-berat\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Common Cause\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CommonCause\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/CC-Share-Graphic-Main9.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"630\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@CommonCause\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/articles\/in-the-courtroom-as-scotus-considers-the-future-of-the-voting-rights-act\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/articles\/in-the-courtroom-as-scotus-considers-the-future-of-the-voting-rights-act\/\",\"name\":\"In the courtroom as SCOTUS considers the future of the Voting Rights Act - Common Cause\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2013-12-05T04:14:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/articles\/in-the-courtroom-as-scotus-considers-the-future-of-the-voting-rights-act\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"de\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/articles\/in-the-courtroom-as-scotus-considers-the-future-of-the-voting-rights-act\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/articles\/in-the-courtroom-as-scotus-considers-the-future-of-the-voting-rights-act\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"In the courtroom as SCOTUS considers the future of the Voting Rights Act\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/\",\"name\":\"Common Cause\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"de\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Common Cause\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"de\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Common-Cause-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Common-Cause-Logo.png\",\"width\":2066,\"height\":331,\"caption\":\"Common Cause\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CommonCause\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/CommonCause\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/ourcommoncause\/\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Im Gerichtssaal, w\u00e4hrend der Oberste Gerichtshof \u00fcber die Zukunft des Wahlrechtsgesetzes ber\u00e4t - Common Cause","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/de\/artikel-2\/im-gerichtssaal-wahrend-der-oberste-gerichtshof-uber-die-zukunft-des-wahlrechtsgesetzes-berat\/","og_locale":"de_DE","og_type":"article","og_title":"In the courtroom as SCOTUS considers the future of the Voting Rights Act","og_url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/de\/artikel-2\/im-gerichtssaal-wahrend-der-oberste-gerichtshof-uber-die-zukunft-des-wahlrechtsgesetzes-berat\/","og_site_name":"Common Cause","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CommonCause","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":630,"url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/CC-Share-Graphic-Main9.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_site":"@CommonCause","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/articles\/in-the-courtroom-as-scotus-considers-the-future-of-the-voting-rights-act\/","url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/articles\/in-the-courtroom-as-scotus-considers-the-future-of-the-voting-rights-act\/","name":"Im Gerichtssaal, w\u00e4hrend der Oberste Gerichtshof \u00fcber die Zukunft des Wahlrechtsgesetzes ber\u00e4t - Common Cause","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#website"},"datePublished":"2013-12-05T04:14:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/articles\/in-the-courtroom-as-scotus-considers-the-future-of-the-voting-rights-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"de","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/articles\/in-the-courtroom-as-scotus-considers-the-future-of-the-voting-rights-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/articles\/in-the-courtroom-as-scotus-considers-the-future-of-the-voting-rights-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"In the courtroom as SCOTUS considers the future of the Voting Rights Act"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/","name":"Gemeinsame Ursache","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"de"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#organization","name":"Gemeinsame Ursache","url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"de","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Common-Cause-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Common-Cause-Logo.png","width":2066,"height":331,"caption":"Common Cause"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CommonCause","https:\/\/x.com\/CommonCause","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/ourcommoncause\/"]}]}},"distributor_meta":false,"distributor_terms":false,"distributor_media":false,"distributor_original_site_name":"Common Cause","distributor_original_site_url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/de","push-errors":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article\/13785","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/article"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article\/13785\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13785"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}