RichmondPhilsFan wrote:jerseyhoya wrote:Read the decisions, and I'm not a lawyer so that caveat applies, but this is an area of interest. Like most 5-4 decisions, both arguments seem pretty persuasive on their own.
Roberts seems to be starting from the position that any federal legislation that puts states under different levels of federal supervision requires a uniquely significant rationale. In 1966, that existed when the Court approved of the VRA handling the covered states differently under Section 5. Also the formula devised in Section 4 was a means inextricably linked to the goal. Given the changes of the past 40-50 years, Congress just reauthorizing the formulas based on statistics from so long ago comes nowhere near clearing the bar for demonstrating that same linkage, which means that part of the law falls short of the burden he started with. The focus is also a very macro level picture look at voter registration and turnout numbers since passage of the VRA, with the conclusion drawn that many of the covered states are no longer uniquely deserving of targeting from the federal government on voting rights issues.
Ginsberg has a lot of problems with the majority opinion, but the crux of it is that Congress put a lot of time and thought into the reauthorization of the VRA in 2006 and the Court has shown deference to Congress when it tries to protect rights using the Civil War amendments. She takes a more micro level look, citing specific instances in some of the covered jurisdictions where violations were prevented by the law, as opposed to Roberts' focus on the macro level.
On the whole, I think the majority is in the right. There should be a significant burden for the federal government to treat states differently, and the formula is outdated. The Court is hesitant to overturn acts of Congress, but this wasn't a surprise. They signaled four years ago that the current law was unacceptable, and this would happen if they didn't update the formula themselves.
As a side note, at one point in the dissent, Ginsberg asks if Congress isn't allowed to make laws differentiating between states, specifically citing (among a few others) the law banning sports betting in all but four states. Given the recent court controversy over New Jersey attempting to start sports betting, it'd be nice if this could be used as precedent for overturning that from Congress as well.
The US Code is rife with disparate treatment. Hell, any appropriations bill treats the states differently (usually based on the power of a state's legislators).
I have a hard time seeing how that's comparable.
