Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder

A stand-alone newsbite of this morning's Drudge lead - from the Washington Times:

In a decision that marks the end of a major civil rights-era reform...

Actually it started as a "reform" and ended as a tool of extortion... which is why the Supreme Court struck it down.

...the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the federal government can no longer force states with a long-past history of voting discrimination to have to get federal approval for all of their voting laws.

Of course the federal government can still take states and localities to court alleging voter discrimination...

The 5-4 ruling...

It's sad that it's not a 9-0 unanimous decision... but there you go; it is what it is.

...rewrites a key tool of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which for five decades has given the federal government unprecedented say in everything from how some states draw their congressional maps to where they place polling locations.

Frankly, the Voting Rights Act was always extra-constitutional law - from its well-meant inception - but let's not get hung up on that.

But beneath the legal ruling is a broader social significance, with the justices saying that past discrimination cannot be perpetually held against a state.

“The Fifteenth Amendment commands that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race or color, and it gives Congress the power to enforce that command. The amendment is not designed to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority.

The court’s four liberal-leaning justices dissented.

Of course they did...

The Voting Rights Act injected the federal government deep into states’ voting practices as a way of combating states who had a history of laws or practices that discriminated against black voters. Nine states are covered in their entirety, while counties and townships in six other states are also constrained by the pre-clearance section which means they must send all voting changes to the federal government for review before they can take effect. That gives the federal government review over everything ranging from new congressional representation maps and voter-identification laws all the way down to moving a polling place across the road.

The pre-clearance provisions were deemed so drastic that when Congress enacted them in 1965, they were temporary.

In 1965 members of Congress - and the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch - actually gave a damn about the Constitution and were often inclined to treat discretion as the better part of valor when tinkering with it.

Lawmakers renewed in 1970, 1975, 1982 and, most recently, in 2006, when Congress extended them for 25 more years.

Yep. You read that right. 2006. Yep... the same 2006 when Republicans still controlled both houses of Congress.

Tuesday’s court decision stands in some ways as a rebuke of Congress.