6 of 9 states fully covered by Section 5 of Voting Rights Act passed new voting restrictions since 2010 http://tnat.in/ftnvE
-
-
Replying to @AriBerman
.
@AriBerman How many states not affected by section 5 did so?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rickhasen1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
-
Replying to @AriBerman
.
@AriBerman My point is that for CJ Roberts, question is if covered states are appreciably different from others for VRA constitutionality1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rickhasen
.
@rickhasen no region more consistently passed new voting restrictions than the South. solution should be to expand section 5, not gut it2 replies 7 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AriBerman
@ariberman@RickHasen Can SCOTUS expand VRA though? My understanding is only Congress can do that1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Replying to @brentinmock
.@bmockaveli @AriBerman The Supreme Court cannot expand the scope of section 5 to cover more jurisdictions.
11:50 AM - 27 Nov 2012
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.