Author: has written 5301 posts for this blog.

Jill began blogging for Feministe in 2005. She has since written as a weekly columnist for the Guardian newspaper and in April 2014 she was appointed as senior political writer for Cosmopolitan magazine.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

13 Responses

  1. macavitykitsune
    macavitykitsune June 29, 2013 at 2:07 am |

    Yep, right on, Jill. D: This is a horrible disaster.

    Mostly, as an LGBTQ WOC, I can’t help but wonder how others in my shoes must feel – kissed on one cheek and slapped on the other in consecutive days? Zow.

  2. Azalea
    Azalea June 29, 2013 at 12:43 pm |

    This is exactly how I feel. It seems like a divide and conquer act; give the LGBTIQ community what they want/need/deserve right after robbing the POC what they want/need/deserve, stir, serve and watch one party celebrate while another mourns. I wanted DOMA to go down, I wanted same sex couples to enjoy the same rights and freedoms of opposite sex couples. But I couldn’t find joy in that just hours after being told that being a POC made me a POS not worthy of constitutional protection.

  3. Comrade Kevin
    Comrade Kevin June 29, 2013 at 12:55 pm |

    I respectfully disagree with you. It is not fair to assert that certain segments of the country are always going to encroach rights. I am a native Southerner and have seen considerable changes over the past 40 years. The status quo must give way to the idea that reform is possible.

    1. Kierra
      Kierra June 29, 2013 at 1:06 pm |

      If there was a chance in hell that the VRA would be extended to the entire country, I might agree with you. But the basic fact is that the counties in question could have bypassed the extra scrutiny by not trying to pass voting restrictions over a certain period of time. Many counties managed to do this. The particular counties that brought the suit did not.

    2. macavitykitsune
      macavitykitsune June 29, 2013 at 1:06 pm |

      I’d buy that those states have changed, if this hadn’t happened in under two days.

      As it stands, I believe the checks and balances should be extended to all states, not some (thereby eliminating the discriminatory aspect).

    3. GallingGalla
      GallingGalla June 29, 2013 at 1:11 pm |

      But the Supreme Court has destroyed the mechanism for that reform. The fact that several states are scrambling to pass restrictive voting legislation in the wake of the ruling shows that the VRA is still needed. Want to make the VRA fair? Then extend it to all states. *That’s* what the Supreme Court should have done.

      This decision is the worst SCOTUS civil rights decision that I’ve seen in my lifetime, and I’m not young.

    4. Willard
      Willard June 29, 2013 at 2:26 pm |

      The thing is, some places were able to play by the rules and qualify for their bailout from the preclearance requirement. Others (like Shelby here) kept trying the same shit over and over again and ran crying to the SCOTUS. This wasn’t about the whole THA SOUTH, some places have changed and gotten out from under the DoJ, but there are still large and small recidivists. Not to mention the places that have been added or should be added for blatantly discriminatory tactics.

      The SCOTUS did a fucked up thing, but it was a fucked up thing they all but said they were going to do four years ago. I saw that Holder had plans in place for what to do if Section 5 was invalidated with this case, but what the hell did they do with Section 4 between then and now? There are certain modern versions of the tests originally covered in the VRA that should automatically invite DoJ investigation, literacy and education requirements are dinosaurs, but Voter ID is the Next Best Thing in disenfranchisement. As much fun as it is to blame the judges, they aren’t the ones writing the laws. The administration has had some serious feet of clay when it comes to being proactive on this shit.

    5. EG
      EG June 29, 2013 at 10:28 pm |

      The status quo must give way to the idea that reform is possible.

      Do not confuse “not buying that the states subject to federal review under the VRA are no longer going to disenfranchise PoC” with “not thinking that reform is possible.”

      Reform may well be possible. But it sure hasn’t happened yet. If it had, these states wouldn’t have had their voting laws blocked MULTIPLE TIMES in the past TEN YEARS.

      Your faith in the high-minded egalitarianism of former Jim Crow states is touching. Demanding the same faith from PoC who wish to vote there is bullshit.

  4. Donna L
    Donna L June 29, 2013 at 1:40 pm |

    Want to make the VRA fair? Then extend it to all states. *That’s* what the Supreme Court should have done.

    The VRA does apply in all states; it’s the particular enforcement mechanism that was held unconstitutional. It would be impossible for the Supreme Court to extend that mechanism to all states. It’s Congress that imposed the federal approval requirements for particular states — a requirement invalidated by the Supreme Cout — and it’s Congress that would have to extend them to all States. It requires a law to do that, and the Supreme Court has no power whatsoever to enact legislation, even if you had 9 progressives on the Court. The chances of getting Congress to pass new legislation imposing such requirements on any states are slim at the moment. Imposing them on all states? Nil.

    1. GallingGalla
      GallingGalla June 29, 2013 at 2:02 pm |

      Whoops! My ignorance is showing. Thanks for pointing that out.

    2. Willard
      Willard June 29, 2013 at 2:28 pm |

      Thanks Donna, I was pretty sure that was how it worked out, but the big NAL floating over my head left me unsure.

  5. pheenobarbidoll
    pheenobarbidoll June 29, 2013 at 1:59 pm |

    Suddenly I’m reminded of ” The South doesn’t care how close we get, as long as we don’t get too big and the North doesn’t care how big we get as long as we don’t get too close”.

  6. trees
    trees June 30, 2013 at 5:28 pm |

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.