afagen/Flickr
For the second time in four years, the Supreme Court will consider a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
- Skip to content
- Contact
- Sponsorships
- Donate
- 3:30am — July 05, 2022
a smarter Tucson is a better Tucson
Last month, the Supreme Court said it will consider the constitutionality of a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the hallmark legislation from the Civil Rights era that has come under increased challenge. ... Read more»
afagen/Flickr
For the second time in four years, the Supreme Court will consider a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
131339111111I want to help TucsonSentinel.com offer a real news alternative!
We're committed to making quality news accessible; we'll never set up a paywall or charge for our site. But we rely on your support to bring you independent news without the spin. Use our convenient PayPal/credit card donation form below or contact us at donate@tucsonsentinel.com today.
Subscribe and stretch your donation over time:
Or give a secure one-time gift with PayPal or your credit card:
TucsonSentinel.com is an Arizona nonprofit organization. Your contribution is tax-deductible.
Please be respectful and relevant. Thought-provoking. Or at least funny.
We want comments to advance the discussion and we need your help. Debate, disagree, yell (digitally) or laugh, but do it with respect.
We won't censor your comments if we don't agree with you; we want viewpoints from across the political spectrum. We're dedicated to sparking an open, active discussion. We believe people with differing opinions can spark debate and effect change.
Comments are open to registered users of TucsonSentinel.com.
Keep in mind:
TucsonSentinel.com does not allow:
Comments that violate these guidelines may be removed. We reserve the right to make up the rules as we go along.
Commentors are solely responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. Users who violate these standards may lose their privileges on TucsonSentinel.com.
Sentinel editors can't read every comment. Trolls, spammers and other troublemakers can slide under the bridge. We rely on you to help maintain a healthy conversation - more than likely, you're reading these comments before the editors.
What if you see something inappropriate? Use the 'Flag' button to send it to a moderation queue. Help us out and tell us why you're reporting it; please don't report someone just because you disagree with them. Boy who cried wolf and all that. We'll take appropriate action on violations.
We will not edit comments to alter their meaning or censor comments because of political content.
We will not remove comments solely because they are heartless, cruel, coarse, foolish or just plain wrong. Your disapproval can maintain a decent signal to noise ratio. Ultimately, however, self-policing is the best method.
Bottom line, don't be a jerk.
2 comments on this story
Here’s why Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in bad policy, outdated, unconstitutional, and ought to be struck down by the Supreme Court: http://www.pacificlegal.org/opeds/Overturn-unconstitutional-Voting-Rights-Act
The voting rights act has cause quite a mess, and it has allowed…no, required, the very actions that those who drafted it claimed it would prevent.
Gerrymandering is Gerrymandering is Gerrymandering. Two wrongs don’t make a right, they never did in this case.
I’ve said this before, but I’ll repeat it because I’m so passionate about it and it’s relevant to this piece. Districts should be equal in population, should be contiguous, and should be as close to geographically rectangular as possible. That should be it…THAT SHOULD BE IT!!! Things like skin color, party registration or any other bullshit should not matter. Any law that conflicts with this is unethical, and violates the spirit of democracy at its core. The “voting rights” act is a bad law and needs to be either changed or thrown out.
Think about the benefits…fewer (read that Dylan? I didn’t say “less”) extremists would be elected, and we wouldn’t have to put up with months of drama from a so-called “independent” redistricting commission every 10 years. One guy with a computer and some software could have the maps drawn in a day if what I propose is adopted.