White Man Laws do not apply to Holder! Citing 'Intentional Racial Discrimination,' Holder Asks Judge to Re-Impose Preclearance on Texas

Acting as Obama's 'Himmler," Eric Holder, liar and in contempt of Congress, is deciding which Supreme Court Ruling he will follow and which ones he will ignore and act a dictator's tool. m/r

Citing 'Intentional Racial Discrimination,' Holder Asks Judge to Re-Impose Preclearance on Texas | National Review Online

by  Will Allen

July 25, 2013

In a speech to the National Urban League in Philadelphia today, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he will ask a federal judge to require the state of Texas to once again seek Justice Department approval before making any changes to its election laws. The announcement portends a new contest over the federal voting-law review process, known as “preclearance,” which was instituted by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to prevent certain jurisdictions — mostly in the South — from discriminating against racial minorities or other subgroups of voters.

In Shelby County v. Holder last month, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Act, which mapped the jurisdictions that needed federal preclearance. The justices ruled 5–4 that the formula was outdated and therefore unconstitutional; since the map no longer reflected American racial attitudes, the federal government was no longer justified in violating the equal sovereignty of the states:

Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. Largely because of the Voting Rights Act, “[v]oter turnout and registration rates” in covered jurisdictions “now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.” Northwest Austin supra, at 202. The tests and devices that blocked ballot access have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years. Yet the Act has not eased §5’s restrictions or narrowed the scope of §4’s coverage formula along the way. Instead those extraordinary and unprecedented features have been reauthorized as if nothing has changed, and they have grown even stronger.

With the coverage formula gone, many assumed that the preclearance restrictions in Section 5 were now a dead letter, unless Congress enacted a new formula mapping which jurisdictions ought to receive federal supervision. Holder evidently thinks otherwise —

-go to link-