Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Ms. Toad

(38,320 posts)

11. It may well rule that - or .maybe not

Reply to edhopper (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 14, 2025, 10:00 AM

Apr 2025

But I suspect the ruling will hinge on state control of elections (state elections clause) not on the fifteenth amendment. If it is based on the 15th amendment, they would have to do a careful tapdance to get around their own recent (conservative) decision eliminating federal oversight of voting rights in states with a history of civil rights discrimination.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The SAVE Act violates the Voting Rights Act [View all] edhopper Apr 2025 OP

A christian government is their goal. CharleyDog Apr 2025 #1

Unfortunately, when two laws conflict, the newer one takes precedence. Angleae Apr 2025 #2

Except the VRA edhopper Apr 2025 #3

It's still just a law, and can be modified by Congress. Ms. Toad Apr 2025 #5

Since when edhopper Apr 2025 #6

You're the one who suggested it was flat out unconstitutional. Ms. Toad Apr 2025 #7

Yes edhopper Apr 2025 #8

Then why did you start out taking the opposite position? Ms. Toad Apr 2025 #9

I have lost complete track of this edhopper Apr 2025 #10

It may well rule that - or .maybe not Ms. Toad Apr 2025 #11

When have they not been edhopper Apr 2025 #12

SAVE Act is unconstitutional GoreWon2000 Apr 2025 #4