Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
-- breaking news right now out of the Supreme Court we are just learning that they have made a decision.
On the voting rights issue of that has been before them is a huge.
Shannon Bream joins us now live outside the US Supreme Court with more they have made some changes.
To the way that the voting rights act is -- -- Will he tell us.
Well I'm Martha for folks sister remember what this is about the voting rights act was passed back in -- and the mid 1960s.
And it's all about remedying discrimination against minority voters it was passed so that certain covered jurisdictions.
There are several states and number of other chunks of states.
Where there's -- history of discrimination in the past and because of that if they wanna change voting procedures they have to go to a federal court -- the Justice Department.
And ask permission first and number of these states have argued.
It's time intensive it's very expensive for them to do it and I think it changed over the years section -- of the voting rights act he's the one that figures out -- calculates.
Which is going to be covered jurisdiction in an opinion that -- Chief Justice -- have just called section four unconstitutional.
Nearly fifty years later things have changed dramatically and largely because of the voting rights act.
Voter turnout registration rates and covered jurisdictions those places where they're essentially under a penalty and have to get.
The national approval from the Justice Department report federal court to change things they think these are now approaching parity so section for now found unconstitutional meaning.
It could change everything about how it's decided that you're covered jurisdiction.
And whether you no longer have to be covered jurisdiction you can get out of it.
But essentially our first freedom this opinion is -- -- major change the voting rights act striking down section four as unconstitutional.
-- It's very interesting -- talked to me a little bit.
About what kinds of measures of these states and have tried to get thrill.
In order to change the voting the voting rules in there in their communities.
And what this might allow them to do now.
Well at at saint that was that exciting a little bit about that if you -- -- make changes and -- one of these -- jurisdictions.
You do have to spend a lot of time and money fishing the federal government which can say now it often says yes and says yes you have remedy things we will approve a specific change.
Or that you opt out but it cost a lot of time and money and -- Their places that wanna change -- polling place they wanna change the hours that you vote they -- to change the location.
The key to any of that without spending the time and money to get the federal government's permission and a number of these states say hey you know there's been huge -- and our demographics our population since 1965.
In the interim fifty years essentially a lot of these attitudes and discriminatory measures.
I have been -- -- -- to some extent everybody you argue this case on both sides admitted we're not a perfect country there are still issues of race and discrimination.
But the fact is many of these places have made great strides -- they think.
We don't need to -- -- of these provisions anymore come check us out there haven't been complaints we -- remedy these things and we shouldn't still be under.
This federal law essentially that -- a lot of time and money make changes.
That other parts of the country would never have to think twice now understand that what what about the question of better idea of requiring that.
I does that come into play here.
That's -- way it could tangentially be come into play because.
Essentially what this section four that they that the Chief Justice in writing for the majority has called unconstitutional.
He decided to would be under -- covered.
The jurisdiction the gas if you're gonna have voter ID if you're gonna change your districts that's something you have to -- -- the federal government about.
But if affection for formula deciding that your.
Covered that you meet the criteria for being covered if that's thrown out maybe you're not covered anymore -- -- maybe you can make those changes weather's vote rightly or something else.
Those things are gonna take some time I'm sure to -- through actually read the rest of this opinion but what it looks like now -- A lot of the jurisdictions that are covered now the formula for deciding who's going to be covered.
Apparently at this point in its current form is unconstitutional just one more quick -- question for you Shannon.
You know yesterday we had the affirmative action decision basically kicked back to that to the lower court.
These are all part of a larger umbrella in terms of equal treatment under the -- and and and the changes that came about late sixties.
It's true and a lot of what we're going to be seeing decided here the court.
Has roots and those things the conversation about civil rights and who is equal under the law with the same sex marriage cases that we anticipate we're going to get.
Either tomorrow or Thursday were -- waiting on guidance from the court about what will be.
The next day they're going to meet but all of those things have a common -- -- talking about a couple of things first of all civil rights issues.
Equality under the law and also states rights that's a big it could be seen through a lot of cases we've seen here this year at the court.
Fascinating CNN thank you very much we'll talk to -- -- Well done -- catch your breath to judge Andrew Pollack how -- Fox -- judicial analyst and sir good morning you.
The formula was rational both practice and theory.
Coverage today is based on decades old data and eradicated.
Practices how does this change now what does this mean -- here here's what it means the law in 1966.
Bill basically said.
If you are in certain counties in certain southern states.
That all laws that affect who can vote and how they can vote are presumed.
Unless approved it by bureaucrats in the Justice Department the court upheld that for many years today the court reversed that.
And said people who run vote make decisions as to who can vote and how they can vote in the southern counties in the southern states.
May make their rules and someone can challenge -- it's not -- wrong just because they're in the south.
And they made the rule it's a valid role and will be followed unless dislodged by the court.
So basically it makes it more difficult for people who don't like all we're gonna change the place where you vote we're -- and make you come up with -- voter ID.
We're gonna change the time for voting.
Things that happen all the time in the north.
Without involvement of the Justice Department.
Now can happen in the south -- the judge let me answer two questions that required the states with a history of discrimination against minorities.
To take extra measures to to protect their voting power.
To whom does this apply its Alabama.
Is it Mississippi.
How many states all it applies to twelve states but not to all counties in -- states.
But not after today -- basically the Supreme Court said.
That history of discrimination against African Americans is history.
There's no longer any contemporary data that it's still going on and therefore there's no reason to impose this additional burden.
On those states while not imposing at and any others are judge thank you we're gonna get -- commercial here from the descent I'm just reading this for an out of Santa irony of today's decision.
Lies and its utter failure to grasp why the voting rights act has proven effective that from the dissenting judges thank user Iraq if there's more bring you back.
Filter by section