JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG IS MY HERO

Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to pre-clearance.

Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion, along with Justices Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas.

After exhaustive evidence-gathering and deliberative process, Congress reauthorized the VRA, including the coverage provision, with overwhelming bipartisan support. It was the judgment of Congress that “40 years has not been a sufficient amount of time to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination following nearly 100 years of disregard for the dictates of the 15th amendment and to ensure that the right of all citizens to vote is protected as guaranteed by the 2006 Reauthorization. That determination of the body empowered to enforce the Civil War Amendments “by appropriate legislation” merits this Court’s utmost respect. In my judgment, the Court errs egregiously by overriding Congress decision.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the dissenting opinion, with Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayer.

The link to the text of Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, et al.

The majority justices who eviscerated the Voting Rights Act because they believe discrimination in voting rights is ended must inhabit a different planet than Earth.

JINDAL'S TENURE LAW DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL - ON TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT

One of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s signature laws that makes it harder for teachers to earn and retain a form of job protection, called tenure, was declared unconstitutional Monday.

State District Judge R. Michael Caldwell, of the 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge, who in December upheld the tenure part of a sweeping education law, reversed himself after hearing new arguments from both sides.

The ruling was a victory for the Louisiana Federation of Teachers. The LFT filed the lawsuit and said that the 2012 measure would essentially end teacher tenure in Louisiana.

The decision also could throw a wrench into sweeping new teacher evaluations, which are under way in public schools for the first time.

Of course, Jindal will file an appeal, so we'll wait to see how the Louisiana Supreme Court rules.  I'm not against educational reform, but I don't want reform in the hands of Jindal and the present legislature. Apparently, they do not do not overly concern themselves with following laws already in the Louisiana Constitution when they write new legislation, and the experiment with vouchers to private schools is not going well.  Who advises the governor and the legislators on constitutional issues and apparently tells them what they want to hear, rather than what will pass the constitutional test?  I assume Jimmy Faircloth, the lawyer for the state who will lead the appeal, is one of the advisers.  Perhaps, if the advisers stepped into the real world and left behind the Republican fantasy world, they'd give wiser advice about legislation.  Ah, but then they might be dismissed from their positions by the governor, who brooks little or no dissent within his inner circle.

State Rep. John Bel Edwards, D-Amite and an opponent of the tenure law, said Monday that, during House debate on the measure, he and other opponents warned that it was legally flawed but that Jindal and his legislative allies “ramrodded it through.”

Jindal is good at ramrodding legislation through.  His policy: Pass the legislation quickly before too many people have a chance to examine it closely and find the flaws.  

LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN FUNDING VOUCHER PROGRAM USING PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDS

Bobby Jindal

BATON ROUGE — The Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled that funding the state voucher program with funds intended for public schools is unconstitutional.
....

The Supreme Court ruling states "After reviewing the record, the legislative instruments and the constitutional provisions at issue, we agree with the district court that once funds are dedicated to the state's Minimum Foundation Program for public education, the constitution prohibits those funds from being expended on the tuition costs of nonpublic schools and nonpublic entities...."

Bobby and the legislators who went along with the voucher plan will now have to find another way to pay for the vouchers.  This in a state where there is a constant struggle to balance the budget, and where the rule is cut, cut, cut, because the governor refuses to raise any taxes at all.  I wonder if Bobby and the legislators even pay attention to the Louisiana Constitution when they write and pass laws.  When there is no money, it seems strange to pass laws that will almost certainly be challenged in court, with the state having to pay for litigation costs to defend the laws.  Or, in their arrogance, do  Bobby and his supporters in the legislature think the court will not notice, and they'll get away with the foolishness?

I love the picture of Bobby in the Shreveport Times in what appears to be a jaw-dropping moment.

UPDATE: More on the consequences of the court ruling at the Advocate.

The ruling, a setback for Gov. Bobby Jindal, upheld and expanded on a ruling last year by the 19th Judicial District Court Judge Timothy Kelley.

It sets up a late session battle on how to finance the aid, which triggered weeks of pointed arguments last year.

In addition, Michael Faulk, president of the Louisiana Association of School Superintendents, said the decision will force the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to come up with a new plan to fund public schools for the 2013-14 school year.

The one approved earlier this year includes the use of public school dollars to fund vouchers. “It is going to have a big impact,” Faulk said of the ruling.

ANOTHER JINDAL EDUCATIONAL "REFORM" DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

One of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s signature laws that makes it harder for teachers to earn and retain a form of job protection, called tenure, was declared unconstitutional Monday.

State District Judge R. Michael Caldwell, of the 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge, who in December upheld the tenure part of a sweeping education law, reversed himself after hearing new arguments from both sides.

Heh, heh.  Another of the hastily thrown together educational "reforms" is declared unconstitutional by a District Court judge in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  The first "reform" to be declared unconstitutional was the funding of vouchers for private schools with money constitutionally allocated to public schools.  Of course, both decisions will be appealed, and who knows what will be decided by the Louisiana Supreme Court.  Still, it's another setback for the the governor (who is at 37% approval rating) and his enablers in the legislature.

State Rep. John Bel Edwards, D-Amite and an opponent of the tenure law, said Monday that, during House debate on the measure, he and other opponents warned that it was legally flawed but that Jindal and his legislative allies “ramrodded it through.”

Edwards, a lawyer, is chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and has said he plans to run for governor in 2015.

Thank you, Rep. Edwards.  You should know.  Good luck to you in your run for governor.

Jindal and his minions in the legislature want what they want and don't seem duly concerned about the constitutionality of the laws they pass.  What?  Us worry?

NOT SO FAST BOBBY

State District Judge Tim Kelley ruled Friday that Gov. Bobby Jindal’s expanded voucher program unconstitutionally diverts public money to send some public school students to private and parochial schools.

Kelley said that both Act 2 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 99 unlawfully divert tax dollars for nonpublic educational purposes.

Kelly heard closing arguments Friday morning from attorneys for the state, teacher unions, school boards and school-choice advocates.

Of course, the decision will be appealed, and who knows what will happen on appeal, but the news for now is good.  The voucher system transfers state funds, dedicated by law to public school systems, to private schools, which are not held to the same standards as public schools. However, the decision is not about unequal standards, which is a whole other matter, but about following the Louisiana Constitution.

VIRGINIA JUDGE RULES MANDATE IN HEALTH CARE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL

From TPM:

A federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that the individual mandate contained in the health care law passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama this year is unconstitutional.

Judge Henry E. Hudson found in favor of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who brought this suit separately from the other state attorney generals suing the federal government over the law. Hudson was the first judge to rule against the law. Two other judges ruled in favor of the law, bringing the Obama administration's record thus far to 2-1. At least 13 other suits against the health care law have been dismissed on jurisdiction or standing issues.

And there's this, also from TPM:

Federal judge Henry E. Hudson's ownership of a stake worth between $15,000 and $50,000 in a GOP political consulting firm that worked against health care reform -- the very law against which he ruled today -- raises some ethics questions for some of the nation's top judicial ethics experts. It isn't that Hudson's decision would have necessarily been influenced by his ownership in the company, given his established track record as a judicial conservative. But his ownership stake does create, at the very least, a perception problem for Hudson that could affect the case.

"Is Judge Hudson's status as a shareholder coincidence or causation? Probably the former, but the optics aren't good," James J. Sample, an associate professor at Hofstra Law School, told TPM. "Federal judges are required by statute to disqualify themselves from hearing a case whenever their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. It's a hyper-protective rule and for good reason. At the very least, his continued financial interest in Campaign Solutions undermines the perceived legitimacy of his decision."

Well, it seems to me that the judge should have recused himself, but what do I know?

The health care bill was such a patchwork job that individual sections will probably be challenged in the courts forever. It's a mess, and perhaps no health care bill would have been better than the bill that passed.

UPDATE: Hang on. There's a flaw in Judge Hudson's argument. From TPM again:

Legal experts are attacking Judge Henry Hudson's decision on the merits, citing an elementary logical flaw at the heart of his opinion. And that has conservative scholars -- even ones sympathetic to the idea that the mandate is unconstitutional -- prepared to see Hudson's decision thrown out.
....

Kerr and others note that Hudson's argument against Congress' power to require people to purchase health insurance rests on a tautology.
....

As a result of this error, Hudson never engages the key question in the case: whether the individual mandate is a reasonable way for Congress to implement regulations within its purview.