The Supreme Court & The Voting Rights Act

  • Aired:  06/25/13
  •  | Views: 77,771

The Supreme Court strikes down a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Texas wastes no time in disenfranchising minority voters. (3:05)

>> WELCOME TO THE DAILY

SHOW.

WELCOME TO THE DAILY SHOW.

I AM JOHN OLIVER, JON

STEWART STILL NOT HERE.

HE IS CURRENTLY WALKING

ACROSS THE GRAND CANYON.

MY GUEST TONIGHT FROM THE

ROOST, THE GREAT QUEST LOVE

IS WITH US.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

LET'S GET STRAIGHT INTO IT

TONIGHT.

HUGE NEWS THIS MORNING OUT

OF THE SUPREME COURT.

>> THE SUPREME COURT JUST A

SHORT TIME AGO STRUCK DOWN A

KEY PART OF THE VOTING

RIGHTS ACT.

NOW THIS PART DETERMINES

WHICH STATES MUST ACTUALLY

GET FEDERAL PERMISSION

BEFORE THEY CHANGE THEIR

VOTING LAWS.

>> OKAY, BASICALLY THE KEY

PART OF THE VOTING RIGHTS

ACT THEY REMOVED WAS THE ONE

THAT APPLIED STRICT SCRUTINY

TO STATES WITH A PREVIOUS

HISTORY OF RACIAL

DISCRIMINATION, THOSE STATES,

OF COURSE, BEING WHITE

SYLVANIA, PALE-AFORNIA, CAW

CARIACUT, AND MISSISSIPPI.

BUT LOOK, LOOK--

(APPLAUSE)

THIS IS CLEARLY A VERY BOLD

MOVE FROM THE SUPREME COURT

THIS WAS A LANDMARK PIECE OF

CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION.

I HOPE THAT CHIEF JUSTICE

ROBERTS HAS A PRETTY

COMPELLING REASON TO GET RID

OF IT.

>> IN HIS OPINION CHIEF

JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS WROTE

OUR COUNTRY HAS CHANGED.

>> OH, THAT'S FINE THEN,

THAT'S FINE.

(LAUGHTER)

>> THAT'S ALL.

WE'RE GOOD, WE'RE GOOD THEN.

BECAUSE IT HAS CHANGED.

WE HAVE GOT iPADS, TWITTER,

MAXI PADS WITH WINGS.

(LAUGHTER)

EVERY ONE IS ALLERGIC TO BRE

NOW-- BREAD NOW AND RACIALLY

THINGS HAVE GOT BETTER IN

THE SOUTH.

IT'S TRUE, PRIMARILY BECAUSE

OF THINGS LIKE, OH, I DON'T

KNOW, THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT

OF 1965.

DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

>> DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

INTERESTING STORY.

THAT'S THE PIECE OF

LEGISLATION THAT NOW HAS A

HOLE OF IT THE EXACT SHAPE

OF JOHN ROBERTS MIDDLE

FINGER.

(LAUGHTER)

NOW YOU MIGHT THINK, YOU

KNOW, IT'S SO OLD, THE

VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

IT'S PROBABLY OBSOLETE.

WHEN DOES THE JUSTICE

DEPARTMENT EVER NEED TO

PROTECT MINORITY VOTERS FOR

INVOKING SECTION 5.

AND THE ANSWER IS BASICALLY

NEVER IF BASICALLY NEVER

MEANS, AND THIS IS TRUE, 74

TIMES SINCE THE YEAR 2000.

AND JUST IN CASE YOU NEEDED

A REMINDER OF WHAT THE

VOTING RIGHTS ACT WAS

PREVENTING, LESS THAN TWO

HOURS AFTER THE SUPREME

COURT'S RULING, ONE OF THE

STATES FLAGGED IN THE VOTING

RIGHTS ACT DID THIS.

>> IN TEXAS THEY HAVE TWO

ISSUES RIGHT NOW, THE

REDISTRICTING CASE AND THE

MOST RESTRICTIVE VOTER-- IN

THE COUNTRY.

THEY ANNOUNCED TODAY THEY

ARE GOING TO START

IMPLEMENTING THOSE TOMORROW.

>> TWO HOURS!

THEY COULDN'T EVEN WAIT FOR

TWO HOURS.

IT TAKES TEXAS LESS TIME TO

DISENFRANCHISE MINORITY

VOTERS THAN IT TAKES FOR

THEM TO BARBECUE A PIG.

Loading...