Quote:without the ability to use evidence to show that a law was racially discriminatory, how would one be found unconstitutional if it was written without explicitly stating that it was going to discriminate by race, but was obviously intended to?
lad, your question doesnt address the prospective finding embedded in the 4th Circuit opinion.
I dont think anyone wishes for a system for a system that '[withholds] the ability to use evidence to show that a law was racially discriminatory' as you state, and Frizzy isnt commenting or condoning that at all.
The issue is that the 4 COA says (in paraphrase) 'in this case we found intent to discriminate, therefore *any* changes that you might do (even prospectively) that dont seem kosher with the outcome of *this* ruling, even with zero evidence of intent, we will deem you in the wrong.' Your question misses the point of the issue.
If NC puts something new up the flagpole, let evidence of intent of *that* action be germane. But the ruling sets into place a predisposition in one direction only -- and disallows preemptively any evidence of NC acting in good faith.
Going back to Frizz's counter-example:
Assume the question is gun related, say --- the sale of bullets. Let's assume a court finds that New York state (North Carolina) was found to have acted in a manner that leads to the court to decide that New York (North Carolina) state's law was intended to curtail the constitutionally guaranteed gun (voting) rights of the targeted gunowners (voters).
If you support the North Carolina decision and mode of decision, then the previously found intent of New York (North Carolina) state to deprive gun ownership (voting) rights in the first case will be presupposed in any succeeding case that touches on gun ownership (voting) rights, no matter how itty bitty the restriction is in any new regulation.
To be honest, I can think of scores of gun regulations that have a rational basis; but the ratchet of prejudging them based on the NY Assembly's intent previously is pretty grotesque.
But, your question pleads for how bad it would be for the gunowners (voters) not to the be able to show evidence in any succeeding trial -- which is fundamentally not the question in the 'ratchet effect' that the 4th COA put into place.