Other Resources The Political Joe » Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2013-06-25 5:09 PM

User image

Subject: Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-stops-use-of-k...

WOW! Just wow. States rights people should be rejoicing.





2013-06-26 7:14 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Champion
7347
5000200010010010025
SRQ, FL
Subject: RE: Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act

I do not get all the left's uproar about this.. (Saw a photo of SCOTUS with 5 of the members wearing KKK hats...)

They did not strike down the Voting Rights Act. They stuck down a single provision of it that requires the Federal government to approve any changes to voting laws in certain states. Not all states, just some. Because as we all know there are some states that have ZERO voting irregularities (cough, Illinois, cough).

The court simply (and correctly) noted that the law needs to apply to ALL states or to NO states equally. If Congress wishes to pass a law that would require ALL states to undergo the same scrutiny then that would be Constitutional.

And the fact that Holder is upset about this, after the law breaking he's been doing for the last 6 years, is the ultimate in hypocrisy.



Edited by TriRSquared 2013-06-26 7:16 AM
2013-06-26 11:36 AM
in reply to: TriRSquared

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act
I think some of it is we have to be outraged for the sake of being outraged. If its all states or none that probably a good thing.

I do not know that much about the ramifications to really judge it.
2013-06-26 12:27 PM
in reply to: TriRSquared

User image

Extreme Veteran
668
5001002525
, Minnesota
Subject: RE: Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act
What it does is takes all the teeth out of the Act. My wife was down in Selma last year doing research and she'll tell you that what she saw first hand and what she was told by the people that live there there is no way it should have been struck down. "Most" of the country doesn't have this problem but places like Shelby County do today as it did 30 years ago. It'll be up to Congress now to attempt and fix it.
2013-06-26 12:49 PM
in reply to: lakelandsledder

User image

Champion
7347
5000200010010010025
SRQ, FL
Subject: RE: Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act

Originally posted by lakelandsledder What it does is takes all the teeth out of the Act. My wife was down in Selma last year doing research and she'll tell you that what she saw first hand and what she was told by the people that live there there is no way it should have been struck down. "Most" of the country doesn't have this problem but places like Shelby County do today as it did 30 years ago. It'll be up to Congress now to attempt and fix it.

Tuesday: SC rules that all states should be treated equally: the left boos...

Wednesday: SC rules that all people should be treated equally: the left cheers...

Personally I think they got them both right...

2013-06-26 12:56 PM
in reply to: TriRSquared

User image

Extreme Veteran
668
5001002525
, Minnesota
Subject: RE: Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act
Originally posted by TriRSquared

Originally posted by lakelandsledder What it does is takes all the teeth out of the Act. My wife was down in Selma last year doing research and she'll tell you that what she saw first hand and what she was told by the people that live there there is no way it should have been struck down. "Most" of the country doesn't have this problem but places like Shelby County do today as it did 30 years ago. It'll be up to Congress now to attempt and fix it.

Tuesday: SC rules that all states should be treated equally: the left boos...

Wednesday: SC rules that all people should be treated equally: the left cheers...

Personally I think they got them both right...




The problem though is people in a few of those counties weren't being teated equally. Like I said, the things my wife saw and heard while there most would shake their head at.


2013-06-26 1:14 PM
in reply to: TriRSquared

User image

Elite
4564
200020005002525
Boise
Subject: RE: Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act
Originally posted by TriRSquared

I do not get all the left's uproar about this.. (Saw a photo of SCOTUS with 5 of the members wearing KKK hats...)

They did not strike down the Voting Rights Act. They stuck down a single provision of it that requires the Federal government to approve any changes to voting laws in certain states. Not all states, just some. Because as we all know there are some states that have ZERO voting irregularities (cough, Illinois, cough).

The court simply (and correctly) noted that the law needs to apply to ALL states or to NO states equally. If Congress wishes to pass a law that would require ALL states to undergo the same scrutiny then that would be Constitutional.

And the fact that Holder is upset about this, after the law breaking he's been doing for the last 6 years, is the ultimate in hypocrisy.




The ruling is correct IMO, but the problem is that it won't get replaced. So instead of kind of fixing a problem, they are just going to ignore it.
2013-06-26 1:51 PM
in reply to: JoshR

User image

Champion
7347
5000200010010010025
SRQ, FL
Subject: RE: Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act
Originally posted by JoshR
Originally posted by TriRSquared

I do not get all the left's uproar about this.. (Saw a photo of SCOTUS with 5 of the members wearing KKK hats...)

They did not strike down the Voting Rights Act. They stuck down a single provision of it that requires the Federal government to approve any changes to voting laws in certain states. Not all states, just some. Because as we all know there are some states that have ZERO voting irregularities (cough, Illinois, cough).

The court simply (and correctly) noted that the law needs to apply to ALL states or to NO states equally. If Congress wishes to pass a law that would require ALL states to undergo the same scrutiny then that would be Constitutional.

And the fact that Holder is upset about this, after the law breaking he's been doing for the last 6 years, is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

The ruling is correct IMO, but the problem is that it won't get replaced. So instead of kind of fixing a problem, they are just going to ignore it.

Well to be fair they have ignored everything else for the last few decades and most are still in office.

2013-06-26 2:06 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Deep in the Heart of Texas
Subject: RE: Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act
Originally posted by lakelandsledder
Originally posted by TriRSquared

Originally posted by lakelandsledder What it does is takes all the teeth out of the Act. My wife was down in Selma last year doing research and she'll tell you that what she saw first hand and what she was told by the people that live there there is no way it should have been struck down. "Most" of the country doesn't have this problem but places like Shelby County do today as it did 30 years ago. It'll be up to Congress now to attempt and fix it.

Tuesday: SC rules that all states should be treated equally: the left boos...

Wednesday: SC rules that all people should be treated equally: the left cheers...

Personally I think they got them both right...

The problem though is people in a few of those counties weren't being teated equally. Like I said, the things my wife saw and heard while there most would shake their head at.

Then they can use the protections of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act like everyone else in the country.  Section 2 contains the prohibition on voting discrimination.  Whatever was being done in Shelby County required preclearance under Section 5.   If something was being done outside of what was approved, it was and remains violative of both Section 2 and the Fifteenth Amendment.      



Edited by Hook'em 2013-06-26 2:15 PM
2013-06-26 3:18 PM
in reply to: TriRSquared

User image

Pro
5361
50001001001002525
Subject: RE: Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act
Originally posted by TriRSquared

I do not get all the left's uproar about this.. 

because now GOP held state legislatures in a number of these states are poised to pass big changes to voting laws that WILL make it more difficult for minorities to vote.  Like, cutting down weekend voting, drastically reducing polling locations in minority districts, etc.  With no approval process with the feds, the can and WILL do this.

Funny- that the SCOTUS is now far to the right of where the POTUS and Congress was in 2006 when they reaffirmed the VRA and Bush signed it again.  98 senators voted to uphold and extend the law in 2006.  my how times have changed.

to me, the ruling sounded a lot like the SCOTUS was saying- 'hey, we're not getting wet, guess we don't need this umbrella anymore".

2013-06-26 3:35 PM
in reply to: morey000

User image

Champion
7347
5000200010010010025
SRQ, FL
Subject: RE: Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act
Originally posted by morey000
Originally posted by TriRSquared

I do not get all the left's uproar about this.. 

because now GOP held state legislatures in a number of these states are poised to pass big changes to voting laws that WILL make it more difficult for minorities to vote.  Like, cutting down weekend voting, drastically reducing polling locations in minority districts, etc.  With no approval process with the feds, the can and WILL do this.

Funny- that the SCOTUS is now far to the right of where the POTUS and Congress was in 2006 when they reaffirmed the VRA and Bush signed it again.  98 senators voted to uphold and extend the law in 2006.  my how times have changed.

to me, the ruling sounded a lot like the SCOTUS was saying- 'hey, we're not getting wet, guess we don't need this umbrella anymore".

41 states were free to do this before.  Only 9 states were being "monitored".  What is to say those other 41 states were not passing voting laws that discriminated against other (or the same) groups?  I see to recall an issue in Ohio with voter IDs.  Ohio was not one of the "watched states".

Like I said before.  One rule for all states.



2013-06-26 3:43 PM
in reply to: TriRSquared

User image

Subject: RE: Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act
To be clear, the SCOTUS ruling did not state that the provision was struck down because it singled out certain states or because it found the pre-approval process unconstitutional. ALL states had been subject to the formula used to determine which states needed to go through the pre-approval process to change voting laws. Any state's (or jurisdiction's) actions could, over time, have put them on or got them off the list needing pre-approval of the justice department to enact voting law changes (see Hanover, VA which was just taken off the list by the DOJ on Monday after the county was able to show 10 years free of discriminatory voting actions). What the SCOTUS decision did say was that the Voting Rights Act can no longer rely on the same metric that was developed decades ago to make that determination of which states are on the "naughty list." The formula still took into account things like whether or not a state had literacy tests in the 60s & 70s, so it very well might be time for an update to reflect the "current conditions" of our country as Chief Justice Roberts explained.

The problem with not having a formula is there is no longer a way in the law to determine the chronic offenders of voting discrimination and eventually require them to get VRA approval for new laws BEFORE the election. Having a formula that triggered the pre-approval process was a safeguard that eventually ensured elections with practices that followed the VRA as approved by the DOJ. Without the ability to eventually trigger the pre-approval process, discriminatory laws will always be found to violate the Voting Righst Act AFTER elections when the laws have already done their damage...and there will be no deterrent to just adding new discriminatory laws for the next election.

I'm someone who thinks it's a travesty that Election Day isn't a national holiday and that our country should do everything possible to make sure every single citizen in this country is able to vote, so I think the ruling is a setback...though it's not something we shouldn't be able to overcome. The good news is a new formula can be added to the VRA...or maybe there is an even better enforcement solution out there somewhere. The bad news is we actually need Congress to work together and agree on something...and that is probably where most of the outrage is coming from.
2013-06-27 9:33 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
5361
50001001001002525
Subject: RE: Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act

Originally posted by TriRSquared ...Like I said before.  One rule for all states.

That sounds good... except:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/with-voting-rights-act-out-states-push-voter-id-laws/

it might be a bit naive 

 

in 2006 congress, the senate and the POTUS reaffirmed passage of the VRA.  98 Senators and President Bush signed the legislation extending the law.  It would be nice to live in a post racial world where a law like this isn't necessary.  Unfortunately we don't live in that world.



Edited by morey000 2013-06-27 9:40 PM
2013-06-27 9:45 PM
in reply to: morey000

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act
That's OK, voter fraud should more than make up for it.
2013-07-01 6:37 AM
in reply to: morey000

User image

Champion
7347
5000200010010010025
SRQ, FL
Subject: RE: Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act
Originally posted by morey000

Originally posted by TriRSquared ...Like I said before.  One rule for all states.

That sounds good... except:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/with-voting-rights-act-out-states-push-voter-id-laws/

it might be a bit naive 

 

in 2006 congress, the senate and the POTUS reaffirmed passage of the VRA.  98 Senators and President Bush signed the legislation extending the law.  It would be nice to live in a post racial world where a law like this isn't necessary.  Unfortunately we don't live in that world.

Firstly, I'm not saying we should not have those laws, only that they should be standardized.

Secondly, I do not see an issue with having a picture ID to vote.  The arguments against it are weak.

2013-07-02 8:18 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Subject: RE: Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act
Originally posted by TriRSquared

Secondly, I do not see an issue with having a picture ID to vote.  The arguments against it are weak.





Apparently President Obama doesn't see an issue with it either. We (the US) are paying 55 million dollars to set up an ID card for Kenyans, one of the things you are required to have it for is to vote:

http://kenya.usaid.gov/programs/education-and-youth/1497


Village bunges and County Bunge Forums
Project Duration and Budget

2011- 2015
$55 million total budget
(...)

Promoting a Youth Focused Agenda

Bunge leaders are working at building strong relationships with local government officials as a means of promoting a youth-focused agenda. Since early 2012, the bunges across Kenya have been mobilizing youth in their counties as part of a national government campaign called “My ID My Life” to register Kenyans for national identity cards. Without a national ID card, Kenyans cannot get a job, open a bank account or vote.



This one's from the White House proper:

http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/27/fact-sheet-us-s...

In Kenya, the $53 million Yes Youth Can program empowers nearly one million Kenyan youth to use their voices for advocacy in national and local policy-making, while also creating economic opportunities. In advance of Kenya’s March 2013 general elections, Yes Youth Can’s “My ID My Life” campaign helped 500,000 youth obtain National identification cards, a prerequisite to voter registration, and carried out a successful nationwide campaign with Kenyan civic organizations to elicit peace pledges from all presidential aspirants.




Edited by DanielG 2013-07-02 8:21 AM


2013-07-02 10:07 AM
in reply to: DanielG

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act

Originally posted by DanielG
Originally posted by TriRSquared Secondly, I do not see an issue with having a picture ID to vote.  The arguments against it are weak.
Apparently President Obama doesn't see an issue with it either. We (the US) are paying 55 million dollars to set up an ID card for Kenyans, one of the things you are required to have it for is to vote: http://kenya.usaid.gov/programs/education-and-youth/1497
Village bunges and County Bunge Forums Project Duration and Budget 2011- 2015 $55 million total budget (...) Promoting a Youth Focused Agenda Bunge leaders are working at building strong relationships with local government officials as a means of promoting a youth-focused agenda. Since early 2012, the bunges across Kenya have been mobilizing youth in their counties as part of a national government campaign called “My ID My Life” to register Kenyans for national identity cards. Without a national ID card, Kenyans cannot get a job, open a bank account or vote.
This one's from the White House proper: http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/27/fact-sheet-us-s...
In Kenya, the $53 million Yes Youth Can program empowers nearly one million Kenyan youth to use their voices for advocacy in national and local policy-making, while also creating economic opportunities. In advance of Kenya’s March 2013 general elections, Yes Youth Can’s “My ID My Life” campaign helped 500,000 youth obtain National identification cards, a prerequisite to voter registration, and carried out a successful nationwide campaign with Kenyan civic organizations to elicit peace pledges from all presidential aspirants.

And it irritates me to know end when opponents call proper ID voter supression... voter fraud is voter supression plain and simple. Proper ID assures against voter supression.

2013-07-02 10:38 AM
in reply to: powerman

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act
what bugs me is all this hoopla for situation for 10 proven cases in the last 13 years. We have way worse things that affect way more voters. Its not worth the risk to do in person voter imo. Risk a felony for 1 vote? Margins of victory are not that close typically and even for some of the closest victories you would been hundreds of votes.


2013-07-02 12:31 PM
in reply to: chirunner134

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act

Originally posted by chirunner134 what bugs me is all this hoopla for situation for 10 proven cases in the last 13 years. We have way worse things that affect way more voters. Its not worth the risk to do in person voter imo. Risk a felony for 1 vote? Margins of victory are not that close typically and even for some of the closest victories you would been hundreds of votes.

Still irrelavent for me. We have a sytem established in the Constitution for voting. One person, one vote. We have plenty of technology now to defeat that, so I feel we should use what we have to ensure proper voting. And ID cards in this day and age is not undue hardship.

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional individual right. Period... yet I have to have a back ground check to ensure I am not a person that should not have one. I have a personal responsibility to prove who I am to be able to excersize a Constitutional right... How in the world must I do that, but voter ID is out of the question?

2013-07-02 1:23 PM
in reply to: chirunner134

User image

Champion
7347
5000200010010010025
SRQ, FL
Subject: RE: Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act

Originally posted by chirunner134 what bugs me is all this hoopla for situation for 10 proven cases in the last 13 years. We have way worse things that affect way more voters. Its not worth the risk to do in person voter imo. Risk a felony for 1 vote? Margins of victory are not that close typically and even for some of the closest victories you would been hundreds of votes.

It's a bit bigger issue than that...

http://www.truethevote.org/news/how-widespread-is-voter-fraud-2012-facts-figures

Regardless it should not matter. I'm even willing to pay for those who cannot afford IDs.  That means there is NO reason why they should not have one.

2013-07-02 1:51 PM
in reply to: TriRSquared

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act
Originally posted by TriRSquared

Originally posted by chirunner134 what bugs me is all this hoopla for situation for 10 proven cases in the last 13 years. We have way worse things that affect way more voters. Its not worth the risk to do in person voter imo. Risk a felony for 1 vote? Margins of victory are not that close typically and even for some of the closest victories you would been hundreds of votes.

It's a bit bigger issue than that...

http://www.truethevote.org/news/how-widespread-is-voter-fraud-2012-facts-figures

Regardless it should not matter. I'm even willing to pay for those who cannot afford IDs.  That means there is NO reason why they should not have one.




pretty interesting site. I looked at the 46 states and voters fraud page it was interesting how none of the 18 I looked would be have been prevent by showing any id. Closest ones would be the absentee voting fraud cases one again you do not show id there in your mailing them in. Most seem to be people trying to vote in multiple locations which I guessing is the real issue. Once again voter id laws would note help at all since they are registered. One case they mention I going to try to find though since sounds like a big deal they just do not seem to have any links for it. I am not 100% against the idea of ids I just hear that as a battle cry of all that is wrong with our election system and all accounts from what I see that is just not true.



2013-07-03 3:23 PM
in reply to: chirunner134

User image

Champion
7347
5000200010010010025
SRQ, FL
Subject: RE: Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act
Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by TriRSquared

Originally posted by chirunner134 what bugs me is all this hoopla for situation for 10 proven cases in the last 13 years. We have way worse things that affect way more voters. Its not worth the risk to do in person voter imo. Risk a felony for 1 vote? Margins of victory are not that close typically and even for some of the closest victories you would been hundreds of votes.

It's a bit bigger issue than that...

http://www.truethevote.org/news/how-widespread-is-voter-fraud-2012-facts-figures

Regardless it should not matter. I'm even willing to pay for those who cannot afford IDs.  That means there is NO reason why they should not have one.

pretty interesting site. I looked at the 46 states and voters fraud page it was interesting how none of the 18 I looked would be have been prevent by showing any id. Closest ones would be the absentee voting fraud cases one again you do not show id there in your mailing them in. Most seem to be people trying to vote in multiple locations which I guessing is the real issue. Once again voter id laws would note help at all since they are registered. One case they mention I going to try to find though since sounds like a big deal they just do not seem to have any links for it. I am not 100% against the idea of ids I just hear that as a battle cry of all that is wrong with our election system and all accounts from what I see that is just not true.

So if we do not need photo ID for voting then why do we need photo ID for other things?  Like driving, purchasing alcohol or cigarettes?  If they are provided free of charge I fail to see why there is a logical argument against them.

New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act Rss Feed  
RELATED POSTS

South Portland doctor stops accepting insurance, posts prices online

Started by DanielG
Views: 2093 Posts: 16

2013-06-17 10:13 AM mehaner

Texas cheerleaders win in court again over Bible banners Pages: 1 2 3

Started by DanielG
Views: 5631 Posts: 62

2013-05-27 11:05 PM ChineseDemocracy
RELATED ARTICLES
date : April 23, 2009
author : Team BT
comments : 0
Use these 3 drills to develop a feel of putting your head underwater and exhaling.
 
date : December 19, 2008
author : AMSSM
comments : 0
I just completed my first Ironman season and I was free of injuries. I am now just messing around when I run at a fast pace (for me), I get a shooting pain in my right knee.
date : December 3, 2008
author : dexter
comments : 15
What are rollers? How can rollers help your bike training? Learn how to use your first set of rollers without doing too much bodily harm to yourself.
 
date : April 14, 2008
author : AMSSM
comments : 0
Since my last marathon (October, 2007), the area below my right kneecap towards the outside of my leg (but not the ITB) aches every time I run, especially afterwards.
date : June 11, 2007
author : Cinci41
comments : 1
My thinking was that with three events, I could vary my training enough so it wouldn't grow stale prior to seeing positive results and finding the additional motivation I needed to continue training.
 
date : November 19, 2006
author : AMSSM
comments : 1
When athletes have an imbalance, either due to core weakness or in this case uneven terrain, this can produce strain anywhere along the IT band, but most commonly along the outside of the knee.
date : July 31, 2005
comments : 5
Your self-image serves as the operating instructions of your subconscious computer. If you don’t change the operating system, you will be doomed to repeat your past mistakes.
 
date : October 31, 2004
author : infosteward
comments : 0
Buried beneath election rhetoric about stem-cell research, gender in marriage and taxes are issues that could seriously affect your newfound hobby – triathlons.