It’s ridiculous to require voter support laws like the ones the SCOTUS
said needed more support. We see from their reaction to the white vote
suppression activities in Philadelphia in 2010 that BO and holder will do
nothing to stop voter suppression.Scoundrel,Did you read the
article? The SCOTUS expressed concerns in 2009, but the congress has not acted
on those concerns.
To assume (as democrats do) that minority people are incapable of acquiring ID
is very racist. When data shows that minority and non-minority
voters at the same polling place had different wait times, the data is flawed.
There is no separate voting booth for the minority voters. How could they have
waited longer to use the same booths? Could the wait be longer at
some precincts that others, sure. But it does not automatically mean racism.
Historical data may not have well predicted the voter turnout of the last
election. Are we going to make sure the travel time/distance to the polling
places are all exactly the same for everyone too, or are we going to continue to
discriminate against farmers?The real issue is that it will be
harder for dead people to vote, because now they will have to conjure up some
fake ID to do it.
Unlike zoar, I think it's not crazy to disagree with one SCOTUS decision
while opposing another. It's not a matter of white and black hats. The
decision regarding voting rights, however, has some consequences that begin
TODAY, with several states actually putting in force some measures that had
passed their legislatures, but had NOT been activated pending federal approval.
It's sadly apparent that they want it both ways: "We don't
discriminate any more, but, thanks to SCOTUS, we can now discriminate again,
Should the Supreme Court hand down a decision tomorrow that favors same sex
marriage The posters here who are condemning the court’s decision on
voting rights, will be applauding the justices for standing up for the civil
rights of same sex couples.
As Judge Ruth Ginsburg said:"Hubris is a fit word for today's
demolition" of the law", Ginsburg said.She said no one
doubts that voting discrimination still exists. "But the court today
terminates the remedy that proved to be best suited to block that
The Voting Rights Act isn't about voter ID's its about historic voter
suppression. Any state subject to the act could "bail out" and be
removed from the oversight program - all they had to do was show that for the
last ten years they have not been suppressing voters rights. Quite a few States
and counties have used the 'bail out' and are no longer subject to the
law. That none of the states who have been barking that this law is onerous,
outdated or overburdensome could prove they weren't supressing votes shows
that the act was NOT outdated in the way SCOTUS applied it.
@atl134"This is one of the most blatant cases of judicial
activism ever."It's only judicial activism if conservatives
don't agree with it. If they do, it is prudent and just.
To "atl134" and Democrats are targeting Republicans by adjusting
district boundaries to favor boundaries that primarily vote democrat.Democrats try to dismiss or throwout ballots that are mailed in because
typically those votes go to Republican canidates.Again, to point the
finger at Republicans is insane because the Democrats do everything you accuse
the Republicans of doing in one form or another.Why is it judicial
activism? Is it because the policies you supported were denied. Was their
decision contrary to the Constitution?
@Tators"The Supreme Court merely ruled that Congress needs to update
the system instead of using 40 year old information in this case. A lot can and
does change in that length of time. So why is that so unreasonable?"90+ senators seemed to be just fine with how it's done since they
voted to keep the Voting Rights Act. They could've voted on changes to it
if they wanted to. This is one of the most blatant cases of judicial activism
@Redshirt"Your attempt to make Republicans look like villians for
something they have not done is insane."There is ample evidence
all around the country that Republicans are targeting Democratic constituencies
by cutting early voting days, limiting early voting to one precinct a county
(obviously harms urban areas that are more dense and Democratic). North Carolina
is trying to tax parents of college students if the college student votes in
their college state rather than their home state (who wins the college vote?
Democrats). It's not my fault you don't get news from sources that
cover the issue.
Huffington Post "Viewed nationally, African Americans waited an average
of 23 minutes to vote, compared to 12 minutes for whites; Hispanics waited 19
minutes. While there are other individual-level demographic difference present
in the responses, none stands out as much as race. For instance, the average
wait time among those with household incomes less than $30,000 was 12 minutes,
compared to 14 minutes for those in households with incomes greater than
$100,000. Strong Democrats waited an average of 16 minutes, compared to an
average of 11 minutes for strong Republicans. Respondents who reported they had
an interest in news and public affairs “most of the time” waited an
average of 13.2 minutes, compared to 12.8 minutes among those who had
“hardly any” interest.The study points out that the
findings don't suggest discrimination on an individual basis, but rather a
failure by precincts with high levels of minority voters, typically in urban
areas, to appropriately address the issue of long lines. For example, the
difference in wait times between black and white voters in the same zip code was
less than a minute on average." Skeptical about generalized claims.
@Tators - Here's the catch: Our House of Representatives is totally
controlled by folks (yes, I mean Republicans) who benefit by preventing minority
voters from voting. How quickly do you think they'll get going on this
project? I predict it will NEVER happen, at least not with this Congress.
There are too many people who will benefit by making it more difficult for
minority voters to vote.As for voter fraud - show me some real
examples. They're precious few and far between. There's definitely
some voter registration fraud, but do those fraudulently registered as
"Mickey Mouse" actually vote? As for vote-related fraud,
the premier example recently has been the failure of Newt Gingerich and Rick
Perry to get on the ballot in Virginia. Newt's supporter Adam Ward just
pled guilty to perjury and 36 counts of voter fraud for for over 4,000
fraudulent signatures that he collected to insure Newt's name appearing on
the ballot. Because so many signatures were thrown out, poor Newt didn't
get on the ballot. Likewise, nearly half of Perry's signatures were
invalid, and he didn't get on the ballot either.
@jsfYou seem to forget that the Democratic and Republican parties
have changed since the time of Jim Crow. Those racist Democrats began
converting to the Republican Party after the Voting Rights Act and the Civil
Rights Act. To this day they work to continue to disenfranchise
minority voters. Look at the long lines in Florida, Voter ID laws that do
little to prevent voter fraud but cause obstacles to minority voting, and
gerrymandering to minimize minority voters. Jim Crow still lives on
in the South and today he just got a helping hand.
Before this ruling, minority voters were reduced in number by setting up too few
voting machines in minority precincts. We've all seen the reports of
minority voters waiting in lines for 5, 6, or even 8 hours to vote. That never
happens in precincts that are filled with affluent white voters - only in
precincts dominated by minorities, or in some cases, by college students.
It's never happened to me, but then I'm a relatively affluent white
guy. Now we'll see a lot of more innovative ways of keeping minority
voters shut out from the polls. And we'll see more blatant gerrymandering
too, all in the interests of those who are already in power.
ironic is the fact the DNC requires picture id to get into their meetings and
@Irony DNC Chair Ignores Democrats' Jim Crow HistoryBy
Peter Roff USNewsLeaving aside the idea that she perhaps does not
understand what the word “literally” means, the “Jim
Crow” laws were a whole series of measures indented to keep blacks and
whites apart, living lives that were “separate but equal” in all
kinds of ways. They were not, as Wasserman Schultz inferred, simply about
keeping blacks from votingOn the books from the end of
reconstruction until the U.S. Supreme Court began to chip away at them in its
landmark 1954 decision in Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the
“Jim Crow” laws were a stain on our national character, one put
there—and here is why the subject is dangerous for Wasserman Schultz to
bring up—by the Democrats.Notable Democrats supporting
“Jim Crow” policies, Arkansas Gov. Orvall Faubus, called out the
National Guard to prevent black students entering the school, Alabama Gov.
George Wallace, famously proclaiming "segregation now, segregation tomorrow,
segregation forever." Nationally-known segregationist Lester Maddox to be
their state’s 75th governor in 1966. A little misspeak?
To Irony Guy and atl134:RedShirt makes much more sense than your
posts. It would seem you didn't read the article very well at all. The
Supreme Court merely ruled that Congress needs to update the system instead of
using 40 year old information in this case. A lot can and does change in that
length of time. So why is that so unreasonable?It's hard to
understand why liberals complain about needing proof that you are who say you
are in order to vote... with any form of simple valid picture identification.
It's not complicated or confusing. And if something so simple confuses
anyone, then perhaps they don't have enough cognition to be voting in the
first place. I know of literally no one who doesn't already have picture
ID. And conservatives have to play by the same rules. No one is exempt. It's ironic no one complains when ID is necessary to get a library
card or open a bank account. Shouldn't voting be considered at least as
important as those things? Almost all past voter fraud would've been
eliminated by requiring identification before voting... a step in the right
But the point, Shirt, is that it (the GOP) HAS attempted to just that, and have
only been stopped from doing it MORE by court rulings citing this section of the
Voting Rights Act. In fact, it's exactly what I would suggest a divided
minority party do - If you can't beat 'em, look for ways to keep
'em home. Sure, Democrats could do the same thing, but let's whine
about that when it actually happens. In the meantime, don't be surprised
when, in the dubious cause of stopping voter fraud, legislatures in Southern
state act to stop voters themselves.
To "Irony Guy" and "atl134"Did you even read the article? The
law was struck down because it is not a reflection of current data. Would you
like laws written that prescribe the use of leeches for treating illnesses?Explain how only Republicans will use this to their advantage? Either
party could use this ruling to futher their own agenda. For example, Florida
could put more polling locations into areas that primarily Democrat, and cut the
number of polling locations in areas that vote Republican.Your
attempt to make Republicans look like villians for something they have not done
Well now Republicans are basically free to do everything in their power to limit
minority turnout (reducing early voting days, limiting early voting locations...
that 8hr wait in urban Miami voting precincts? get used to more of that).
So the pendulum swings back, just like it did in the 1890s with the Jim Crow
laws. Republicans will do anything to keep minority voters from the polls, and
their representatives on the Supreme Court are dancing to that tune.
The amazing thing is people even think one should be allow to vote without
showing proper identification. On the other hand, the treatment of
at large city council elections as some attempt at racial marginzalization is to
ignore the reality of how city politics work. Up until recently Detroit elected
its city council at large, which was not at all racially motivated, with the
vast majority of the population being African-American. There are advantages to
having the city council elected at large and responsible to the whole city.
There are also draw backs, but the claim the system marginzalizes minority
voters is questionable at best. It only could possibly be true if your ethnic
minority is concentrated in parts of a city. If an ethnic minority is spread in
multiple parts of a city, its ability to elect one of its own to the city
council is increased by at large voting, at least if it is an at large free for
all, because then you can chose to vote for only one of say five candidates and
give that one candidate a much larger vote by doing so.