Published: Tuesday, June 25 2013 3:55 p.m. MDT
Re: "Voting Rights Act decision shows it's no longer 1965"Or 1865. Or 1765. As much as liberals like to suggest it is.
TWO PART COMMENT:I served as assistant city attorney in a number of
cities in Central California's Fresno County, a covered county under the
Voting Rights Act. The burdens imposed by the Act indeed are burdens; and the
improvements over the years indeed are real, thank goodness.The 7th
paragraph of the DN Opinion shortchanges the actual improvements. Referring to
the High Court's use in today's opinion of a chart compiled from the
Senate and House Reports, the DN states that the chart depicted "voter
turnout." No it did not. It depicted voter registrations.The
chart compares voter registration numbers from1965 to those from 2004 in
the six originally covered States. These are the numbers that were before
Congresswhen it reauthorized the Act in 2006. The improvement is stunning.
PART TWO:But even more favorably, the Court also cited Census Bureau
data from the most recent election stating that the data indicate that
African-American voter turnout (not registration, turnout) exceeded white voter
turnout in five of the six States originally covered by §5, with a gap in
the sixth State of less than one half of one percent.The DN opinion
states as an example that only 6.7 percent of Mississippi's eligible black
voters were allowed to cast ballots in 1965. "Allowed" makes it seem
like 100% of blacks were "eligible voters" and that 93.3 percent were
kept from the polls back then. No, the chart actually states simply that in 1965
in Mississippi only 6.7 of black citizens registered to vote. The DN states also
that "in 2004, 76.1 percent of eligible black voters participated, which was
nearly 4 percent higher than the white turnout." Actually, in 2004 76.1 of
black citizens in Mississippi registered to vote in 2004, while 72.3 percent of
white citizens in Mississippi registered to vote that year.Truly, as
the DN correctly observes, the Act has been successful and no doors are closed
by the Court's opinion today.
You're right it's not 1965 now discrimination takes the form of
prohibiting all the specific characteristics of minority voter participation.
Black voter participation is high and equal specifically because the voting
rights act was used to prohibit modern discrimination. Another change in modern
discrimination is that voter repression while aimed at minorities is less about
a hatred of their skin color and more about their proclivity to vote for the
Democratic party with race simply being the vehicle to suppress that vote.
It's still race discrimination in the end. It would be a whole
different situation if we had a congress that was concerned about voter and
civil rights, (like we had as late as 2005),but when an entire party has
declared it's only goal is to defeat the other party the SCOTUS has just
killed effectively killed modern democracy.
From the Article: “The court did not strike down the Voting Rights Act
nor lift the nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting. Congress may
still set a special formula for overseeing voting laws in certain jurisdictions
where discrimination has been a problem. But it did rule that the current
formula, which has been in effect about 40 years, no longer is valid.Somebody needs to smack both Obama and Eric Holder on the side of the head to
get their attention. They have both been lamenting that this is a bad Court
decision and they were extremely disappointed.The law just needs to
be updated to reflect current-day voter and racial demographics – that is
all the Court said. Until it is updated, it is unconstitutional. Congress
needs to do the job they were supposed to do back in 2006, but punted instead
for the sake of expediency.This is a good decision on the part of
@Scoundrel,Go back and read the decision in 2009. The Court implied
back then, that the voting and racial demographics data in the law needed to be
updated, but Congress failed to act.So you ask, “What has
changed?”The answer: Nothing – Congress failed to act.
Now Congress will finally have to act.
Pretty sad and bizarre that so many don't want states to even verify that a
person is a live citizen of the country before voting in the country.
Typical Utah viewpoint: "Back to the Future". Does this mean that
Official Declaration 2 should now be repealed?
I must ask, "Who is promoting racism?" Is it the majority race or the
minority races? In this day and age, preferential treatment of one race over
another race is racism. In the immortal words of Rodney King, "Can't
we all just get along?"
I fear VST misses the point. No, Congress did not update the law, as SCOTUS said
they should, and so some of the blame for this decision must rest with them. But
on the other hand, it's the 2013 Congress we now have, and their propensity
to make voting easier is less than zero. Today's GOP will NEVER agree,
especially at the state level, to something that would hinder them from trying
to reduce popular vote among certain population groups - not because they hate
them, but because they hate Democrats, and will do anything they can to regain
power even though their party is badly split. Their eagerness to resume de facto
discrimination became apparent today, with announcements from several states,
all, of course, in the name of stopping "voter fraud".
@Mark B,No Mark. Not SOME of the blame rests with Congress; ALL of
the blame rests with Congress.Also your insinuation that
“...today’s GOP will never agree, especially at the state level, to
something that would hinder them from trying to reduce popular vote among
certain population groups…” rings hollow.I consider you
claim pure political rhetoric without any basis from fact.
Well, VST, you could test your own theory by asking Texas or Mississippi to do
specific things to make the whole voting process easier, which it should be once
a person is lawfully registered. But then again, you may not want to. Utah
basically only has one Party, so it's not an issue there.
Texas and Mississippi has already fully complied with the law per the voting
rights act of 1965, which just had Section 4 overturned by the Supreme Court
yesterday.You are still basing your argument on pure political
rhetoric in a vain attempt to make your point. It will not work with me.
Are all citizens who are of voting age allowed to vote? Are all non-citizens or
those who are not old enough to vote banned from voting? What more needs to be
done? If no election judge personally knows a voter, that voter
should show a picture I.D. I have to show my I.D., and I've known the
election judges for thirty-years. Why would anyone think that they will
automatically be allowed to vote in any precinct just because they claim to be
elligible? All anyone has to do is to look at the results of the
last election and see for himself which precincts had well over 100% of eligible
voters voting and how many pricincts didn't have a single vote cast for the
Republican candidate. Reasonable people would know that those precincts were
"up to something". Only in the old Soviet Union did the favored
candidate get ALL the votes. It just doesn't happen in America. How can
more people vote in a precinct than there are regisitered voters? At my
precinct, there is a list of eligible voters. The voter signs his name when he
"How can more people vote in a precinct than there are regisitered voters?
At my precinct, there is a list of eligible voters. The voter signs his name
when he votes."Yep, Richards, you are right. How can more people
vote then are eligible? A thinking person would, after coming to this
conclusion, investigate what really happened. And not just believe that chain
email they got. A non-thinking person would just repeat what they've heard
from conservative radio hosts.But I already have a feeling I know
what you are going to do.
I don't think the voting rights act applied to white voters in Philly in
2010. At least not from BO and holder's reactions to white voter
suppression that occurred there.
Don't expect the right wing to characterize this decision as legislating
from the bench. But in 1965, conservatives most certainly would have been
throwing fits if a Warren Court ruling had proscribed as remedial action the
very measures that LBJ and Congress did put into law as the Voting Rights
Act.The Deseret News editorial calls it "shelf life." They
may be right. But in 1965, it was urgently needed legislation for which LBJ
personified Presidential leadership at its finest.
Re: ". . . SCOTUS has just killed effectively killed modern
democracy."Interesting comment.Apparently, to
liberals, "modern democracy" consists of permitting some people,
primarily liberals, of course, to gang up on others, requiring them to bear
burdens they don't want to bear themselves, whether or not that burden is
necessary.Sounds more like gang warfare, to me.It's
sad that such is the "modern democracy" liberals are selling. And that
they get away with calling it democracy.
It's about time our politicians and some people figured out that it's
not 1965 anymore.You can't make progress if you keep thinking
we are the same as the people back in 1965. If we can have a black President
and many black legislators... I think that shows we have made some progress. So
it's time to get rid of some of the laws motivated by the problems we had
in the 60s and see how the public responds to their new freedom. IF they go
back to the practices of the 60's... then we have failed and the laws can
come back. IF we have actually made some progress... then maybe throwing out
some laws based on the problems of the 60s would be a liberating and a
"good" thing.Then and only then can we find out if people
have really changed... or if they were just controlled by these outdated laws
keeping them from being racist.I don't think we need this law
anymore. It is just a symbol of the past. We should not be living in the past.
I've worked as an election judge for several elections. So to answer the
questionsIf you do not have an accepted ID, you may vote
provisionally. This gives you time to go to the Clerk's office and show
your ID. Failure to do so means your ballot will not be counted.It
would be possible to have more people vote than are on a register. Some people
vote in the wrong place. Some people say they are registered but no record can
be found. Some people vote via mail and then say they didn't. All these
people are allowed to vote provisionally. The Clerk's staff then
researches those ballots and decides whether they are valid or not.If there is a question of whether a person is eligible to vote, the voter
should ALWAYS be given the benefit of the doubt. The Clerk's office has
time to make a decision after the fact.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments