Section 4 of the VRA found unconsitutional

[longknife]

Of course that's a bit, a small bit, of hyperbole but given recent history and a Republican H. of Rep. majority we can assume voter suppression will not only continue but accelerate.

This ruling (once again 5-4) along with CU v. FEC has completely transformed our country into a Plutocracy. Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia have purposely and consciously harmed the American People and the democratic ethos of this once great nation.

It will be interesting to see the comments from those who cherish liberty. For more details see the link below.

SCOTUSblog

Tomorrow or the next day the reprehensible gang of five will have an opportunity to defile The Declaration of Independence and deny a set of citizens liberty and the ability to pursue happiness as they choose.

The Redneck Liberal rant starts!

 

[Crackerjaxon]

I dont think it was unconstiutional (or if so just barely) at the time, as what was going on was clearly unconsitutional voter suppression of black voters.

However a remedy for stringent times is in no way supposed to be permanent. They should have either renovated Section 4, or got rid of pre clearance entirely.

One can make the same argument over affirmative action, which was needed decades ago, and should be soon put to rest.

I don't see how imposing election laws on certain geographical segments of the US and not others is even remotely constitutional.

At any rate, I'm glad to see the Supreme Court making an occasional sane judgment. It gives me a glimmer of hope.

Affirmative action was and is unconstitutional, too. I believe we will soon see an end to it.

I would very much like to see the federal government pony up recompense to Southern states for its illegal invasion of the South and also to the descendants of slaves it freed to steal or starve in a ruined economy.

The feds promised ex-slaves forty acres and a mule, but gave them nothing but a hellish time. We are still feeling the effects of it.

I don't even want to start on the wholesale rape of the South from which it is only now recovering.

You lost me on the bolded parts. This is off topic, but I will say this. The consitution was a contract between the states, and could only be nullified by an agreed nullification by a majority of the states. If states were allowed to threaten seccession willy nilly the system would never have worked. Democracy can only work when the minority acceedes to the majority, unless it becomes so egrigious that it warrants revolt.

States did threaten secession willy nilly. The constitution is a restriction of the federal government, not a contract between the states. Plainly if a free republic, which is what individual states were at the time, chose to voluntarily enter a union, it could voluntarily leave.

The US is not, nor has it ever been, a democracy. It is a representative constitutional republic. It is leaning that way, though, with resultant problems, as politicians diligently interpret the Constitution into meaninglessness.

 

[AmyNation]

There is a reason that congress has record high reelection rates. Gerrymandering, unethical redistricting and voter suppression are not limited to republicans/democrats or southern states.

 

[jwoodie]

Of course, and that suit will take place after an election. What remedy exists then? None! This can and will be spun by the anti democratic forces as simply an update - in reality it fucks over minorities, students and the aged.

So pre-clearance has to be perpetual and ever ongoing? Even if the conditions that created the need for pre-clearance are no longer valid?

Who says the conditions are no longer valid?

Congress could have fixed this the last time they re-upped the VRA, but they got lazy, kept a formula from 40 years ago intact, and got burned.

Congress is dysfunctional, the Gang of Five knows this, which is why the ruling is a shame.

The section was written when ACTUAL voter suppression using guns and dogs and hangings was going on. That is no longer the case, and the law SHOULD have been updated to reflect that.

Oh, so "ACTUAL" voter suppression requires guns, dogs and hangings. I see, long lines, hard or impossible or expensive to get ID cards or too few ballots may make us more civilized but voter suppression is still in effect.

Where, exactly, do you see "hard or impossible or expensive to get ID cards?"

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is a reason that congress has record high reelection rates. Gerrymandering, unethical redistricting and voter suppression are not limited to republicans/democrats or southern states.

Clearly. Adding it all together one could make the case that a consitutionally limited, representative republic is as big a failure as democracy at that point. Government always manages to corrupt from within and hose the people. In short, it seems our 200+ year old grand experiment has abjectly failed.

 

[martybegan]

I don't see how imposing election laws on certain geographical segments of the US and not others is even remotely constitutional.

At any rate, I'm glad to see the Supreme Court making an occasional sane judgment. It gives me a glimmer of hope.

Affirmative action was and is unconstitutional, too. I believe we will soon see an end to it.

I would very much like to see the federal government pony up recompense to Southern states for its illegal invasion of the South and also to the descendants of slaves it freed to steal or starve in a ruined economy.

The feds promised ex-slaves forty acres and a mule, but gave them nothing but a hellish time. We are still feeling the effects of it.

I don't even want to start on the wholesale rape of the South from which it is only now recovering.

You lost me on the bolded parts. This is off topic, but I will say this. The consitution was a contract between the states, and could only be nullified by an agreed nullification by a majority of the states. If states were allowed to threaten seccession willy nilly the system would never have worked. Democracy can only work when the minority acceedes to the majority, unless it becomes so egrigious that it warrants revolt.

States did threaten secession willy nilly. The constitution is a restriction of the federal government, not a contract between the states. Plainly if a free republic, which is what individual states were at the time, chose to voluntarily enter a union, it could voluntarily leave.

The US is not, nor has it ever been, a democracy. It is a representative constitutional republic. It is leaning that way, though, with resultant problems, as politicians diligently interpret the Constitution into meaninglessness.

The ability to seceede at any time would render a "representative republic" unworkable, because anytime someone did not get thier way they could seceede or threaten to seccede. Yes We are not a true democracy, but we operate under democratic principles. and if the minority can threaten to haul up and leave, then any form of representative government becomes unworkable.

There is an out however, in that if the majority wants them to leave, then it is workable. There is also the more violent option, revolt and revolution. That right is intrinsic in people who have no other choice, the right they do not have is to win without a fight.

Also, The consitution is a contract.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[Amelia]

What the ruling means is quite simply voter suppression will continue and accelerate. The Four Republican Justices and the Republican Chief Justice set back voting 'rights' to the 1950's. Next we can expect Alabama or another Southern State to challenge Brown v. the Board of Ed.

It's bogus to use 40-year-old data to decide who needs further scrutiny.

That leaves Northern abusers exempt from oversight even if they're worse than Southern states which have worked for 40-years to improve their practices.


The party which claims superior commitment to education and science and other facty things shouldn't be so attached to old information or so reluctant to incorporate new.

 

[g5000]

There is a reason that congress has record high reelection rates. Gerrymandering, unethical redistricting and voter suppression are not limited to republicans/democrats or southern states.

I call it the American Politburo.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So pre-clearance has to be perpetual and ever ongoing? Even if the conditions that created the need for pre-clearance are no longer valid?

Who says the conditions are no longer valid?

Congress could have fixed this the last time they re-upped the VRA, but they got lazy, kept a formula from 40 years ago intact, and got burned.

The section was written when ACTUAL voter suppression using guns and dogs and hangings was going on. That is no longer the case, and the law SHOULD have been updated to reflect that.

Oh, so "ACTUAL" voter suppression requires guns, dogs and hangings. I see, long lines, hard or impossible or expensive ID cards, too few ballots make us more civilized but voter suppression is still in effect.

Section 4 as written was designed to counter THAT form of suppression. If progressives wanted it to cover what you see currently as suppression, then it should have been updated and re-written.

The formula used did not match current conditions, and thus should have been redone. Lazyness on the part of the legislature led to the court overturning the archaic formula.

And people affected can still sue. ANY form of pre-clearance when it comes to local governments must be for dire reasons, not for any reason.

Let's be clear. Voter suppression exists, your side call it fraud prevention. If I'm denied the right to vote I can sue, but for all the time and expense in doing so there is no remedy. The election is over, my vote was not cast and I was disenfranchised.

We both know the 5-4 ruling was based on ideological and party lines. You won, so there's no need to be dishonest, go ahead and gloat. Even if outdated, who suffered? The writ of certiorari was put in play to keep the Republican Party competitive by allowing some districts to change the rule by fiat. It was a coup and the Plutocrats won.

 

[hazlnut]

The opinions at the link:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf

So basically pre-clearance is still allowable, but the formula used to determine who needs to be pre-cleared is unconsitutional due to the age of the data used.

Yeah, I think Al Sharpton and Co. are making too big a deal out of this.

Liberals / Far-left is getting worked up about nothing.

 

[Ernie S.]

No no according to liberals ALL voting rights have been repealed!

Except for "enlightened" areas like Boston, Chicago and San Francisco.

 

[Amelia]

Oh, so "ACTUAL" voter suppression requires guns, dogs and hangings. I see, long lines, hard or impossible or expensive ID cards, too few ballots make us more civilized but voter suppression is still in effect.

Section 4 as written was designed to counter THAT form of suppression. If progressives wanted it to cover what you see currently as suppression, then it should have been updated and re-written.

The formula used did not match current conditions, and thus should have been redone. Lazyness on the part of the legislature led to the court overturning the archaic formula.

And people affected can still sue. ANY form of pre-clearance when it comes to local governments must be for dire reasons, not for any reason.

Let's be clear. Voter suppression exists, your side call it fraud prevention. If I'm denied the right to vote I can sue, but for all the time and expense in doing so there is no remedy. The election is over, my vote was not cast and I was disenfranchised.

We both know the 5-4 ruling was based on ideological and party lines. You won, so there's no need to be dishonest, go ahead and gloat. Even if outdated, who suffered? The writ of certiorari was put in play to keep the Republican Party competitive by allowing some districts to change the rule by fiat. It was a coup and the Plutocrats won.

people in Northern states who don't have the same protections as people in Southern states because the old act let abusers there slide under the radar

 

[Oddball]

There is a reason that congress has record high reelection rates. Gerrymandering, unethical redistricting and voter suppression are not limited to republicans/democrats or southern states.

Clearly. Adding it all together one could make the case that a consitutionally limited, representative republic is as big a failure as democracy at that point. Government always manages to corrupt from within and hose the people. In short, it seems our 200+ year old grand experiment has abjectly failed.

Can't say it has failed since it really hasn't been in place in more than a century.

The Fed, 16th & 17th Amendments, along with the standard practice of international military meddling -amongst the most notable- have pretty much shelved the spirit and intent of the original republic.

 

[martybegan]

Oh, so "ACTUAL" voter suppression requires guns, dogs and hangings. I see, long lines, hard or impossible or expensive ID cards, too few ballots make us more civilized but voter suppression is still in effect.

Section 4 as written was designed to counter THAT form of suppression. If progressives wanted it to cover what you see currently as suppression, then it should have been updated and re-written.

The formula used did not match current conditions, and thus should have been redone. Lazyness on the part of the legislature led to the court overturning the archaic formula.

And people affected can still sue. ANY form of pre-clearance when it comes to local governments must be for dire reasons, not for any reason.

Let's be clear. Voter suppression exists, your side call it fraud prevention. If I'm denied the right to vote I can sue, but for all the time and expense in doing so there is no remedy. The election is over, my vote was not cast and I was disenfranchised.

We both know the 5-4 ruling was based on ideological and party lines. You won, so there's no need to be dishonest, go ahead and gloat. Even if outdated, who suffered? The writ of certiorari was put in play to keep the Republican Party competitive by allowing some districts to change the rule by fiat. It was a coup and the Plutocrats won.

If you are found not to be eligible to vote at the booth, you cast a provisional ballot, and if your credentials check out, your vote counts. If you were truly eligible to vote, then no harm no foul. If you were NOT elegible to vote, then guess what? you just provided evidence for voter fraud. Win Win in my book.

The ruling puts all districts on equal footing. The concentration on southern districts was a 30 year old anachronism.

 

[Oddball]

All of this freak-outery about the VRA begs the question....Which ethnicity is it that controls the voting processes in predominantly black voting districts?...Wouldn't that answer logically be black people?

Why would black people keep other blacks from voting?

You're a liar or a fool. Each State's Secretary of State sets the rules.

I'm talking about the election officials, registrars and other bureaucrats who run the local districts and precincts, you hysterical nincompoop.

 

[KissMy]

Oh, so "ACTUAL" voter suppression requires guns, dogs and hangings. I see, long lines, hard or impossible or expensive to get ID cards or too few ballots may make us more civilized but voter suppression is still in effect.

I guess you have not heard of the provisional ballot then?

Yep, sure have. You have a point?

ID cards are not more expensive or harder to get because of race or district. They are the same for everyone in the state. But in the event someone does not have an ID or is not on the voter roll, they can still vote by provisional ballot.

Voting line order are first come first serve, not by race. When black areas have turned out in low numbers for years but suddenly turn out in high numbers because a black person is on the ballot & over run the polling place designated for regular turnout does not mean voters were suppressed. Polls don't close until everyone who was in line by the deadline has voted.

 

[Oddball]

All of this freak-outery about the VRA begs the question....Which ethnicity is it that controls the voting processes in predominantly black voting districts?...Wouldn't that answer logically be black people?

Why would black people keep other blacks from voting?

You clearly do not know what is going on.

If 50 percent of the population was black, and yet only 30 percent of the voting districts were majority black districts, then that suggests districts may have been rigged that way. District lines can be, and have been, drawn to prevent representation which is on par with the demographics.

Texas is a textbook case. The Republican legislature has gerrymandered the living shit out of the map to accomplish this very thing.


And then there are the Voter ID laws enacted by Republican majority legislatures to prevent as many minorites from being able to vote as possible.


But the Deep South is not the only place this is happening. Unfortunately, Republicans are hard at work to suppress the minority vote all over the country.


And you thought black voted for Obama because he gave them presents, I bet. It couldn't possibly be because of shit like this.

Oh, and democrats haven't gerrymandered the shit out of districts, to keep their stranglehold on the black vote?

And blacks voted for Oboingo for three reasons: He's black, has a (D) by his name and because he's black.

 

[Pete7469]

What the ruling means is quite simply voter suppression will continue and accelerate. The Four Republican Justices and the Republican Chief Justice set back voting 'rights' to the 1950's. Next we can expect Alabama or another Southern State to challenge Brown v. the Board of Ed.

That's bullshit of course, but I have no problem with racists not being allowed to vote.

People who support the moonbat messiah just because he exploits half his ancentry to appeal to their racist tendincies are fools, and they don't deserve to elect sociopaths that end up governing us all.

Put that in your pipes and smoke it bed wetters.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Next thing you know liberals will have to produce a valid id to vote.

An obstacle too large for those progressive imbeciles.......lol

 

[g5000]

All of this freak-outery about the VRA begs the question....Which ethnicity is it that controls the voting processes in predominantly black voting districts?...Wouldn't that answer logically be black people?

Why would black people keep other blacks from voting?

You clearly do not know what is going on.

If 50 percent of the population was black, and yet only 30 percent of the voting districts were majority black districts, then that suggests districts may have been rigged that way. District lines can be, and have been, drawn to prevent representation which is on par with the demographics.

Texas is a textbook case. The Republican legislature has gerrymandered the living shit out of the map to accomplish this very thing.


And then there are the Voter ID laws enacted by Republican majority legislatures to prevent as many minorites from being able to vote as possible.


But the Deep South is not the only place this is happening. Unfortunately, Republicans are hard at work to suppress the minority vote all over the country.


And you thought black voted for Obama because he gave them presents, I bet. It couldn't possibly be because of shit like this.

Oh, and democrats haven't gerrymandered the shit out of districts, to keep their stranglehold on the black vote?

And blacks voted for Oboingo for three reasons: He's black, has a (D) by his name and because he's black.

If you want to see Democratic gerrymandering, you need only to look at California. Out of several hundred Congressional elections in that state between 2000 and 2010, only one seat changed parties.


I like what Lewis Black says about the Democratic and Republican parties. "I don't know if you've noticed, but our two-party system is a bowl of shit looking at itself in the mirror."