Section 4 of the VRA found unconsitutional

[Zarius]

oh no---we have to go back to equality ???

What a joke comment. Go back to when? 1962?

 

[Antares]

Didn't you start a thread about the rule of law recently?

The VRA is an example of a country that does not have the rule of law.

indeed. The VRA was born from the South basically ignoring the Recontruction amendments after the 1870's until forced to do so in the 1960's.

That is why I have zero SYMPATHY for them, they and thier ancestors brought it on themselves, but my lack of sympathy has nothing to with the rule of law, and the system for figuring out who falls under section 5 (in section 4) was hopelessly outdated and needed to go.

The VRA teeters on the edge of unconsitutionality in general, however it was needed to right the wrongs that were being perpetrated on the local black populations. That being said its purpose as written has been achived, and should have been rewritten (section 4 at least) the last time it came around for re-authorization.

And you've made my point. There is no way the current Congress can agree on anything (other than something that protects their individual job). Something as contentious as a rewrite will never happen and both you and the 5 member majority know this.

Voter suppression will not only continue, it will accelerate. I have no doubt each member of the majority understood its ramifications, as they did when they voted for CU v. FEC.

Why won't you answer Amelia's question?

 

[Zarius]

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 VRA is still in effect and any injured party can still sue in federal court to force thier state/locality to follow the law.

All that is removed is the CURRENT pre-clearance system, which was based on old data and not the current conditions in the locality. Congress can rewrite it and send it to the court to see if it would work again.

Pre-clearance was a relic of the 60's and 70's when REAL voter suppression was rampant. Today is not the case. Why keep relic laws on the books when they served thier purpose?

Until next year when the right makes their next move. Hats off to you. Its our own fault. Maybe lil wayne can show his drawers to the KKK and White Citizens Council. They have a new name now though.

 

[martybegan]

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 VRA is still in effect and any injured party can still sue in federal court to force thier state/locality to follow the law.

All that is removed is the CURRENT pre-clearance system, which was based on old data and not the current conditions in the locality. Congress can rewrite it and send it to the court to see if it would work again.

Pre-clearance was a relic of the 60's and 70's when REAL voter suppression was rampant. Today is not the case. Why keep relic laws on the books when they served thier purpose?

Until next year when the right makes their next move. Hats off to you. Its our own fault. Maybe lil wayne can show his drawers to the KKK and White Citizens Council. They have a new name now though.

Section 2 still applies, and the courts are still there. This removes pre-clearance only, so some asshole G-8 in the Justice department doesnt have to approve of moving a voting box 20 ft, or if a state wants to enact voter ID.

You still cannot discriminate based on race, section 2 covers that.

 

[Antares]

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 VRA is still in effect and any injured party can still sue in federal court to force thier state/locality to follow the law.

All that is removed is the CURRENT pre-clearance system, which was based on old data and not the current conditions in the locality. Congress can rewrite it and send it to the court to see if it would work again.

Pre-clearance was a relic of the 60's and 70's when REAL voter suppression was rampant. Today is not the case. Why keep relic laws on the books when they served thier purpose?

Until next year when the right makes their next move. Hats off to you. Its our own fault. Maybe lil wayne can show his drawers to the KKK and White Citizens Council. They have a new name now though.

Maybe you'll grab a baton and stand in front of a predominately white voting site?

 

[Zarius]

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 coming next. I don't have the words to describe a man that would team with racist to destroy his own people. That's hate that comes from a place of evil revenge. What did his family do to that man?

 

[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.

That's coming next. I don't have the words to describe a man that would team with racist to destroy his own people. That's hate that comes from a place of evil revenge. What did his family do to that man?

 

[Antares]

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 coming next. I don't have the words to describe a man that would team with racist to destroy his own people. That's hate that comes from a place of evil revenge. What did his family do to that man?

Zarius is a racist but its ok because he is an angry black man.

 

[Zarius]

The majority basically said there is no evidence of higher voter discrimination in the states or districts covered by the VRA when compared to the rest of the country. Therefore, to continue to single them out for double secret probation is unconstitutional.

The court did not deny voter discrimination exists. They just said it does not exist in greater amounts in the VRA zones.

And the numbers back them up.

Since that time, Census Bureau data indicate that African-American voter turnout has come to exceed 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.

This is the most bias racist SC since 1965.

 

[g5000]

The majority basically said there is no evidence of higher voter discrimination in the states or districts covered by the VRA when compared to the rest of the country. Therefore, to continue to single them out for double secret probation is unconstitutional.

The court did not deny voter discrimination exists. They just said it does not exist in greater amounts in the VRA zones.

And the numbers back them up.

Since that time, Census Bureau data indicate that African-American voter turnout has come to exceed 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.

This is the most bias racist SC since 1965.

How so?

Did you read the decision? Please point out in their decision what supports your statement.

Why should certain states or voting districts continue to get special treatment and scrutiny if there is no evidence they are more discriminatory?

Please note I am not saying there is no discrimination.

 

[g5000]

The power to regulate elections is given to Congress in Article 1, Section 4.

Also, the Judicial branch has the power to decide the constitutionality of any election laws.

The Executive is not given this power.

However, in 1964, Congress delegated some of its authority to the Executive branch for certain geographical areas in the US, most of which were in the Deep South. Congress did this because the Deep South and its Jim Crow laws went above and beyond the typical racial discrimination found throughout the US.

Under the Constitution, Congress is authorized to supercede state election laws for federal elections. But the Voting Rights Act went beyond that and granted the Executive the authority to null and void state election laws which were discriminatory inside the geographical boundaries which were established by the VRA.

And so, for the past 49 years, the Department of Justice, an arm of the Executive branch, has been able to arbitrarily place injunctions on state laws which affect federal elections.

This is authority that was originally intended to be on the Legislative side of the separation of powers equation. This clearly should not be continued indefinitely, especially since there is no longer any evidence these geographical zones are experiencing more disenfranchisement than any others.

Executive power is swift. A simple signing of a piece of paper by a single person. For that reason, this is a power that should be very carefully limited.

Righting a perceived wrong by this means is very tempting because it is quick.

However, our Founders saw the wisdom of slowing that process down and deliberating on claimed wrongs. They were smart enough to see it is sometimes best to submit such claims to a body of people rather than to one person who belongs to one political persuasion.

It is time to restore balance. The discriminations we see today should be placed into the hands of our courts and our legislatures to correct. That is the way all the other states have had to do things since Day One of our Republic. There is no longer any justification for why these others should be further excepted.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It could be used anywhere, but is was created as a reaction to the Jim Crow south, where the discrimination was de jure, not just de facto like alot of the rest of the country.

I don't give a fuck why it was created, it treats people differently based on where they live. that is the exact opposite of the rule of law, and should be abhorrent to everyone, especially those who claim to hate discrimination.

Then what other mechanism would you have proposed to prevent southern voting areas from suppressing the black vote, which back then they were actually and feverently doing?

I would have forced the Supreme Court to overturn Plessy v Fergusen when they first handed the decision down. It was the government that made the problem, more government is not a solution to a government problem.

 

[Spoonman]

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.

so are you admitting the supreme court could make the wrong decision?

 

[Dragonlady]

My wife doesn't drive. When we registered to vote in Alabama, we both needed a state issued ID for the process. We drove to the county offices and walked right in, no line whatsoever and had her ID in 5 minutes. It did cost $23.

I switched my driver's license at the same time. That took about 10 minutes because I had to take an eye test in addition to the photograph. That cost $23.50.

We then walked about 50 yards to another office and registered to vote. The whole process took about 15 minutes.

Yes easy peasy for you. But what if you were so poor you didn't have a car and lived at the furthest end of the county. And because you are elderly and they didn't keep good records in your parish, you can't provide that necessary underlying documentation of your birth, and you can't afford $23 plus the price of the bus ticket to the county seat. You have just been disenfranchised.

And these are exactly the kind of voters who are disenfranchised by voter ID legislation.

 

[TemplarKormac]

From Governor Jan Brewer's Facebook page:

The US Supreme Court dealt Arizona a victory today with its ruling on the Voting Rights Act by releasing us from a nearly 40-year federal stranglehold over our voting system. I am grateful to the High Court for ruling on the side of sovereignty and federal restraint. Simply put, decisions that affect states should be left to states.

The Chief Justice, writing on behalf of the majority, reiterated this important point in today’s ruling. He said, "the Framers of the Constitution intended the States to keep for themselves, as provided in the Tenth Amendment, the power to regulate elections."

The original voting rights measure was implemented in 1965 as a buffer against discriminatory voting practices in states where systemic racism was historically common. In 1975, the act was amended to include jurisdictions with a prevalent “language minority” population that had not provided bilingual ballots by 1972. Despite Arizona’s adoption of bilingual ballots in 1974, the law’s retroactive application has trapped Arizona under the thumb of the federal government for almost four decades – with no viable process for the state’s voting laws to be released from federal scrutiny.

Today’s ruling provides relief for the State of Arizona. Even if Congress enacts a new statute, it is unlikely Arizona would be mandated to continue to seek federal approval for even the most routine changes to our election procedures.

This ruling gives states back their 10th Amendment rights to regulate voting procedures within their own borders.

 

[Little-Acorn]

From Governor Jan Brewer's Facebook page:

The US Supreme Court dealt Arizona a victory today with its ruling on the Voting Rights Act by releasing us from a nearly 40-year federal stranglehold over our voting system. I am grateful to the High Court for ruling on the side of sovereignty and federal restraint. Simply put, decisions that affect states should be left to states.

The Chief Justice, writing on behalf of the majority, reiterated this important point in today’s ruling. He said, "the Framers of the Constitution intended the States to keep for themselves, as provided in the Tenth Amendment, the power to regulate elections."

The original voting rights measure was implemented in 1965 as a buffer against discriminatory voting practices in states where systemic racism was historically common. In 1975, the act was amended to include jurisdictions with a prevalent “language minority” population that had not provided bilingual ballots by 1972. Despite Arizona’s adoption of bilingual ballots in 1974, the law’s retroactive application has trapped Arizona under the thumb of the federal government for almost four decades – with no viable process for the state’s voting laws to be released from federal scrutiny.

Today’s ruling provides relief for the State of Arizona. Even if Congress enacts a new statute, it is unlikely Arizona would be mandated to continue to seek federal approval for even the most routine changes to our election procedures.

This ruling gives states back their 10th Amendment rights to regulate voting procedures within their own borders.

So, does the VRA ruling today, cancel the Supremes' ruling from the last week or two, when they said that Arizona had to sue the Fed in court, to get the Feds' permission to require citizenship ID at the polls?

 

[Zarius]

From Governor Jan Brewer's Facebook page:

The US Supreme Court dealt Arizona a victory today with its ruling on the Voting Rights Act by releasing us from a nearly 40-year federal stranglehold over our voting system. I am grateful to the High Court for ruling on the side of sovereignty and federal restraint. Simply put, decisions that affect states should be left to states.

The Chief Justice, writing on behalf of the majority, reiterated this important point in today’s ruling. He said, "the Framers of the Constitution intended the States to keep for themselves, as provided in the Tenth Amendment, the power to regulate elections."

The original voting rights measure was implemented in 1965 as a buffer against discriminatory voting practices in states where systemic racism was historically common. In 1975, the act was amended to include jurisdictions with a prevalent “language minority” population that had not provided bilingual ballots by 1972. Despite Arizona’s adoption of bilingual ballots in 1974, the law’s retroactive application has trapped Arizona under the thumb of the federal government for almost four decades – with no viable process for the state’s voting laws to be released from federal scrutiny.

Today’s ruling provides relief for the State of Arizona. Even if Congress enacts a new statute, it is unlikely Arizona would be mandated to continue to seek federal approval for even the most routine changes to our election procedures.

This ruling gives states back their 10th Amendment rights to regulate voting procedures within their own borders.

So, does the VRA ruling today, cancel the Supremes' ruling from the last week or two, when they said that Arizona had to sue the Fed in court, to get the Feds' permission to require citizenship ID at the polls?

Hey llil acorn,hows your boys EdwardA and Harrier? ...........

 

[Zarius]

My wife doesn't drive. When we registered to vote in Alabama, we both needed a state issued ID for the process. We drove to the county offices and walked right in, no line whatsoever and had her ID in 5 minutes. It did cost $23.

I switched my driver's license at the same time. That took about 10 minutes because I had to take an eye test in addition to the photograph. That cost $23.50.

We then walked about 50 yards to another office and registered to vote. The whole process took about 15 minutes.

Yes easy peasy for you. But what if you were so poor you didn't have a car and lived at the furthest end of the county. And because you are elderly and they didn't keep good records in your parish, you can't provide that necessary underlying documentation of your birth, and you can't afford $23 plus the price of the bus ticket to the county seat. You have just been disenfranchised.

And these are exactly the kind of voters who are disenfranchised by voter ID legislation.

Those are exactly the kind of voters rightwingers have always wanted to disenfranchise. They have never believed in one person one vote.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

From Governor Jan Brewer's Facebook page:

The US Supreme Court dealt Arizona a victory today with its ruling on the Voting Rights Act by releasing us from a nearly 40-year federal stranglehold over our voting system. I am grateful to the High Court for ruling on the side of sovereignty and federal restraint. Simply put, decisions that affect states should be left to states.

The Chief Justice, writing on behalf of the majority, reiterated this important point in today’s ruling. He said, "the Framers of the Constitution intended the States to keep for themselves, as provided in the Tenth Amendment, the power to regulate elections."

The original voting rights measure was implemented in 1965 as a buffer against discriminatory voting practices in states where systemic racism was historically common. In 1975, the act was amended to include jurisdictions with a prevalent “language minority” population that had not provided bilingual ballots by 1972. Despite Arizona’s adoption of bilingual ballots in 1974, the law’s retroactive application has trapped Arizona under the thumb of the federal government for almost four decades – with no viable process for the state’s voting laws to be released from federal scrutiny.

Today’s ruling provides relief for the State of Arizona. Even if Congress enacts a new statute, it is unlikely Arizona would be mandated to continue to seek federal approval for even the most routine changes to our election procedures.

This ruling gives states back their 10th Amendment rights to regulate voting procedures within their own borders.

The states still remain subject to Federal elections law, the ruling doesn’t change that. And citizens in any jurisdiction are still at liberty to file a voting rights violation complaint in Federal court, and if a given elections law or policy is in violation of the VRA, any other Federal elections law, or voting rights jurisprudence, that measure would be invalidated.

 

[OriginalShroom]

My wife doesn't drive. When we registered to vote in Alabama, we both needed a state issued ID for the process. We drove to the county offices and walked right in, no line whatsoever and had her ID in 5 minutes. It did cost $23.

I switched my driver's license at the same time. That took about 10 minutes because I had to take an eye test in addition to the photograph. That cost $23.50.

We then walked about 50 yards to another office and registered to vote. The whole process took about 15 minutes.

Yes easy peasy for you. But what if you were so poor you didn't have a car and lived at the furthest end of the county. And because you are elderly and they didn't keep good records in your parish, you can't provide that necessary underlying documentation of your birth, and you can't afford $23 plus the price of the bus ticket to the county seat. You have just been disenfranchised.

And these are exactly the kind of voters who are disenfranchised by voter ID legislation.

And exacty how many people fit this description??

I can't think of anyone personally.

Most of those pleading poverty dress nicer than I do, have weaves and nails, along with the latest "kicks" to hit the market.