Section 4 of the VRA found unconsitutional

[daveman]

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.

Little hint for the liberalism impaired:

If the Democrat loses, that doesn't mean it's automatically due to voter supression.

I was listening to NPR today. Lots of guests were all up in arms. One caller seemed to feel like the purpose of the VRA was to guarantee that the Democrat wins.

The one conservative guest pointed out that Mississippi has a higher voter registration rate for blacks than does Massachusetts.

So why didn't Section 4 apply to Mass?

The justification for Section 4 is no longer applicable. Period.

 

[daveman]

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.

Your bigotry against Southerners is not a compelling argument.

But it's the only one you have, and you dutifully repeat it as programmed.

Good sheep!

 

[TemplarKormac]

From Governor Jan Brewer's Facebook page:



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? ...........

Hows about a nice, "go fuck yourself"?

 

[ScienceRocks]

How about one man one vote? Let's get race the fuck out of it.

How about it??? You people like to say how we shouldn't judge people based on race, but do it anyways? WTF? This law is outdated to say the least.

 

[daveman]

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.

Oh goody. So the injured party can file suit but the election will be over by the time the matter goes to court.

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.

Congress can't agree on the day of the week. The USSC knows that, hence voter suppression will accelerate. You know that so stop being so dishonest.

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?

LOL. Oh yeah, there's no voter suppression going on, it's all about making our elections honest, fair and aboveboard. Let's face it, anti democratic forces have won. American has become a Plutocratic Republic wherein the People's House is owned outright by the 1%.

16 of the 21 most-gerrymandered Congressional districts are Democratic.

I thought you wanted honest, fair, and aboveboard elections?

Oh, wait, that's right -- all you want is the Democrat to win. And you don't care how.

 

[Oddball]

If there's any voter suppression going on involving republicans, it's when they suppress the republican vote by nominating quasi-leftist neocon jackwagons like Juan McQuisling and Vinnie Vitalis Romney.

 

[daveman]

The only reason Democrats are upset about this decision is because states can no longer be compelled to draw racially gerrymandered districts that are guaranteed to elect a Democrat.

That is disengenuous as hell. The Republican majority in Texas gerrymandered districts to prevent minorities from being able to elect one of their own. To try and flip that reality around is downright dishonest.

16 of the 21 most-gerrymandered districts are Democrat.

Or is that different? Somehow? It just is!!

 

[daveman]

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.

Please explain how you draw that conclusion for someone simple like me.

He didn't draw that conclusion. He was told to repeat it ad nauseum.

 

[g5000]

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.

You can't think of anyone personally, so it doesn't happen, amiright?

You remind me of the crack team of Fox News entertainers who stepped outside their building and asked a few passing negroes if they had IDs, and thought this proved there were no negroes anywhere in America without suitable IDs for voting.

Let me give you a name. And then you can ask yourself why you never heard of him. And it will be because none of the flag pin wearing faux patriots and yellow rags didn't make so much as a peep about him: Bill Internicola.

 

[FireFly]

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.

Wry Catcher is a racist!

 

[daveman]

As we saw in Pennsylvania last year, attempts to suppress minority voters is not restricted to the Deep South. Therefore, to single out the Deep South for special handling is wrong.

The result of this decision will mean the Deep South will no longer be able to take a shortcut to justice. They won't be able to go to the Department of Justice and have a bogus election law stopped by the Executive. They will have to go through the courts like everyone else. A process that is far more tedious and expensive.

That's PA's 12th District. Does that really look like an attempt to suppress minority voters?

 

[daveman]

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.

Good grief, are you still pushing that old lie?

Moron.

 

[Trajan]

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.

I guess cherishing liberty depends on whose ox is being gored.... Roberts was the defining vote ala Obamacare........

from god to goat in so short a time....



Oh and the participation rate of blacks in Mississippi is higher than it is in Massachusetts apparently, so, do we now demand pre-clearance in Mass.?

 

[daveman]

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.

I was disenfranchised by the people who didn't have the right to vote but whom you insisted should be able to vote anyway.

Your concern is not at all convincing. All you want is the Democrat to win. That's the only "fair" election to you.

 

[daveman]

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?"

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.

That's too hard and expensive for people who already have to have an ID to buy cigarettes and liquor and sign up for welfare and food stamps.

 

[velvtacheeze]

The racist revenge of the goober states is gonna get ugly.

 

[Trajan]

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.

I was disenfranchised by the people who didn't have the right to vote but whom you insisted should be able to vote anyway.

Your concern is not at all convincing. All you want is the Democrat to win. That's the only "fair" election to you.

you're wasting your time, hes just an alinsky nut, and when you have the power, that alinsky shit doesn't fly, but hes sleep and a hyper partisan so you get what you get.......


section 5 it totally intact, section 4 was always seen as temporary hence the renewals as they intended when they wrote it, and after a African-American president, record black turnout and northern states with less black participation in some cases than the south, the rule has run out of road, but, race, gender and angst is their bread and butter.

 

[daveman]

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.

Those who actually believe in our democratic traditions are worked up, that's true. One doesn't need to be far left to see the consequences of this ruling coupled with CU v. FEC. You believe you won, in reality the Plutocrats won and the American People have lost.

...says the guy who supports Democratic gerrymandering and unlimited union donations to candidates.

Tough shit, Skippy. The American People won this time. Dishonest Democrats lost -- and that's good for America.

 

[daveman]

That's coming next. I don't have the words to describe a man that would team with racist to destroy his own people.

There are two:

Black Democrat.

 

[daveman]

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.

Or you could just look at the laws instead of relying on the crap passed around the lefty bullshit-o-sphere as fact.

Voter ID: State Requirements