forum Politics and Society ›› Supreme Court Guts Voting Rights Act ›› new reply Post Reply
Jason Voorheees

dogfood meatballs
6,457 Posts
40/M/NY

offline   (4)
June 25 2013 11:37 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
this is why ginsberg needs to announce her retirement right now so obama can appoint someone decent before president christie takes office.











(Justice Scalia seen here with his hand up the ass of his puppet 'Uncle Thomas')



June 25, 2013, 10:22 AM

Supreme Court strikes down operative section of Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a section of the Voting Rights Act, weakening a tool the federal government has used for nearly five decades to block discriminatory voting laws.

In a five-to-four ruling, the court ruled that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. That section of the landmark 1965 civil rights law provides the formula for determining which states must have any changes to their voting laws pre-approved by the Justice Department's civil rights division or the D.C. federal court. Nine states are required to get pre-clearance, as are certain jurisdictions in seven other states.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that Section 4 is unconstitutional because the standards by which states are judged are "based on decades-old data and eradicated practices."

"Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically," Roberts wrote. "The tests and devices that blocked ballot access have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years. Yet the Act has not eased [Section 5's] restrictions or narrowed the scope of [Section 4's] coverage formula along the way. Instead those extraordinary and unprecedented features have been reauthorized as if nothing has changed, and they have grown even stronger."

"The Supreme Court has failed minority voters today," Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund said Tuesday outside of the court.

The ruling underscores the Supreme Court's lawmaking powers, challenging Congress' overwhelmingly bipartisan decision in 2006 to renew the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years. Ifill pointed out that the court renewed the law after holding 52 hearings over nine months and amassing 15,000 pages of evidence of discrimination -- including more than 600 objections to voting based on intentional discrimination in the jurisdictions covered by Section 4.



****************************************************************



Top Senate Republican Hints Voting Rights Act May Be Held Hostage In Exchange For Voter Suppression

By Ian Millhiser

Tuesday’s decision neutering a key prong of the Voting Rights Act leaves supporters of voting rights in a difficult position. If they do nothing, voter suppression laws can go into effect, and may not be struck down by the courts until after they have succeeded in disenfranchising many voters. Yet the Roberts Court’s decision to hollow out America’s voting rights protections also allows conservatives to exact concessions before the voting rights regime that five Republican justices killed can be restored.

Shortly after the decision, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, dropped a hint at just what those concessions could be — give the greenlight to a common GOP-backed voter suppression law, or the heart of the Voting Rights Act is dead forever. In an interview with CBS News, Grassley claimed he is “open to looking at ways to address the issues addressed in the court’s decision.” Yet he added that he believed the Justice Department was wrong to use the act to block “common sense measures such as voter identification laws.”

Voter ID laws are not common sense, and they are exactly the kind of device the Voting Rights Act was enacted to prevent. Although Republicans often claim these laws are needed to prevent voter fraud at the polls, such fraud is virtually non-existent. A study of Wisconsin voters found that only 0.00023 percent of votes are the product of in-person voter fraud, meaning that a person is more likely to be struck by lightning than to commit fraud at the polls.

What voter ID laws do accomplish, however, is removing many low-income voters, students and people of color from the electorate — all of which are groups that tend to vote for Democrats. The entire purpose of the Voting Rights Act is to block laws that suppress voting among racial minorities, so the Justice Department correctly invoked the act to hold up voter ID laws.

Now, however, Grassley’s statement suggests that Republicans could demand that voter ID laws be given an exemption from the Voting Rights Act before the act can be reinstated. In essence, Republicans could block the most effective mechanism of stopping voter suppression laws unless the new voting rights law exempts the GOP’s favorite tactic for suppressing minority votes.
InTheButtLikeWhat
get low
12,901 Posts
34/F/CA


offline   (6)
June 25 2013 4:37 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
does anyone understand what real world effects will we see because of this?
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,526 Posts
61/M/MA


offline   (9)
June 25 2013 8:09 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
"Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically,"

... except for that pesky desire of some on the right to make it difficult or impossible for non-whites to vote or to trick or intimidate them into not voting.
Man is Truth
sleeps on hills
5,530 Posts
41/M/NJ


offline   (11)
June 28 2013 12:07 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
No one bothers posting here anymore because the most active posters are obviously paid shills of mainstream talking-point generating PR firms. (talkin to you crunky lol)
Dianana
8====D
66,350 Posts
35/F/PA


online   (8)
June 28 2013 12:14 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Yes, gerrymandering doesn't exist at all. lololol gtfo.
sidney
MMM..Johnny Cakes
31,480 Posts
41/M/PA


online   (1)
June 28 2013 1:33 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
looking forward to president Christie
JustCan'tHateEnough
Some kind of hate
1,180 Posts
40/M/TX


offline  mobile reply   (13)
June 28 2013 5:34 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
the day this happened 5 states passed bills that couldn't get passed under voters right act. It will only get worse.
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,526 Posts
61/M/MA


offline   (9)
July 1 2013 7:49 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: Man is Truth

No one bothers posting here anymore because the most active posters are obviously paid shills of mainstream talking-point generating PR firms. (talkin to you crunky lol)



Paranoid fantasies FTW! Also, funny how everyone else agrees with you on that, yet hardly anyone here has ever agreed with you on anything. Consensus is easy when you just listen to the voices in your head, I guess. Hmm... maybe YOU should post more shit, then, sir, if you think everyone else is paid to post on this little backwater site for some ill-defined reason. Oh, wait. I forgot.. you don't actually care. You just insist on being a voice crying in the wilderness and having others actually agree with you or debate with you would completely change your status in that regard.
Man is Truth
sleeps on hills
5,530 Posts
41/M/NJ


offline   (11)
July 1 2013 4:26 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
you have that same tired shit cued up to Ctrl+V when Dwarn posts. *yawn*
Man is Truth
sleeps on hills
5,530 Posts
41/M/NJ


offline   (11)
July 1 2013 4:27 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Yes, gerrymandering doesn't exist at all. lololol gtfo.



I wanted to run for NJ Assembly in this election, but, my district is my small town, a private-country-club town (Pine Valley ruling class enclave), and farming towns in atlantic county, hammonton and shit at the fringes of the county. But I live in a cluster of welfare villages gerrymandered into nonexistence as a political bloc.
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,526 Posts
61/M/MA


offline   (9)
July 1 2013 5:34 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: Man is Truth

I have that same tired shit cued up to Ctrl+V when anyone disagrees with me. *yawn*

Man is Truth
sleeps on hills
5,530 Posts
41/M/NJ


offline   (11)
July 1 2013 6:52 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
So now states are going to say that you need ID to vote? Because when I have voted in the past, I always felt uncomfortable and like my vote was not secure, because anyone who knows my name can go take it for me.
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,526 Posts
61/M/MA


offline   (9)
July 1 2013 7:06 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: Man is Truth

So now states are going to say that you need ID to vote? Because when I have voted in the past, I always felt uncomfortable and like my vote was not secure, because anyone who knows my name can go take it for me.



Which never fucking happened. Funny how you are so totally okay with something that is being done specifically to disenfranchise poorer people.
ScrewFlanders
nah im alright
3,871 Posts
34/M/PA


offline   (6)
July 2 2013 7:47 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
i dont see the big deal in providing identification that proves who you say you are to vote. shit cant we have it figured out so theres just an app for all of this bullshit.
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,526 Posts
61/M/MA


offline   (9)
July 2 2013 7:01 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: ScrewFlanders

i dont see the big deal in providing identification that proves who you say you are to vote. shit cant we have it figured out so theres just an app for all of this bullshit.



Well, the problem is that many of the laws to do this have NOT included any way to make getting picture ID cheaper or easier for the poor or those who would have trouble getting the records needed to get picture ID... because they are meant to disenfranchise just those people.
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,526 Posts
61/M/MA


offline   (9)
July 2 2013 9:51 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
"The GOP chairman of the state Senate rules committee, Sen. Tom Apodaca, said he would move quickly to pass a voter ID law that Republicans say would bolster the integrity of the balloting process. GOP leaders also began engineering an end to the state's early voting, Sunday voting and same-day registration provisions, all popular with black voters. Civil rights groups say the moves are designed to restrict poll access by blacks, who vote reliably Democratic"

YEah, keep telling me how its all about getting rid of (non-existent) voter fraud and that the people doing this are totally trustworthy.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/610/article/p2p-76506522/
click here for link
forum Politics and Society ›› Supreme Court Guts Voting Rights Act ›› new reply Post Reply

Quick Reply - RE: Supreme Court Guts Voting Rights Act

Connect with Facebook to comment: Login w/FB

or Sign up free! - or login:







Subject


wrap selection with italics
wrap selection with bold
insert less than symbol
insert greater than symbol


google image Insert Google Images
Share a Band



Your ad here?