forum Politics and Society ›› Supreme Court Guts Voting Rights Act ›› new reply Post Reply
LEATHERFACE
Hail Caesar
3,756 Posts
35/M/NC


offline  mobile reply   (7)
July 3 2013 9:17 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
Corporations control politics anyway, Americans are always willing to get walked on by money.
Dianana
8====D
66,460 Posts
35/F/PA


offline   (8)
July 3 2013 9:18 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: LEATHERFACE

Corporations control politics anyway, Americans are always willing to get walked on by money.



no lies detected.
sidney
MMM..Johnny Cakes
31,555 Posts
42/M/PA


offline   (1)
July 3 2013 10:30 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
wait you can vote without proving who you are???

I've always showed my polling card and or ID.
LEATHERFACE
Hail Caesar
3,756 Posts
35/M/NC


offline  mobile reply   (7)
July 3 2013 10:46 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
I never understood how flashing an ID could be viewed as voter discrimination, really. I had heard of several polling stations that were offering to provide them free of charge. In all honesty, you need some form of ID regardless.
Dianana
8====D
66,460 Posts
35/F/PA


offline   (8)
July 3 2013 10:57 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
A few quick reads (google is your friend) can easily inform you why requiring people to show their IDs is discriminating against the poor, senior citizens and minorities (a lot of people that vote Democrat).
LEATHERFACE
Hail Caesar
3,756 Posts
35/M/NC


offline  mobile reply   (7)
July 3 2013 11:09 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
Either way, it's a rather petty political move when compared to other issues our nation is facing; time and energy that could be much better spent elsewhere.
Jason Voorheees
dogfood meatballs
6,457 Posts
40/M/NY


offline   (4)
July 3 2013 2:00 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
they should have a program to chip old people anyway. [halfway serious, just to keep things like medical records straight.]

if we really wanted to do i.d.'s, they could tackle this passively by just starting to collect that information from people when they vote - give them the opportunity to enter their name as they vote, and if they don't want to do that for privacy reasons, give them a mailer as they leave. not everyone would even pay attention, but i bet you'd get around 50% to do it every election and chip away at it that way.

the thing is, voter fraud hasn't really been a problem since the days of huey long. these days, people are so disaffected and the population has increased so much, the ability to swing an election with a bunch of paid ringers is next to impossible. redistricting has proven much more effective in corrupting the process.

and the only voting abuses we have seen in the last 50 years have been from the top down in the form of voter supression. it is no coincidence that this is a major part of 'the southern strategy' of the GOP, that consistently gets white GOP politicians elected in districts that are sometimes 50% or greater non-white. mississippi is 36% black, and alabama, la, and sc all have similarly substantial black populations, two to three times the percentage of any northern states [pa is 11%], and yet these states consistently elect white conservative politicians who do not represent them and never will.
Man is Truth
sleeps on hills
5,530 Posts
42/M/NJ


offline   (11)
July 5 2013 12:50 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Have you looked at the districting in pa? My state congressmen is a white guy republican CEO of a real estate firm, but I am surrounded by welfare villages of black people. That's because, even though they can see my apartment from their apartment (if we are on rooftops), they are not in the district- instead the district has no geographical continuity, and includes all this farmland that's 20 miles away.

That's a team effort though- those lines aren't drawn without throwing a bone to the Democrat establishment, which necessarily consents to that kind of deception.
Jason Voorheees
dogfood meatballs
6,457 Posts
40/M/NY


offline   (4)
August 14 2013 6:26 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
N.C. sued soon after voter ID bill signed into law August 13, 2013

North Carolina Gov. Patrick McCrory has signed a sweeping voting reform bill that imposes strict photo identification requirements on the state's 4.5 million voters, rolls back the early voting period and repeals one-stop registration during early voting.

Almost immediately following the signing, civil rights groups filed lawsuits in federal court challenging the law.

McCrory, a Republican elected last November, called the bill - passed by the legislature along party lines on July 25 - "a common sense law" that is supported by 70 percent of North Carolinians polled.

"Common practices like boarding an airplane and purchasing Sudafed require photo ID, and we should expect nothing less for the protection of our right to vote," McCrory said in a written statement. Defending the law in an on camera statement posted to YouTube, he criticized opponents' "from the extreme left" for using "scare tactics."

While McCrory referred to the law as a "safeguard" against voter fraud, there is scarce evidence of it in North Carolina. The state's Board of Elections has referred only two cases of alleged voter impersonation fraud since 2004 to prosecutors.

The governor, like the state legislature sponsors before him, noted that 34 states now require some form of ID to vote. North Carolina would be the 20th state to require a photo ID, while 14 states require or request voters to present some other form of identification.

North Carolina is one of 13 states to adopt photo voter ID since the 2010 elections, and all but one of them was controlled by a Republican governor and Republican legislature or a Republican legislature that overrode a Democratic governor's veto of the law.

Democrats have opposed the laws, which they describe as an attempt to suppress the votes of groups that lean Democratic and are the most likely not to possess adequate ID: Young voters, blacks and Hispanics.

North Carolina is the first state to make changes to its voting laws after June's Supreme Court ruling found the Voting Rights Act of 1965 outdated. The ruling limited the Justice Department's power to block those changes in states that had a history of discrimination.

Two other Southern states, Virginia and Arkansas, were the most recent to adopt photo voter ID laws, earlier this year. Four other southern states that were caught up in Justice Department review or litigation -- Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and South Carolina -- announced immediately following the Supreme Court decision that their voter photo ID laws would take effect immediately.

The North Carolina law, to take effect in 2016, would allow only an in-state state driver's license, a U.S. passport or military ID as acceptable identification. Residents who don't drive could obtain a state-issued ID from the Department of Motor Vehicles for free. Some residents say obtaining the documents required to get an ID, such as a birth certificate, is neither free nor easy.

Rosanell Eaton, a 92-year-old black woman from Louisburg, N.C., and registered to vote since the 1940s, is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit filed Monday in the Middle District of North Carolina by the NAACP and the Advancement Project.

"Mrs. Eaton, who was born at home, has a current North Carolina driver's license, but the name on her certified birth certificate does not match the name on her driver's license or the name on her voter registration card," the lawsuit said. "Mrs. Eaton will incur substantial time and expense to correct her identification documents to match her voter registration record in order to meet the new requirements."

The lawsuit seeks relief under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans voting procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, and under the 14th and 15th amendments of the Constitution. The recent Supreme Court ruling limited reviews under formulas in Sections 4 and 5 of the VRA.

Beyond the ID requirements, the new North Carolina law reduces the number of days for early voting from 17 to 10, even though 61 percent of state voters cast ballots early in 2012. McCrory said the law calls for the total early voting hours to remain the same by asking county board of elections to increase the number of early voting sites and hours open each day.

In 2012 in North Carolina, Democrats cast 47 percent of the early votes and Republicans cast 32 percent, according to a CBS News analysis.

Calling the reforms discriminatory, the Advancement Project said 70 percent of black North Carolinians who voted did so during early voting in 2012.

While blacks comprise one fourth of the state population, a third of the state's voters who currently lack a state-issued ID are black, according to an analysis of voter rolls and the DMV database by the North Carolina Board of Elections.

About 100,000 North Carolinians registered to vote and voted during the early voting period in both 2008 and 2012. The new law would repeal that "same day registration" option, which is proven to increase voter turnout in the handful of states that have it, such as Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Penda Hair, co-director of the Advancement Project, said, "Governor McCrory has transformed North Carolina from a state with one of the nation's most progressive voting systems, where we saw some of the highest voter turnout rates of the last two presidential elections, into a state with the most draconian policies we've seen in decades, policies that harken back to the days of Jim Crow."

In a second lawsuit, also filed Monday in North Carolina federal court, in Greensboro, the ACLU and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, with the League of Women Voters, the A. Philip Randolph Institute, Common Cause North Carolina, and the Unifour Onestop Collaborative, sued Governor McCrory and state officials over the reduction in early voting days and elimination of same day registration as having a disproportionate adverse impact on black voters.

The complaint, on behalf of three black voters and two white voters, also opposed the law's provision to void provisional ballots cast by voters in the incorrect precinct, even a voter's picks for governor and president. Around 7,500 North Carolina voters cast such "out of precinct" provisional ballots in 2012, which would not be counted under the new law.

"Eliminating a huge part of early voting will cut off voting opportunities for hundreds of thousands of citizens. It will turn Election Day into a mess, shoving more voters into even longer lines," said Dale Ho, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. "Florida similarly eliminated a week of early voting before the 2012 election, and we all know how that turned out - voters standing in line for hours, some having to wait until after the President's acceptance speech to finally vote, and hundreds of thousands giving up in frustration. Those burdens fell disproportionately on African-American voters, and the same thing will happen in North Carolina. We should be making it easier for people to vote, not harder."
Jason Voorheees
dogfood meatballs
6,457 Posts
40/M/NY


offline   (4)
August 26 2013 11:26 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
fuck, what an idiot. sometimes it's possible to be really smart in some areas, and really fucking dumb in others.








Originally posted by: Jason Voorheees

this is why ginsberg needs to announce her retirement right now so obama can appoint someone decent before president christie takes office.



Justice Ginsberg Vows Not To Resign During Obama's Tenure

By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: August 24, 2013

WASHINGTON — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 80, vowed in an interview to stay on the Supreme Court as long as her health and intellect remained strong, saying she was fully engaged in her work as the leader of the liberal opposition on what she called “one of the most activist courts in history.”

In wide-ranging remarks in her chambers on Friday that touched on affirmative action, abortion and same-sex marriage, Justice Ginsburg said she had made a mistake in joining a 2009 opinion that laid the groundwork for the court’s decision in June effectively striking down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The recent decision, she said, was “stunning in terms of activism.”

Unless they have a book to sell, Supreme Court justices rarely give interviews. Justice Ginsburg has given several this summer, perhaps in reaction to calls from some liberals that she step down in time for President Obama to name her successor.

On Friday, she said repeatedly that the identity of the president who would appoint her replacement did not figure in her retirement planning.

“There will be a president after this one, and I’m hopeful that that president will be a fine president,” she said.

Were Mr. Obama to name Justice Ginsburg’s successor, it would presumably be a one-for-one liberal swap that would not alter the court’s ideological balance. But if a Republican president is elected in 2016 and gets to name her successor, the court would be fundamentally reshaped.




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





Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Great judge, terrible political analyst

By Jonathan Bernstein, Published: August 26 at 10:42 am washingtonpost.com

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, by all accounts, has been an excellent Supreme Court justice and is still, at 80, able to do the job as well as ever, maybe better. But she’s jeopardizing everything she believes in by staying on the court, and if the interview she gave to Adam Liptak of the New York Times is any indication, the problem isn’t selfishness; it’s just that she really doesn’t understand the way nomination politics works these days:

Justice Ginsburg said her retirement calculations would center on her health and not on who would appoint her successor, even if that new justice could tilt the balance of the court and overturn some of the landmark women’s rights decisions that are a large part of her legacy.

“I don’t see that my majority opinions are going to be undone,” she said. “I do hope that some of my dissents will one day be the law.”

It’s very simple: If nothing else changes and a Republican appoints her successor, there will be a 5-4 majority against a lot of the things that Ginsburg cares about. There’s not going to be any more David Souter results, in which a Republican accidentally appoints a reliably liberal justice. Or, for that matter, any case-by-case pragmatists, new versions of Sandra Day O’Connor who might be inclined toward conservative positions but flexible on specific cases. The next choices by a Republican president will be very much like the last few — perfectly reliable, and fairly partisan, conservatives. Who, as Ginsburg recognizes, are about as “activist” as any justices have ever been about overturning laws and precedents.

Not only that, but there’s every chance that Justice Anthony Kennedy, 77 now, will retire during the next Republican presidency. The result, should Ginsburg also leave, would be five reliable votes for radical conservative results.

It’s not just Ginsburg; Justice Stephen Breyer is 75. If Republicans win the White House in 2016 and hold it for three terms (and, yes, that’s a perfectly plausible scenario), would he be able to stay on the bench until 2029?

Ginsburg and Breyer may not fully realize what’s happened to judicial confirmations since their own relatively easy Senate votes. Should Republicans win the Senate in 2014 — again, quite possible — confirmation of an Obama nominee would surely be far more difficult. Indeed, if Ginsburg and Breyer resigned, it’s not far-fetched to imagine Chuck Grassley declaring a new “principle” that seven justices were quite enough, really; after all, the justices’ workload is even lighter than that of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit!

It’s possible that Ginsburg and Breyer don’t care about any of that and simply want to continue in office for purely personal reasons. But if they believe that Democrats have a lock on the White House, or that Republicans would replace them with moderates, or that a Republican Senate would confirm someone similar to what they were in the 1990s, they’re just plain wrong, and they’re risking a lot on poor political analysis.

It’s obviously asking a lot, but both Ginsburg and Breyer have had two decades on the nation’s highest court. If they care about the principles they’ve fought for in those two decades, the best thing they could do to continue that fight is to leave the court. As soon as possible.
lord sauron
city of champions
9,020 Posts
37/M/PA


offline  mobile reply   (8)
August 26 2013 11:52 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
Christie is too fat to be president.
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,526 Posts
61/M/MA


offline   (9)
August 26 2013 5:51 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: lord sauron

Christie is too fat to be president.



Why else do you think he had that gastric bypass or band or whatever the fuck he had done?


William, William Howard Taft
ass as big as a hovercraft.
Jason Voorheees
dogfood meatballs
6,457 Posts
40/M/NY


offline   (4)
October 25 2013 3:13 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
N.C. Republican activist resigns after Voter ID remarks October 25, 2013

After bragging in a TV interview that the state's Voter ID regulations would "kick the Democrats in the butt," and after making reference to "lazy blacks that want the government to give them everything," a North Carolina conservative activist has stepped down from his Republican Party post.

Don Yelton made the decision to leave after the Buncome County GOP asked him to resign his position as a precinct chairman, according to the Asheville Citizen-Times. Yelton made the comments on Wednesday's edition of Jon Stewart's The Daily Show on television, setting off a firestorm of reaction in social media land.

Yelton told the Citizen-Times that in spite of the circumstances, he would not change anything, and he refused to apologize.

"There's nothing I said that I would take back – so be it," Yelton told the news organization.

Voter ID laws, which require would-be voters to present identification when registering to vote and/or when voting, have been criticized as damaging to Democratic voters who are more likely not to have identification.










just in case anyone still thought this was about anything else.
Russhington D.C.
swallows loads
356 Posts
21/F/NA


offline 
July 1 2018 3:55 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: Russhington D.C.





Russhington D.C.
swallows loads
356 Posts
21/F/NA


offline 
July 1 2018 3:58 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
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?