Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

SCOTUS strikes blow to voting rights


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Cary Kollins

Cary Kollins

    keep lbing

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,024 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 25 June 2013 - 05:16 PM

So this is a big deal. I don't have time to comment now, so here's an article from Forbes.com:

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts stated,
“In 1965, the states could be divided into two groups: those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout, and those without those characteristics,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were.”
In other words, it is the opinion of the Court’s majority that the enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act worked so well that to continue enforcement under the existing scheme is unconstitutional.
The logic of the majority represents a tragic irony given that the ruling comes at a time when minority voting rights are, once again, under severe attack as state governments under GOP control seek to rig the game in an effort to overcome the demographic and racial shifts in the electorate. These changes dramatically improve the opportunities for Democrats *(I think he meant Repubs) to gain elected office—particularly when it comes to the presidency.

The State of Texas—a state subject to the requirements of Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act—has now produced the most restrictive voter ID law in the country but has been unable to implement the law as the Feds have yet to approve it. The same is the case in Virginia where an onerous voter ID law has been signed by the Governor but held up pending federal approval as they too are subject to the enforcement provisions of the VRA.
Federal protections of minorities in these states are now a thing of the past. Indeed, the state of Texas has already announced that, based on today’s Supreme Court ruling, they no longer have to wait for federal approval of their voter ID law and that the law will go into effect immediately.

http://www.forbes.co...ts-tragic-past/

#2 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,059 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 05:58 PM

imo the court was technically correct; the provisions should apply to every district

 

that being said, there's no fuging chance congress allows that now so uh...good news for ppl who want to keep other ppl from voting for whatever reasons



#3 Captroop

Captroop

    Pronounced, "Cat Poop"

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,640 posts
  • LocationNot Telling... CatofWar might find me.

Posted 25 June 2013 - 06:33 PM

Is a South Carolina Rep. from the House of Representatives a SCROTUS?



#4 Gazi

Gazi

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,798 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 09:30 PM

Wait times for voters: Whites - 12 mins. African Americans - 23 mins. Hispanics - 19 mins

 

I have no arguments when it comes to Identification requirements but now SOC of any state can cut down on the number of polling places in minority districts and not face any legal consequences. Expect those two numbers to go up in 2014

 

 



#5 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,398 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 09:58 PM

Wait times for voters: Whites - 12 mins. African Americans - 23 mins. Hispanics - 19 mins

 

I have no arguments when it comes to Identification requirements but now SOC of any state can cut down on the number of polling places in minority districts and not face any legal consequences. Expect those two numbers to go up in 2014

 

 

From what I understand, what this means is that the Feds no longer have to approve changes.  But if a pattern of discrimination is in evidence, it still can be taken to the courts. 

 

Btw, who actually determines how many polling places there are in a given area?   I was under the impression the county did, but maybe that is wrong. 



#6 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,304 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:10 PM

County boards of elections with state oversight.



#7 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,304 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:50 AM

Stay classy dem reps...

 

445x421xwinkler-tweet-racist.jpg.pagespe

 



#8 Cary Kollins

Cary Kollins

    keep lbing

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,024 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:58 AM

What an idiot.

Winkler admitted to deleting the message, issuing an apology on Twitter, while attempting to clarify his thoughts on the matter. Part of that latter piece included a claim that he "did not understand 'Uncle Tom' as a racist term.



#9 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,304 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:14 AM

LOL...and he thinks everyone is an idiot.  Four accomplices and and "uncle Thomas", but he didn't know what that meant.

 

Right.



#10 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,084 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:17 AM

So as I see it it the question boils down to...

 

Is there a need for the federal government to prevent states from implementing racist voter laws.

 

That sum it up?



#11 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,084 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:18 AM

Stay classy dem reps...

 

445x421xwinkler-tweet-racist.jpg.pagespe

 

 

 

 

Anyone that uses the Uncle Tom phrase is probably an idiot racist himself.



#12 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,304 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:28 AM

So as I see it it the question boils down to...

 

Is there a need for the federal government to prevent states from implementing racist voter laws.

 

That sum it up?

 

No, I think the question should boil down to:

 

Is there a need for the federal government to prevent certain states/districts from implementing voter laws.  Want a process to review voting laws when it applies to federal elections?  Go for it.  Just apply the process equally to everything. 



#13 Cary Kollins

Cary Kollins

    keep lbing

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,024 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:42 AM

I haven't researched this much, but this is what I gather from what I've seen:

 

The SC ruling says that since the VRA has not been updated by Congress since it was first implemented, it should be struck down.  What they are basically saying is Congress should review the laws and put new measures into place if need be to prevent voter discrimination.  The idea is that race relations are not as bad in the South as they were in the 1960's, so the laws don't need to be as stringent.

 

Of course, good luck getting this Congress to pass any measure regarding new voting rights.  Therefore the states will now have free rein to implement whatever voting laws they see fit.  Expect fireworks.

 

 



#14 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,398 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 09:29 AM

I would say that the question is "does the federal government still need to provide direct oversight of the election process?  There is no doubt that a generation ago, such oversight was a requirement.  But is it still necessary.  I guess we will find out. 



#15 Squirrel

Squirrel

    Drink a beer and relax

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,302 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:06 PM

I would say that the question is "does the federal government still need to provide direct oversight of the election process?  There is no doubt that a generation ago, such oversight was a requirement.  But is it still necessary.  I guess we will find out. 

 

 

Shouldnt it be more or am I missing something.  Take the 12th district as a prime example.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.