There Goes The Voting Rights Act of 1965

[wexy]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 10:30am

Going backwards, they will probably bring back slavery

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/politics/scotus-voting-rights/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Updated On: 6/25/13 at 10:30 AM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 10:41am

But opponents of the provision counter that it should not be enforced in areas where it can be argued that racial discrimination no longer exists.

Where is that? Narnia?

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 10:44am

For some reason, I'm not wrapping my head around this. What exactly is being taken away now?

Can someone with better insight explain?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 10:47am

"Told y'all!" -- Paula Deen

[Kad]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 10:50am

Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act deal with government clearance of changes to voting law in certain parts of the country, in order to prevent the racially biased changes to voting which proliferated in the South.

Section 4 is the formula for determining WHAT parts of the country need this government clearance.

Section 5 is the mode of clearance itself.

SCOTUS struck down 4, but left 5. Which means there is now no way to determine what parts of the country are subject to the government clearance outlined in Section 5. Which means there is no way to determine what parts of the country would need government clearance to pass voting laws.

SCOTUS has said that Congress may draft another version of Section 4, in order to create a new formula that will determine what states will be subject to Section 5.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 10:51am

"For some reason, I'm not wrapping my head around this. What exactly is being taken away now?"

The basic answer is that states rights are being restored to certain Southern states. They were taken away because the Southern Democrats were discriminating against black people. The court now recognizes that the federal government no longer needs to monitor Southern states in their voting procedures and returns control to the state.

This is freaking out liberals because it sets a precedent that discrimination can't be held perpetually against a state. And also liberals freak out at states rights in general.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 10:56am

It seems to me (and I'm a liberal) that targeting some states with special voting criteria would not be constitutional. I get why it was struck down.

There should be a law that applies across the board for all states to prevent racially biased changes from happening.

This particular provision, even with its good intensions, sounds poorly constructed.

Updated On: 6/25/13 at 10:56 AM

[madbrian]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 10:57am

SCOTUS decisions sometimes require more than cursory review to fully appreciate, but my initial understanding is that they are looking to Congress to modernize their criteria.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:01am

"There should be a law that applies across the board in all states to prevent racially biased changes from happening."

There doesn't need to be another law. The laws that are currently on the books need to be enforced.

The problem is that liberals want to restrict everyone else but use dishonesty for their own purpose. Take a look at the video below.
Link

[Kad]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:03am

Ah, yes. Voter fraud. The widespread, rampant problem that has been shown to barely exist. Curious that proposed laws to curb this pervasive non-issue disproportionately affect minority, elderly, and low-income voters.

Updated On: 6/25/13 at 11:03 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:06am

I'm not interested in sweeping opinions about liberal or conservative agendas.

But clearly the law that is currently on the books about this isn't enough to prevent racially biased changes, or it can't be enforced as is.

Still, a targeted "provision" isn't the answer. That's also a bias.

Updated On: 6/25/13 at 11:06 AM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:07am

Bye, Democracy. Nice while it lasted.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:10am

"But clearly the law that is currently on the books about this isn't enough to prevent racial bias"

And what if racial bias is made up? How do you propose to stop it?

What do you find so wrong with having to present a valid id to vote?

[Kad]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:10am

Goth, do you think institutional racism is a thing of the past in the South?

[tazber]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:11am

This is going to make it so much easier for gerrymandering to occur.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:11am

The court said it is now up to congressional lawmakers to revise the law to meet constitutional scrutiny.

So the U.S. Congress needs to do their job now and write a new provision that applies to all states.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:12am

"Goth, do you think institutional racism is a thing of the past in the South?"

You'll have to define racism. George Zimmerman won't get a fair trial because the race baiters are hard at work. Racism is different things to different people.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:14am

"So the U.S. Congress needs to do their job now and write a new provision that applies to all states."

The same Congress that passed Obamacare without reading what was in it? The same Congress that is passing immigration legislation without reading what's in it? No thanks!

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:14am

"So the U.S. Congress needs to do their job now and write a new provision that applies to all states."

So that new provision will never, ever be added to the books. Great.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:18am

What do you find so wrong with having to present a valid id to vote?

Because one doesn't have anything to do with the other.

It's an attempt to block certain American citizens from voting. All American citizens have the right to vote, regardless of whether or not they have a valid ID. Many people died for that right. It should never be taken lightly or taken away, due to some bureaucratic convenience for the government.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:20am

Goth, you're spinning out of control again with bizarre tangents.

I'm outta here.

Thanks for trying to explain initially, but I'm sorry you felt the need to piggyback your entire political agenda onto it.

[Jungle Red]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:21am

"Racism is different things to different people."

ARE YOU KIDDING?

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:23am

"Racism is different things to different people."

ARE YOU KIDDING?

Which is exactly why this provision was struck down today. It shouldn't be "different things to different people."

So rewrite the provision. So says the SCOTUS.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:25am

Caution: the liberal in me wants to play Devils Advocate here.

I do not agree with Goth on any political issue but, from more of a practical standpoint and not political, I feel requiring valid identification is fair and reasonable. IDs are required for many other earned "rights" (such as the ability to legally drink, the ability to operate a vehicle, etc.). Why is voting any different? Putting the politics aside for the moment...

Updated On: 6/25/13 at 11:25 AM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:27am

"Goth, you're spinning out of control again with bizarre tangents. I'm outta here. Thanks for trying to explain initially, but I'm sorry you felt the need to piggyback your entire political agenda onto it."

It's a shame that you are like the rest and can't have an intelligent discussion. There are no bizarre tangents in what I've said.