Wow... SC strikes down part of the Voting Rights Act.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**dogma**

Grey Templar wrote:
I don't see why we can't require an ID at the polls to make sure that everyone that votes is indeed who they say they are.

Papers, please.

**Jihadin**

We buying tickets to vote now?

edit
Granted a Zepplin flight be interesting as all hell.

**Grey Templar**

Sure, voting is a constitutional right. A right of citizens, not anyone else.

What is wrong with asking for proof you do indeed actually have that right?

**Jihadin**

The voting right as not deemed as important an ID card as buying alcohol, driving a vehicle/motorcycle, or one of the many things that we need an ID card that are not a "right" giving in the constitution.

**d-usa**

You have to show just cause for you to suspect that I don't have a right.

Why should I have to prove that the constitution applies to me, shouldn't you have to prove that it doesn't?

**Seaward**

d-usa wrote:
You have to show just cause for you to suspect that I don't have a right.

Why should I have to prove that the constitution applies to me, shouldn't you have to prove that it doesn't?

Do you feel the same about where the burden of proof lies with the constitutionally-protected right to own firearms?

**Grey Templar**

The person going to the polls is making the assertion that they have the Constitutional right to vote. Therefor, the burden of proof is on them.

**d-usa**

Seaward wrote:
d-usa wrote:
You have to show just cause for you to suspect that I don't have a right.

Why should I have to prove that the constitution applies to me, shouldn't you have to prove that it doesn't?

Do you feel the same about where the burden of proof lies with the constitutionally-protected right to own firearms?

They run a background check to see if you are not allowed to. You don't have to show up with a letter form the jail saying "he's not a felon".

Do you feel that the arguments being made of "you need an ID to buy beer" are different than the arguments of "you need classes and licenses to drive a car so why not for guns"?

**Jihadin**

LOL The Voter ID is going to happen in our life time

**d-usa**

Grey Templar wrote:
The person going to the polls is making the assertion that they have the Constitutional right to vote. Therefor, the burden of proof is on them.

That is dumb.

Do I need to carry my citizenship papers to stop a cop from simply walking into my house so that I can proof that I have a Constitutional right not to have it searched without a warrant?

**Jihadin**

Don't you fill out enough paperwork buying that damn house to justify you have enough financial income to afford the house mortgage? Bad Analog.

**d-usa**

Jihadin wrote:
Don't you fill out enough paperwork buying that damn house to justify you have enough financial income to afford the house mortgage? Bad Analog.

I can be a filthy rich illegal immigrant that is buying a house. It has nothing to do with being a citizen or having constitutional rights.

I would have the same right renting or living in a box on the street. After I proof that I am a citizen of course. Until then the police can do what they want.

**Grey Templar**

d-usa wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
The person going to the polls is making the assertion that they have the Constitutional right to vote. Therefor, the burden of proof is on them.

That is dumb.

Do I need to carry my citizenship papers to stop a cop from simply walking into my house so that I can proof that I have a Constitutional right not to have it searched without a warrant?

Theoretically, yes.

In practice, no.

**Jihadin**

Actually if the police is on scene at the house....would they call ICE or UCIS.....since ICE has arresting authority it'll be them.....if the police want to pass around constitution requirement to search the house they get a couple Dept. of Natural Resource officers....

D are you not in a federal position? Wait one...are you GS?

**d-usa**

I'm Federal, but not a GS.

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
SC strikes down the provision that required some southern states to ask the DoJ to 'pre-clear' any new voting regulations... ie, Voter ID acts.

Here's the ruling:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf

Expect a lot of noise about this...

There's a plethora of information here.

About freaking time.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
They stopped enforcement of section 5 by striking down section 4 which is needed for section 5 to be of any use.

It's not rocket science. All congress needs to do is to come up with a new formula for section 4 and everything is back in order.

I'm not counting on congress to get anything done.

Excellent.

**Easy E**

I have to admit, this was a genius piece of political work by the Conservatives. There has been every opportunity to get the formula updated except for political gridlock in Congress.

Therefore, the Congressial inaction allows the SCOTUS to destroy the voting rights act and allows the Congressional Conservatives to wash their hands of it without looking bad in the process.

Nice work. <slow clap>

**Frazzled**

Easy E wrote:
I have to admit, this was a genius piece of political work by the Conservatives. There has been every opportunity to get the formula updated except for political gridlock in Congress.

Therefore, the Congressial inaction allows the SCOTUS to destroy the voting rights act and allows the Congressional Conservatives to wash their hands of it without looking bad in the process.

Nice work. <slow clap>

Indeed. Espeically brilliant for the evil conservatives to have not updated the formula during the periods Democrats held the House and Senate. not only devious but machiavellian to have so controlled Congress for the last 40 years, even with the likes of Tip ONeil, Nancy Pelosi, and Jim Wright. Such masters of time and space!

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Yup.

And fraud do exist.
http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2013/05/31/ohio-poll-worker-convicted-on-multiple-counts-of-obama-biased-voter-fraud/

Yes, fraud exists. As I already said, in pointing out the number of complaints in Texas.

The point is there's a massive difference between 'fraud exists' and 'fraud exists on a significant enough level that we need to bring in major new programs that will make it more difficult for many regular voters'.

And to figure exactly where you are in the gap between those two points... well your evidence is of a lady in Ohio who voted on behalf of someone in a coma three times, and in Texas there was five complaints about voter fraud. In a country of 300 million, you couldn't get more minor stuff.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, voting is a constitutional right. A right of citizens, not anyone else.

What is wrong with asking for proof you do indeed actually have that right?

Nothing. But if you've followed the history of gerrymandering in Texas, then you'd have to be a complete idiot to think that those same people would suddenly become principled when it came to setting up a voter ID system. And given their previous effort at voter ID, in which gun licences were sufficient ID, but a college ID wasn't, then it's absolutely clear this has nothing to do with reducing fraud, and everything to do with reducing the number of likely Democrat voters.

And so we're left with a choice between a miniscule amount of fraud, or a system established by the political party of the day with the power to make it much harder for some people to vote.

**whembly**

sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
Yup.

And fraud do exist.
http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2013/05/31/ohio-poll-worker-convicted-on-multiple-counts-of-obama-biased-voter-fraud/

Yes, fraud exists. As I already said, in pointing out the number of complaints in Texas.

The point is there's a massive difference between 'fraud exists' and 'fraud exists on a significant enough level that we need to bring in major new programs that will make it more difficult for many regular voters'.

And to figure exactly where you are in the gap between those two points... well your evidence is of a lady in Ohio who voted on behalf of someone in a coma three times, and in Texas there was five complaints about voter fraud. In a country of 300 million, you couldn't get more minor stuff.

I do get that perspective and I'd probably argue that as well.

I simply don't believe it's that much of a burden to prove that your are qualified to vote. If you see that as an onerous burden... then, let's agree to disagree.

Frankly... I'd be okay with just a registration card (that happens now) and you stick your finger in ink. That way, you encourage the system to have the poll workers watch the voters and the other poll workers:

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
I do get that perspective and I'd probably argue that as well.

I simply don't believe it's that much of a burden to prove that your are qualified to vote. If you see that as an onerous burden... then, let's agree to disagree.

I agree with you that the ID requirements aren't that onerous. The problem is they're still onerous enough that a lot of people aren't going to meet them... because a lot of people really are that lazy, stupid and disorganised.

And then it's an issue of them being more onerous for some than others (gun licence okay, student id not okay), and it's easy to see where the manipulation comes in.

Frankly... I'd be okay with just a registration card (that happens now) and you stick your finger in ink.

Yeah, that'd be fine. That such an option is even considered tells us a lot, I think, about why this legislation is actually being attempted.

**Frazzled**

Obama Administration praises money for Kenya's voter id program:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wh-touts-kenyan-program-obtain-national-id-cards-voter-registration_737990.html

**Dreadclaw69**

Frazzled wrote:
Obama Administration praises money for Kenya's voter id program:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wh-touts-kenyan-program-obtain-national-id-cards-voter-registration_737990.html

As President Obama and his family continue their tour of Africa, the White House put out a Fact Sheet entitled "U.S. Support for Strengthening Democratic Institutions, Rule of Law, and Human Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa." One of the first items highlighted by the White House is a $53 million program in Kenya that helps young people "obtain National identification cards, a prerequisite to voter registration."

Civil society and independent media play a critical role in any vibrant democracy. Across sub-Saharan Africa, the United States supports efforts to ensure civil society organizations and independent media can organize, advocate, and raise awareness with governments and the private sector to improve political processes, transparency, and government performance. Examples include:

• In Kenya, the $53 million Yes Youth Can program empowers nearly one million Kenyan youth to use their voices for advocacy in national and local policy-making, while also creating economic opportunities. In advance of Kenya’s March 2013 general elections, Yes Youth Can’s “My ID My Life” campaign helped 500,000 youth obtain National identification cards, a prerequisite to voter registration, and carried out a successful nationwide campaign with Kenyan civic organizations to elicit peace pledges from all presidential aspirants. [emphasis added]

At an August 2012 press briefing, Jay Carney had the following to say about a Texas voter ID law:
"And on the voter ID case, I can tell you that, as you know, this administration believes it should be easier for eligible citizens to vote -- to register and vote. We should not be imposing unnecessary obstacles or barriers to voter participation."

**azazel the cat**

Grey Templar wrote:The person going to the polls is making the assertion that they have the Constitutional right to vote. Therefor, the burden of proof is on them.

Wait... you think the burden of proof is on the person claiming they have the right to vote... but the burden of proof is on the state claiming that a person should not be allowed to own a firearm?

Do you have any idea how fethed up your paradigm is?

**Easy E**

Frazzled wrote:
Easy E wrote:
I have to admit, this was a genius piece of political work by the Conservatives. There has been every opportunity to get the formula updated except for political gridlock in Congress.

Therefore, the Congressial inaction allows the SCOTUS to destroy the voting rights act and allows the Congressional Conservatives to wash their hands of it without looking bad in the process.

Nice work. <slow clap>

Indeed. Espeically brilliant for the evil conservatives to have not updated the formula during the periods Democrats held the House and Senate. not only devious but machiavellian to have so controlled Congress for the last 40 years, even with the likes of Tip ONeil, Nancy Pelosi, and Jim Wright. Such masters of time and space!

Yes, Democratic control of Congress for less than 6 months was so tight they could barely even get their own HealthCare Reform bill through without herculean effort. I guess the updated Voting Rights Act formula was not on their to-do list.

Hence why I said political gridlock in Congress.

**Frazzled**

You forgot about the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 000s. Wow those Republicans are crafty devils.

**Grey Templar**

azazel the cat wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:The person going to the polls is making the assertion that they have the Constitutional right to vote. Therefor, the burden of proof is on them.

Wait... you think the burden of proof is on the person claiming they have the right to vote... but the burden of proof is on the state claiming that a person should not be allowed to own a firearm?

Do you have any idea how fethed up your paradigm is?

No no no.

The person should have to prove they are a citizen to vote and buy a gun.

However, buying a gun should only entail flashing said ID and running it against a list of know felons. The person has proven they are a citizen, now the state has to prove if they are a criminal.

With voting, there is no burden of proof on the state.

**cincydooley**

Much like unions, the Voters Rights Act was necessary when it was enacted.

Much like unions, it no longer has any necessity other than to exist for political purposes.

Minoritiy populations clearly had no problem voting in the 2012 election, as all major minority populations in the US (Black, Non-White Hispanic, Asian) were up by considerable numbers.

So I agree. Much ado about nothing.