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.

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:
While I think the VRA is there for a very good reason, I don't quite understand why it was previously only applicable to a few states, and not all the states.

The VRA applies to all states...and, still does.

Section 5, (aka the "pre-clearance" one) affected the 15 states that had history of suppressing black votes.

**LordofHats**

azazel the cat wrote:
While I think the VRA is there for a very good reason, I don't quite understand why it was previously only applicable to a few states, and not all the states.

It was written to specifically target Jim Crow laws, namely literacy tests, which were seen as being specific to the South (no idea if that was actually true at the time but that was the logic EDIT: As in, no idea if other states outside the South regularly applied Jim Crow laws).

**azazel the cat**

Yes, I understand that. But doesn't the discussed section apply differently to different states? That seems ...unjust. I mean, I'm aware that states like, say, Oregon had no history of enacting Jim Crow laws, but that doesn't mean Oregon shouldn't have to follow the same measures as Mississippi if it wants to change its voting process. Rule of Law doesn't really work if applied unevenly.

**Seaward**

azazel the cat wrote:
Rule of Law doesn't really work if applied unevenly.

Careful, comrade, careful. That's a sacred cow of the left you're slaughtering with common sense, there.

**whembly**

Seaward wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Rule of Law doesn't really work if applied unevenly.

Careful, comrade, careful. That's a sacred cow of the left you're slaughtering with common sense, there.

*mumble, mumble*

[whembly looking for his meds, 'cuz something ain't right in his world]

**azazel the cat**

You're both gonna have to explain to me how you are surprised by my view on that.

**Breotan**

azazel the cat wrote:
While I think the VRA is there for a very good reason, I don't quite understand why it was previously only applicable to a few states, and not all the states.

This and the fact that we're seeing voter laws being rewritten in other states is what I think convinced the justices that the VRA wasn't able to pass the test anymore. Better to broom it and let Congress enact broader laws that better regulate voting rights throughout the land. Still, we'll have to see how it all pans out.

**Kilkrazy**

azazel the cat wrote:
Yes, I understand that. But doesn't the discussed section apply differently to different states? That seems ...unjust. I mean, I'm aware that states like, say, Oregon had no history of enacting Jim Crow laws, but that doesn't mean Oregon shouldn't have to follow the same measures as Mississippi if it wants to change its voting process. Rule of Law doesn't really work if applied unevenly.

The whole basis of the states' rights is that the law doesn't have to be applied evenly.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Nice walkback...

The problem here is that you think I'm arguing against you, I am not. I am trying to help you make your argument in a clear, concise manner.

**azazel the cat**

Kilkrazy wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Yes, I understand that. But doesn't the discussed section apply differently to different states? That seems ...unjust. I mean, I'm aware that states like, say, Oregon had no history of enacting Jim Crow laws, but that doesn't mean Oregon shouldn't have to follow the same measures as Mississippi if it wants to change its voting process. Rule of Law doesn't really work if applied unevenly.

The whole basis of the states' rights is that the law doesn't have to be applied evenly.

And here I was, thinking the basis of states' rights was slavery.

Jokes aside, I honestly find the state-federal structure to be strange with regard to laws.

**Seaward**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The whole basis of the states' rights is that the law doesn't have to be applied evenly.

I'm afraid that's inaccurate.

Certain states having to run changes to their laws by the federal government before they're allowed to make said changes is also not exactly a great example of the concept of states' rights.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

Nice walkback...

The problem here is that you think I'm arguing against you, I am not. I am trying to help you make your argument in a clear, concise manner.

So you purposely respond to my post with incorrect information?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And it begins in Texas...

WASHINGTON — The implications of today’s landmark ruling could be swift and stunning.

With the Supreme Court suspending the mechanism that forced Texas to get a federal OK before it can implement any election law change, state Attorney General Greg Abbott asserts that nothing now can stop the state from activating its controversial voter ID law.

“With today’s decision, the State’s voter ID law will take effect immediately,” Abbott announced. “Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.”

Laughlin McDonald of the ACLU, on a call with reporters, conceded that Texas has “a very strong argument” that in light of today’s Supreme Court decision, it can implement the Voter ID law and other laws that previously required federal approval.

The Texas Department of Public Safety has announced that starting Thursday, “Photo identification will now be required when voting in elections in Texas.”

Starting Thursday, Texas driver license offices will begin issuing photo IDs to anyone who doesn’t already have one. Under the 2011 state law creating one of the nation’s most strict voter ID laws, the certificates are free and valid for six years. To qualify, an applicant must show U.S. citizenship and Texas residency. The required documents are listed here to verify U.S. citizenship and identity.

Voters only need that document if they lack a current Texas drivers license, personal ID card or concealed handgun license; U.S. passport or military ID or citizenship certificate with photo.

After the Legislature enacted the voter ID law, the Justice Department invoked Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to block implementation. The Obama administration, siding with minority advocates, says the law would discriminate against low-income and minority voters. An appeal is pending at the Supreme Court.

But with preclearance suspended, Abbott tweeted after this morning’s 5-4 ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, US Attorney General “Eric Holder can no longer deny VoterID in Texas” and “Texas VoterID law should go into effect immediately.”

In a statement, he lauded the high court for wiping away unequal treatment of Texas and other states. He acknowledged that Texas — like all states — is barred from racial discrimination and remains subject to after-the-fact lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which remains intact.

“Today’s ruling ensures that Texas is no longer one of just a few states that must seek approval from the federal government before its election laws can take effect,” Abbott said.

That doesn't seem that onerous...

**LordofHats**

Texas decided to be ballsy and make them free. *Gets popcorn* Hilarity will ensue. I assure you.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

So you purposely respond to my post with incorrect information?

Yes, I purposely responded to one of your posts; using incorrect information.

Starting Thursday, Texas driver license offices will begin issuing photo IDs to anyone who doesn’t already have one. Under the 2011 state law creating one of the nation’s most strict voter ID laws, the certificates are free and valid for six years. To qualify, an applicant must show U.S. citizenship and Texas residency. The required documents are listed here to verify U.S. citizenship and identity.

This makes no sense. What is a Texas diver's license office? How much will a photo ID cost? What is a "certificate"?

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

So you purposely respond to my post with incorrect information?

Yes, I purposely responded to one of your posts; using incorrect information.

Strange way to try to "teach me".

**sebster**

Nate Silver makes an interesting argument on his blog, that the impact of gerrymandering is actually way overstated. I mean, sure, we all know that the Democrats won a lot more votes overall in the 2012 elections for the house, but ended up with a minority of seats, so there's something at play, but he argues it's less to do with deliberate gerrymandering and more to do with basic demographics. In Inner City areas they vote Democratic and they do so overwhelmingly. This produces an impact of skewing results that's actually stronger than the gerrymandering efforts we've seen... so much so that even in places like Chicago where they've gerrymandered in favour of the Democrats as much as possible, there's still a measurable pro-Republican effect, just because of how much of the Democratic vote gets concentrated in those those inner city areas.

Anyhow, it's on his 538 blog, and it's worth a read. And yeah, he's made the argument before.

Seaward wrote:
Careful, comrade, careful. That's a sacred cow of the left you're slaughtering with common sense, there.

Is there some list out there called Made Up Generalisations about the Left Wing, for Use by Cranky Old Conservatives, or are you just making this stuff up on the fly?

I mean, you're honestly claiming that the idealisation of law as being applied evenly to all is a left wing thing, now? For real? And we're talking about the law as it's applied on planet Earth? You're claiming that it's the left out there, stating that vagrancy laws are fine because they apply evenly to homeless people and billionaires, and the right pointing out the basic injustice in that?

**Seaward**

sebster wrote:
Is there some list out there called Made Up Generalisations about the Left Wing, for Use by Cranky Old Conservatives, or are you just making this stuff up on the fly?

I mean, you're honestly claiming that the idealisation of law as being applied evenly to all is a left wing thing, now? For real? And we're talking about the law as it's applied on planet Earth? You're claiming that it's the left out there, stating that vagrancy laws are fine because they apply evenly to homeless people and billionaires, and the right pointing out the basic injustice in that?

The opposite, actually.

But I was talking specifically about the VRA as being a sacred cow of the left. But it's always fun to watch you mount up on ol' Incomprehension the stallion there and go galloping off east when you meant to go west.

**Sigvatr**

Someone fill me in on this one...I just skimmed another article on it and are there seriously people complaining about a mandatory ID check before voting?

**Seaward**

Sigvatr wrote:
Someone fill me in on this one...I just skimmed another article on it and are there seriously people complaining about a mandatory ID check before voting?

It seems it's a racist requirement.

**Sigvatr**

Seaward wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Someone fill me in on this one...I just skimmed another article on it and are there seriously people complaining about a mandatory ID check before voting?

It seems it's a racist requirement.

Let me guess, lefties complaining? -__________-

**Breotan**

I'm wondering how the Texas law differs from the Arizona one that was struck down recently. In the Arizona case, primacy was upheld (Fed government dictates terms) and Arizona was told to make a request to the Fed and then sue if they deny.

**dogma**

Sigvatr wrote:

Let me guess, lefties complaining? -__________-

Art Garfunkel is dead, so he can't do much of that.

**sebster**

Seaward wrote:
The opposite, actually.

But I was talking specifically about the VRA as being a sacred cow of the left. But it's always fun to watch you mount up on ol' Incomprehension the stallion there and go galloping off east when you meant to go west.

Ah, thanks for clarifying.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sigvatr wrote:
Someone fill me in on this one...I just skimmed another article on it and are there seriously people complaining about a mandatory ID check before voting?

Well, the issue has a lot of history behind it.

The first thing to realise is despite the Republicans going on about this issue a lot, the instances of fraud through the use of false names at the ballot box is basically a non-event. In Texas, between 2008 and 2010 there were less than five complaints about voter identification. So we're talking about adding a process to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

The second thing to realise is that there is a long history of bills like this being very specifically targeted - the kinds of ID that are useable are things commonly held by people likely to vote for the party making the law, and the kinds of ID commonly held by people who'd vote for the other side are valid ID. One version of the Texas bill had gun licences allowed, but didn't allow student IDs. If you think there's any reason for that other than gun owners being typically Republican, and students being typically Democrat I've got a bridge to sell you.

**whembly**

Sigvatr wrote:
Someone fill me in on this one...I just skimmed another article on it and are there seriously people complaining about a mandatory ID check before voting?

Yup.

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

**Alfndrate**

I liked this quote:

Melowese Richardson wrote:“There’s absolutely no intent on my part to commit voter fraud,”

coupled with:

Melowese Richardson wrote:“Absolutely, I’ll fight it for Mr. Obama and for Mr. Obama’s right to sit as President of the United States,”

I have no problem with people who voted for Obama, except when they do stupid gak like this woman did (also the same holds true for anyone that voted for anyone and did what she did). You get 1 vote, and 1 vote only.

Edit: I'd like to point out that that voter id laws already exist here in Ohio as you need valid ID to vote and this ID has to match the address of where you're registered to vote. So if I live on 1234 First Avenue, Lakewood, Ohio and my ID says that and I'm registered to vote with the address 5678 Fifth Avenue, then I have to vote via Provisional Ballot (I had to do this in 2011).

**dogma**

Good enough to vote, but not good enough to identify you.

**Manchu**

dogma wrote:
Good enough to vote, but not good enough to identify you.

Well, unlike with elections, there are serious fraud issues concerned there.

**Grey Templar**

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.

I have to present an ID to buy beer but I need nothing even as remotely identifying to vote. Around here you just walk up to your polling place, give your name and address, and they hand you a ballot.

Couple this with very low voter turn out in the US and its voter fraud pandemonium waiting to happen. The fact it doesn't happen more often is nothing short of a miracle.

If the cost of IDs is a concern, have free state IDs available. I think any concern over the cost of IDs is silly though. Its not very much and most people will have a form of ID already.

**d-usa**

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.

I have to present an ID to buy beer but I need nothing even as remotely identifying to vote. Around here you just walk up to your polling place, give your name and address, and they hand you a ballot.

Buying beer is not a constitutionally protected right. So how easy or hard it is to buy alcohol has nothing to do with voting laws.

Couple this with very low voter turn out in the US and its voter fraud pandemonium waiting to happen. The fact it doesn't happen more often is nothing short of a miracle.

Or, you know, it is proof that it isn't a problem.

If the cost of IDs is a concern, have free state IDs available. I think any concern over the cost of IDs is silly though. Its not very much and most people will have a form of ID already.

And having free IDs don't help, unless you are willing for the state to pay me a couple hundred bucks. That's how much it would have cost me to get my "free" ID because just because you are giving me the ID for free doesn't mean that it is free to get all the required documentation for that "free" ID.

**Jihadin**

Apply for a waiver to avoid payments.