SCOTUS gives many voting rights power back to the states. Thought?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: SCOTUS gives many voting rights power back to the states. Thought?

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     At the time, Attorney General Eric Holder called the law a "poll tax."



    So the unethical, partisan, and perhaps criminal AG doesnt like it.....must be a good idea then!

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: SCOTUS gives many voting rights power back to the states. Thought?

    The Texas law requires voters to show photo identification to vote—a measure that was blocked by the Justice Department, arguing the law could discriminate against racial minorities. At the time, Attorney General Eric Holder called the law a "poll tax."

    Citing Holder on voting issues is a bit like citing Nixon (or Obama) on openness in government. Hardly credible.

     

    --

    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: SCOTUS gives many voting rights power back to the states. Thought?

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

     At the time, Attorney General Eric Holder called the law a "poll tax."

     



    So the unethical, partisan, and perhaps criminal AG doesnt like it.....must be a good idea then!

     




    Despite your opinion of the AG (i'm no big fan either), there is a $15 charge for a non-driver ID in Texas.  It now will cost a minimum of $15 to vote in Texas.

    http://www.dmv.com/tx/texas/apply-id-card

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: SCOTUS gives many voting rights power back to the states. Thought?

    In response to UserName99's comment:

    Despite your opinion of the AG (i'm no big fan either), there is a $15 charge for a non-driver ID in Texas.  It now will cost a minimum of $15 to vote in Texas.

    Try again

    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 state’s most strict voter ID laws, the certificates are free and valid for six years.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: SCOTUS gives many voting rights power back to the states. Thought?

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    Despite your opinion of the AG (i'm no big fan either), there is a $15 charge for a non-driver ID in Texas.  It now will cost a minimum of $15 to vote in Texas.

     

     

    Try again

    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 state’s most strict voter ID laws, the certificates are free and valid for six years.



    And what type of ID is required to get the Texas ID?  How about that cost?

    Will they reimburse people for their hassle of getting themselves to the DMV?  Texas is a big state.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: SCOTUS gives many voting rights power back to the states. Thought?

    In response to UserName99's comment:

    Will they reimburse people for their hassle of getting themselves to the DMV?  Texas is a big state.




    Do you think the govt should provide them transportation to the voting site as well?

    Geez, can we have no personal responsibility any more???

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: SCOTUS gives many voting rights power back to the states. Thought?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:



    Heh, heh, heh... Little Miss Muffet here, in one thread complains about the undue burden regulations have on businesses yet has no problem with undue burdens applied to actual people.



    "Undue" being the operative word einstein.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: SCOTUS gives many voting rights power back to the states. Thought?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

      
    The SCotUS ruling didn't strike down the provision for singling out certain states and jurisdictions for extra scrutiny. 

    It merely said that the criteria for selective oversight must be re-evaluated. 

    Section 5 is without significance — unless Congress chooses to pass a new bill for determining which states would be covered.

     



    Looks to me and rightly so, that the decision is saying when congress renewed the act in 2006 they were lazy and used the 45 year old criteria and justification which they deemed unconstitutional since congress has no evidence it still applies in the current form.

     

    Congress can revisit and make revisions to make the law fit the issues in society today which are much different than 1965. So, if we want to be upset we should be upset with the legislature for not doing the work needed in 06!

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: SCOTUS gives many voting rights power back to the states. Thought?

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

      
    The SCotUS ruling didn't strike down the provision for singling out certain states and jurisdictions for extra scrutiny. 

    It merely said that the criteria for selective oversight must be re-evaluated. 

    Section 5 is without significance — unless Congress chooses to pass a new bill for determining which states would be covered.

     



    Looks to me and rightly so, that the decision is saying when congress renewed the act in 2006 they were lazy and used the 45 year old criteria and justification which they deemed unconstitutional since congress has no evidence it still applies in the current form.

     

    Congress can revisit and make revisions to make the law fit the issues in society today which are much different than 1965. So, if we want to be upset we should be upset with the legislature for not doing the work needed in 06!

     



    Much different now than 1965?

     

    During Justice Ginsburg's dissent yesterday, she gave examples of very recent, explicitly racially motivated voter suppression measures.  Included was a 2010 FBI recording of Alabama state senators referring to African-American voters as "illiterates" and "Aborigines," while discussing the arrangement of the electoral calendar in a manner that they thought would minimize the African-American vote.

    http://politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com/

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: SCOTUS gives many voting rights power back to the states. Thought?

    In response to UserName99's comment:


    Much different now than 1965?



    Yes, the Alabama state legislature is 26% African Americans.

    More than the percentage in the state.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: SCOTUS gives many voting rights power back to the states. Thought?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    Much different now than 1965?

    Yes, the Alabama state legislature is 26% African Americans.

    More than the percentage in the state.

    [/QUOTE]


    How can the number minority legislators prove there's no impediment to voting?

    [/QUOTE]

    Research 1965 Alabama societal issues and politics then try to argue your point that the political climate has not changed.


    The burden is to prove there is systematic impediment to voting.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: SCOTUS gives many voting rights power back to the states. Thought?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:



    Ummmm, you're conflating two seperate issues and confusing both.

    The 'political climate' has nothing to do with the law regarding voting.

    One is politics, the other is supposed to be apolitical and apply to all, regardless of what the 'political climate' is at the time. The rights guaranteed by the Constitution have nothing to do with politics.



    ugh!

    The court ruled that the situation has changed in the states and that congress failed to address those changes in 2006 when they renewed the law. So, it was unconstitutional to continue the law in it's current form because it is unfair.

    The idea that the legislature is going to try to rewrite/revise the law explaining how "some states still have unfair voting rights" is NOT going to happen since it will open the can of worms in their own states as well. imho

     

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: SCOTUS gives many voting rights power back to the states. Thought?

    Brought to you by the Blue Street Journal

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share