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

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

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

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    So, if a state, including those that used to require pre-clearance wants to forbid same-day voting registration OR change the hours or location of polling booths OR force voters to jump through complicated hoops to vote, the state is NOW permitted to do so.

    ------------------------------

    No they're not.  That's section 2.  But, name ONE state that is or will?

    Yea, I know . . .

    The ONLY thing that happened is that 9 states singled out 50 years ago no longer are.  You damn well if they forced all states to undergo that scrutiny, the ever so tolerant and uber liberal Massachusetts would have led the hissy fit, NF-W

    "The voting rights of all Americans . . ."  Actually, its no Americans.

    Recall 16 counties in Va opted out of section 4, years ago and the fed didn't blink.  Where was this feigned outrage then?  Why are they so special?



    Gregin,

    In 1965 MA was NOT exhibiting the bad behavior the 9 states that were singled out by the VRA, was it?

    So, MA would have had a very good argument NOT to be included with those 9 states. That is not a hissy fit. Of course we are talking about a hypothetical.

    Now that there is no oversight to any of the states we can just sit back and wait for the changes to begin. I do not wish for that to happen. Just drawing a very logical conclusion based on the history as well as the current political temperature in our country. You do not need cites from sources who agree with me. You and I do not need to have a battle of the sources. 

    It was a 5-4 decision. Hardly a mandate from SCOTUS. 

    Read the dissent by Justice Ruth Ginsburg please when you have a chance. 

     

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

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

    In response to chiefhowie's comment:

    Some wanted wanted Peoples republic of America 

    SCOTUS gave back some of  Unitd States OF America

    "Everything You Believe IS True"



    chiefhowie,

    Did SCOTUS also give "us" back the United States of America versus the Peoples Republic of America when they struck down DOMA?

    Same high court. Same exact justices. Same deeply divided 5-4 decision. Same week in June.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

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

    Gregin,                 

     

    "And the 16 counties in Va?  They must be special?  If you wnat to go back to 1965 rules that the court changed, say night night to abortion."

    Why in the world do you want to pull abortion into this thread? Is it not contentious enough without bringing up abortion?  We can go there if you must, but really, that is a whole other  thread.                                         

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

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

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Yea, lots of minority voting problems in Alaska.

    On Vector Nebulah.

    Cupcake

     



     


    Ignorance is not a valid argument.

    Things are much different here in reality.

     

    Alaska officials have been forced to back away from a plan to relocate a polling site serving an overwhelmingly Native American group of voters. The proposed voting site sat 70 miles from the original location and was accessible only by boat and airplane. And when Congress gathered information and testimony on efforts to limit the influence of minority voters in 2006, they found so many similar cases in Alaska and across the country that these examples made up most of the 16,000-page record that was later compiled.

    "The Division of Elections has moved or attempted to move polling places out of Native Alaska communities," Wenstrup said. "It attempted to close early voting in predominantly Native communities, but maintained early voting in urban communities. The Parnell-Treadwell Administration has filed a lawsuit to overturn Voting Rights Act protections for Alaska Natives, in addition to filing a separate friend-of-the-court brief supporting Shelby County, Alabama's lawsuit against the Voting Rights Act."

    Among the many examples Wenstrup listed was the closure of the Pedro Bay polling place, a change that required voters to travel 28 miles to either Iliamna or Newhalen to vote. There is no road connecting those communities.  

    In the U.S. District Court case Nick vs. Bethel, the Division of Elections was ordered to correct its error in not providing adequate Yupik language ballots or oral assistance for Yupik speakers in the Bethel region.

    "Now some of you are pushing a new voter ID law," Begich said in his remarks to the legislature, "which would make it harder to vote for many rural Alaskans who often don't have photo IDs or even home addresses in their villages."

    [/QUOTE]

    ACC,

    Very informative post. Thanks for jumping in when you did.

    Throwing out abortion out of nowhere on this thread did perplex me. Glad I stopped my post where I did. Will admit it was like dangling red meat in front of me however.

    Texas State Senator Wendy Davis is my newest heroine. And the reintroduction of that draconian 20 week abortion bill in Texas has me furious. And not only me.

    I have posted many times about the GOP war on women. Conservatives like to scoff and say what war. Well have they ever heard of Texas? Have they ever heard of forcing women who have decided to have an abortion to be forced to undergo the very invasive transvaginal ultrasound?

    I consider that akin to forciple rape. You have a penetration forced on you by your doctor but really by the government. 

    So, in an attempt to move the goalposts, as you put it, this already long and messy thread would obviously become much longer and even messier.

    If anybody wants to talk abortion, best start a fresh thread. First, so this one can stay with the VRA. Second, because it will be a long and tough thread on its own. 

     

Share