I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1)

[Rhythmdvl]

Voter fraud is indeed a problem.

[

In December of 2011 Newt Gingrich needed 10,000 signatures to get his name on the Virginia presidential primary ballot. Adam Ward, 28, collected more than 11,000 signatures according to prosecutors. More than 4,000 signatures could not be verified by investigators.

Tuesday night, Ward pleaded guilty to 36 counts of voter fraud and perjury in Augusta Circuit Court.

](http://www.nbc29.com/story/22627644/bassett-man-pleads-guilty-to-voter-fraud-forgery)

This means that Democratic (and Democratic-aligned) leaders *must *engage in a strategy to suppress demographics that are likely to support Republicans. If they don’t do it, then the sanctity and trust in our elective process will be undermined.

[TheSeaOtter]

@Richard_Parker

They agree less often than other pairings. See http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/SB_agreement_06-12-2013.pdf.

Indeed. The data shows that Scalia is, in fact, the most disagreeable of the justices, the only one who does not concur in full with any of the others more than 70% of the time. Which bears out the popular view that he’s basically a Constitutional troll.

[Richard_Parker]

@TheSeaOtter

Indeed. The data shows that Scalia is, in fact, the most disagreeable of the justices, the only one who does not concur in full with any of the others more than 70% of the time. Which bears out the popular view that he’s basically a Constitutional troll.

Both your premise and the conclusion you draw from it are wrong.

Scalia is not “the only one who does not concur in full with any of the others more than 70% of the time.” Nor is he the most disagreeable on any of the other statistics.

But even if your facts were right, it’s odd to conclude from them that he is trolling unless your theory is that he’s an equal opportunity troll, politically. He’s happy to try to offend Ginsburg and Alito equally? Isn’t the more likely inference that he’s just following his amateurish historical interpretation wherever it takes him most of the time, and voting as an ideologue the rest?

[BrainGlutton]

The SCOTUS just struck down a major part of the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — the map that determines which states must get federal permission before they change their voting laws.

Civil rights activists called the decision devastating, and a dissenting justice said it amounted to the “demolition” of the law, widely considered the most important piece of civil rights legislation in American history.

The ruling, a 5-4 decision by Chief Justice John Roberts, leaves the future of the law deeply uncertain because it will be up to a sharply divided Congress to redraw the map, if it can agree on one at all.

“In practice, in reality, it’s probably the death knell of this provision,” said Tom Goldstein, the publisher of SCOTUSblog and a Supreme Court analyst for NBC News.

The Voting Rights Act requires nine states with a history of discrimination at the polls, mostly in the South, to get approval from the Justice Department or a special panel of judges before they change their voting laws. The rule also applies to 12 cities and 57 counties elsewhere.

The law was renewed most recently in 2006, but the coverage map still uses election data from 1972 to determine who is covered. Some jurisdictions, including the Alabama county that brought the case, complained that they were being punished for the sins of many decades ago.

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

The SCOTUS just struck down a major part of the Voting Rights Act.

And Texas ain’t wastin’ no time.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@BrainGlutton

And Texas ain’t wastin’ no time.

So, I’m curious - the article seems to indicate that the ruling was based at least partially on the idea of being punished for sins of past generations… Would it be reason to reinstate the law if the very first thing the states in question did was abuse the hell out of their newfound freedom?

[BrainGlutton]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

So, I’m curious - the article seems to indicate that the ruling was based at least partially on the idea of being punished for sins of past generations… Would it be reason to reinstate the law if the very first thing the states in question did was abuse the hell out of their newfound freedom?

Only if Congress says so. I ain’t optimistic.

[bouv]

@BrainGlutton

Only if Congress says so. I ain’t optimistic.

The amusing/depressing part is that the VRA was renewed just a few years ago. It had no opposition in the senate (I think 2 abstains/absents,) and only a handful were opposed to it int he House, less than 40.

Yet if the exact same legislation came up again in today’s political environment, 80% of the GOP would be against it, and say they have ALWAYS been against “big government” telling them/their constituents what to do. :rolleyes:

[Richard_Parker]

Indeed. One major thing that has changed since 1965 is that the GOP is now the Party of the South (and the parties in general are much more sectional than they were in 1965). It’s one thing to simply re-approve of a historical formula that doesn’t change the status quo. It’s quite another to pass a new law singling out Alabama or Texas. The GOP as we now know it will never do the latter.

[Fear_Itself]

The GOP will fail to see the unintended consequences of cheering for the upending of the Voting Rights Act. They think only blacks are watching, and they can’t lose much more in that constituency. They will fail to see that this does not play well with other minorities, women and young voters, who see this as confirming their worst fears about conservatives as backward and racist. Look for more puzzled conservatives as the death spiral continues and they lose more and more elections.

[bouv]

In her dissenting opinion, Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it best:

Throwing out the Voting Rights Act when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.

[Werekoala]

Funny, if memory serves there hasn’t been any lessening of the cries of discrimination or racism since the VRA was enacted, so clearly it wasn’t working - right? Or am I missing something vital in the “debate”?

[BrainGlutton]

@Werekoala

Funny, if memory serves there hasn’t been any lessening of the cries of discrimination or racism since the VRA was enacted, so clearly it wasn’t working - right? Or am I missing something vital in the “debate”?

It works in that more nonwhites in the affected states get to vote than before it was passed.

[Fear_Itself]

@Werekoala

Funny, if memory serves there hasn’t been any lessening of the cries of discrimination or racism since the VRA was enacted, so clearly it wasn’t working - right? Or am I missing something vital in the “debate”?

Your memory is not serving you. Discrimination has been fought as a direct result of the VRA. The fact that is still occurs is not proof that the VRA doesn’t work.

[Werekoala]

So as long as one person can claim discrimination, then 9 of 50 states have to get approval for how to run their affairs from Washington? Nothing has improved at all because of this law? Or it has to have perfect results before it can be ended?

When does it end? Is there some realistic “end goal” in sight, or is this to be a perpetual punishment?

How about expanding the restrictions to ALL 50 states? If it’s good enough for the goose, etc. - or is their no discrimination in more enlightened sections of the country?

[Richard_Parker]

Werekoala, you should start by reading all the opinions in the case. You might learn something.

12-96_6k47.pdf

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Werekoala

How about expanding the restrictions to ALL 50 states? If it’s good enough for the goose, etc. - or is their no discrimination in more enlightened sections of the country?

I actually wouldn’t have a problem with that at all.

[jayjay]

I wouldn’t have any problem with it either. Frankly, I’d like to see the federal government administer ALL elections and get rid of this ridiculous and corruptible patchwork of local and state election administration. Every citizen of the US should have the same experience voting, regardless of race, class, location or anything else.

[user_hostile]

@Werekoala

So as long as one person can claim discrimination, then 9 of 50 states have to get approval for how to run their affairs from Washington? Nothing has improved at all because of this law? Or it has to have perfect results before it can be ended?

When does it end? Is there some realistic “end goal” in sight, or is this to be a perpetual punishment?

How about expanding the restrictions to ALL 50 states? If it’s good enough for the goose, etc. - or is their no discrimination in more enlightened sections of the country?

Per this DOJ page:

Section 4 of the act provides that a covered jurisdiction may seek to “bail out,” or remove itself from such coverage, and therefore be exempted from the preclearance requirements, by seeking a declaratory judgment before a three-judge panel in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. A bailout judgment can be issued only if the court determines that the jurisdiction meets certain eligibility requirements for bailout contained in the statute, including a 10-year record of nondiscrimination in voting-related actions. The act also provides that the Attorney General can consent to entry of a judgment of bailout only if, based upon investigation, the Attorney General is satisfied that the jurisdiction meets the eligibility requirements.

It was my understanding that some New England states fell under the requirement for preclearance, and after 10 years, they were freed from the restrictions. (Sorry, I don’t have a cite for that. Couldn’t Google-fu a good search term.)

[Richard_Parker]

Almost all the bail-outs have been in Virginia. See Appendix A to this Amicus Brief.