Cacs need laws to prevent them from wanting to suppress peoples right to vote. Pathetic. This is who you put your faith in though. Hopin one day, theyll treat you as their equal if you just kiss enough ass. Sad. Better get that money, thats the only way you're gonna get respect.
GOP National Voter Suppression (Interstate Crosscheck, ID, Poll Closures, Voter Patrols)
- Thread starter Julius Skrrvin
- Start date
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
So like I was saying, obviously the measures taking in NC and other places to enact voter ID laws are disgraceful, transparent attempts to suppress the black vote.
I read the article earlier yesterday before BarNone posted it here and it is intellectually lazy and agenda-driven, and based on the logical fallacy that somehow because the law is happening in NC, it proves that the SCOTUS got it wrong on the VRA and justifies the continuance of the DOJ preclearance for those selected states.
The VRA preclearance applied to 8 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, and various municipalities in other states. This was based on those states having a history of disenfranchisement of the black vote via poll taxes, literacy tests and other means.
The problem is it's 2013 now, not 1965, or 1975 when it was reauthorized, and it's still based on that outdated data. Section 5 of the VRA mandates the preclearance requirement. The SCOTUS didn't strike down section 5, they struck down section 4, which outlines which localities and states are required to get DOJ preclearance.
People kneejerk diss because it's a bunch of white conservatives striking down a key section of one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation ever, but John Roberts was exactly right in his opinion:
Most of the gerrymandering and voting disenfranchisement that goes on today does not overlap with the states and localities initially identified in 1964. NC is a swing state with a Republican majority in Congress right now (surprise).
Here are the top 10 most gerrymandered states:
http://www.governing.com/blogs/by-the-numbers/most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts-states.html
Maryland
Hawaii
Louisiana
North Carolina
West Virginia
Maine
Virginia
New Hampshire
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Only 2 out of those 10 are on the preclearance requirement list.
And if you want to get into the passing of draconian laws designed to suppress the vote...
http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/election-2013-voting-laws-roundup
It doesn't exactly overlap with the preclearance states.
If you take the 3 most infamous shytholes of Jim Crow racism one could imagine, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, there's not much vote suppression going on there compared to the other states listed. There's no real monied organized incentive to beyond local elections in small towns because they're not swing states.
Black voter registration was 6.4 percent in Mississippi when the VRA was enacted, and the gap between black and white registration rates was more than 60 percentage points. In the 2004 election, the last before the law was reauthorized, the black registration rate in Mississippi was 76 percent, almost four percentage points higher than the white rate. The black turnout actually EXCEEDED that of the white turnout in the 2012 presidential election in something like 4 or 5 of the 8 states on the preclearance list.
The voting fukkery that's going on now is not confined to any region and the info from the original list is outdated. It is up to Congress to update with a procedure more suitable to today's realities. You can say Congress is inept and gridlocked, but that not the SCOTUS' problem. They made the ruling, and it was the correct imo.
So the NC law is terrible, but the article is a disingenuous, shoddy piece of poorly-reasoned agenda-driven journalism. And all this hyperbolic, sentimental scary shyt from the left and black media pundits about "MLK's dream just died" and yadda yadda is just making us look silly. The Democrats should definitely make these voting suppression attempts like what's going in NC a political issue to rally around though. If Democrats do give a shyt about any issue affecting black people, it's that they want our vote at least.
I read the article earlier yesterday before BarNone posted it here and it is intellectually lazy and agenda-driven, and based on the logical fallacy that somehow because the law is happening in NC, it proves that the SCOTUS got it wrong on the VRA and justifies the continuance of the DOJ preclearance for those selected states.
The VRA preclearance applied to 8 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, and various municipalities in other states. This was based on those states having a history of disenfranchisement of the black vote via poll taxes, literacy tests and other means.
The problem is it's 2013 now, not 1965, or 1975 when it was reauthorized, and it's still based on that outdated data. Section 5 of the VRA mandates the preclearance requirement. The SCOTUS didn't strike down section 5, they struck down section 4, which outlines which localities and states are required to get DOJ preclearance.
People kneejerk diss because it's a bunch of white conservatives striking down a key section of one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation ever, but John Roberts was exactly right in his opinion:
Most of the gerrymandering and voting disenfranchisement that goes on today does not overlap with the states and localities initially identified in 1964. NC is a swing state with a Republican majority in Congress right now (surprise).
Here are the top 10 most gerrymandered states:
http://www.governing.com/blogs/by-the-numbers/most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts-states.html
Maryland
Hawaii
Louisiana
North Carolina
West Virginia
Maine
Virginia
New Hampshire
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Only 2 out of those 10 are on the preclearance requirement list.
And if you want to get into the passing of draconian laws designed to suppress the vote...
http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/election-2013-voting-laws-roundup
It doesn't exactly overlap with the preclearance states.
If you take the 3 most infamous shytholes of Jim Crow racism one could imagine, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, there's not much vote suppression going on there compared to the other states listed. There's no real monied organized incentive to beyond local elections in small towns because they're not swing states.
Black voter registration was 6.4 percent in Mississippi when the VRA was enacted, and the gap between black and white registration rates was more than 60 percentage points. In the 2004 election, the last before the law was reauthorized, the black registration rate in Mississippi was 76 percent, almost four percentage points higher than the white rate. The black turnout actually EXCEEDED that of the white turnout in the 2012 presidential election in something like 4 or 5 of the 8 states on the preclearance list.
The voting fukkery that's going on now is not confined to any region and the info from the original list is outdated. It is up to Congress to update with a procedure more suitable to today's realities. You can say Congress is inept and gridlocked, but that not the SCOTUS' problem. They made the ruling, and it was the correct imo.
So the NC law is terrible, but the article is a disingenuous, shoddy piece of poorly-reasoned agenda-driven journalism. And all this hyperbolic, sentimental scary shyt from the left and black media pundits about "MLK's dream just died" and yadda yadda is just making us look silly. The Democrats should definitely make these voting suppression attempts like what's going in NC a political issue to rally around though. If Democrats do give a shyt about any issue affecting black people, it's that they want our vote at least.
Last edited:
Basically, this guy just went to find some research to support an uneducated opinion. The point of the article is simple, these change would be subject to scrutiny before such changes could be made prior to the strike down. Congress have proven ineffective in designing an alternative and the SCOTUS knows this. Scalia himself knew this, he went so far as to say that this law would never be changed by Congress so the SCOTUS has to do it. Detractors of this article and of those against repealing the section operate under the false pretense that Congress will design an effective replacement. They assume that the law is unfair because it is based on past trends and that because we have moved forward that such trends still fail to exist or that they would not arise in the immediate period upon which this law is struck down. As we have seen, states have already moved to gerrymander districts and disenfranchise voters by setting up different voting requirements. They would have you believe that these hurdles being put in place that will immediately work to disenfranchise voters are okay as long as we work towards the long term goal of a superior system, whenever that happens. They rely upon the most ineffective Congress in history to make this a reality. It's foolishness.
Further, VVD's research, mistakes the fact that other places are racially gerrymandered as somehow excusing letting the most egregious offenders off. Further, in many of the states he lists, that gerrymandering is the result of political (which often coincides with race) vs. racial gerrymandering. A lot of that is the result attempting to create majority-minority districts so that there are more people of color in Congress. Ginsburg notes that racialized voting is still at its height in the South. Lastly, black voter turnout exceeding white turnout does nothing to demonstrate that the system isn't the discriminatory, it merely demonstrates that the Democratic turnout apparatus was superior to the Republican apparatus, which even Republican admit. It's just this game of going back and forth in speaking in generalities.
Basically VVD's entire misguided post at best boils down to, "sure it's bad but other places do it to and it's not fair that only the southern states are covered and black people still turned out in large numbers anyway." At worst it boils down to ignorance of judicial and congressional history and the fact that the courts do not easily, or often rule to overturn legislation passed by the Congress by such majorities that has been reaffirmed throughout history. Especcially when it affects such large segments of the population. Constitutional scholars across the nation gathered to make similar arguments to the court as they debated overturning the ACA. To say it's not the SCOTUS's false that Congress won't get anything done is to ignore an entire legacy of judicial deference to such decisions and the supposed principle of recusing themselves from decide "political questions." Opinions like these are what happens when people don't actually read judicial opinions for themselves and get it filtered through the media, and are unable to place it within the entire landscape of legal history and current decisions. Here are key excerpts for Ginsburg's dissent and I'd implore you to read the entire thing.
As Justice Ginsburg stated in her dissent:
Wait for Congress to cover other states too while these states practice discrimination brehs
Further, VVD's research, mistakes the fact that other places are racially gerrymandered as somehow excusing letting the most egregious offenders off. Further, in many of the states he lists, that gerrymandering is the result of political (which often coincides with race) vs. racial gerrymandering. A lot of that is the result attempting to create majority-minority districts so that there are more people of color in Congress. Ginsburg notes that racialized voting is still at its height in the South. Lastly, black voter turnout exceeding white turnout does nothing to demonstrate that the system isn't the discriminatory, it merely demonstrates that the Democratic turnout apparatus was superior to the Republican apparatus, which even Republican admit. It's just this game of going back and forth in speaking in generalities.
Basically VVD's entire misguided post at best boils down to, "sure it's bad but other places do it to and it's not fair that only the southern states are covered and black people still turned out in large numbers anyway." At worst it boils down to ignorance of judicial and congressional history and the fact that the courts do not easily, or often rule to overturn legislation passed by the Congress by such majorities that has been reaffirmed throughout history. Especcially when it affects such large segments of the population. Constitutional scholars across the nation gathered to make similar arguments to the court as they debated overturning the ACA. To say it's not the SCOTUS's false that Congress won't get anything done is to ignore an entire legacy of judicial deference to such decisions and the supposed principle of recusing themselves from decide "political questions." Opinions like these are what happens when people don't actually read judicial opinions for themselves and get it filtered through the media, and are unable to place it within the entire landscape of legal history and current decisions. Here are key excerpts for Ginsburg's dissent and I'd implore you to read the entire thing.
As Justice Ginsburg stated in her dissent:
Wait for Congress to cover other states too while these states practice discrimination brehs
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
This post is filled whole bunch of fluff and nothingness. The preclearance list has been empirically proven to be based on 40+ year old data that isn't relevant in 2013.Basically, this guy just went to find some research to support an uneducated opinion. The point of the article is simple, these change would be subject to scrutiny before such changes could be made prior to the strike down. Congress have proven ineffective in designing an alternative and the SCOTUS knows this. Scalia himself knew this, he went so far as to say that this law would never be changed by Congress so the SCOTUS has to do it. Detractors of this article and of those against repealing the section operate under the false pretense that Congress will design an effective replacement. They assume that the law is unfair because it is based on past trends and that because we have moved forward that such trends still fail to exist or that they would not arise in the immediate period upon which this law is struck down. As we have seen, states have already moved to gerrymander districts and disenfranchise voters by setting up different voting requirements. They would have you believe that these hurdles being put in place that will immediately work to disenfranchise voters are okay as long as we work towards the long term goal of a superior system, whenever that happens. They rely upon the most ineffective Congress in history to make this a reality. It's foolishness.
Further, VVD's research, mistakes the fact that other places are racially gerrymandered as somehow excusing letting the most egregious offenders off. Further, in many of the states he lists, that gerrymandering is the result of political (which often coincides with race) vs. racial gerrymandering. A lot of that is the result attempting to create majority-minority districts so that there are more people of color in Congress. Ginsburg notes that racialized voting is still at its height in the South. Lastly, black voter turnout exceeding white turnout does nothing to demonstrate that the system isn't the discriminatory, it merely demonstrates that the Democratic turnout apparatus was superior to the Republican apparatus, which even Republican admit. It's just this game of going back and forth in speaking in generalities.
Basically VVD's entire misguided post at best boils down to, "sure it's bad but other places do it to and it's not fair that only the southern states are covered and black people still turned out in large numbers anyway." At worst it boils down to ignorance of judicial and congressional history and the fact that the courts do not easily, or often rule to overturn legislation passed by the Congress by such majorities that has been reaffirmed throughout history. Especcially when it affects such large segments of the population. Constitutional scholars across the nation gathered to make similar arguments to the court as they debated overturning the ACA. To say it's not the SCOTUS's false that Congress won't get anything done is to ignore an entire legacy of judicial deference to such decisions and the supposed principle of recusing themselves from decide "political questions." Opinions like these are what happens when people don't actually read judicial opinions for themselves and get it filtered through the media, and are unable to place it within the entire landscape of legal history and current decisions. Here are key excerpts for Ginsburg's dissent and I'd implore you to read the entire thing.
As Justice Ginsburg stated in her dissent:
Wait for Congress to cover other states too while these states practice discrimination brehs
It's not about whether it's in the south or not. It's about whether or not the federal government is strategically getting towhere it's occurring. It doesn't even apply to "the south" it applies to 7southern states, Alaska, and municipalities all over including places like Brooklyn. It doesn't even include the state of Florida. here's a bunch of voter suppression tactics going on in Florida at a state level and Florida isn't even one of the states subject to federal preclearance.
Cherrypicking racial discrimination examples out of dozens that happen to overlap with the outdated 1964 criteria is disingenuous.
What about Ohio in 2004? Florida in 2000? Amazing how that happened despite the VRA preclearance.
The SCOTUS ruling was correctm It is up to Congress to update the preclearance requirements for a 2013 world, not a 1964 one. You just basically admitted you think the SCOTUS should keep it because Congress sucks anyway, which is a shytty argument. There's nothing left to say really. You don't have a case other than you have little faith in Congress so you think the SCOTUS should uphold requirements from an almost 50 year old criteria that isn't really tethered to modern day realities. Chill with all this all hyperbolic "let MLK down " nonsense and tell your Democratic buddies in Congress to get on their job.
Last edited:
Personally i don't agree with dismantling the early voting system, and was completely irritated when I read about votes being thrown out for being at the wrong poll station. I mean didn't even know they still counted it before but completely throwing away someones right to vote for a simple mistake is idiotic.
On the surface, I believe attempts at vote suppression will encourage more people( minorities of all backgrounds) to take voting seriously, along with creating a real interest in politics on a local and national level. But America seems to be distancing itself away farther and farther away from this ideology.
On the surface, I believe attempts at vote suppression will encourage more people( minorities of all backgrounds) to take voting seriously, along with creating a real interest in politics on a local and national level. But America seems to be distancing itself away farther and farther away from this ideology.
Wow, this is actually a solid debate, which is rare now on this forum. Interesting and supported points all around. It should keep going.
Brown_Pride
All Star
Admittedly i wasn't aware of which states were on the list, yes the list needs to be updated. Here's how it should be updated...
ALL states should be on that list. Federal elections should be a standard thing.
The issue with doing away with the law is that it removes what little is there.Prior to the ruling we could say:
"while congress needs to update the list, there are SOME states that are regulated."
Now we can't even say that. And given the [sarcasm]very productive congress [sarcasm] are we now stuck waiting for congress to pass legislation to protect voters?
all states are regulated the same, what the supreme court did was remove the PRE clearance for some specific states and jurisdictions
but the law is still the same, nothing has changed within the overall voting rights act, the difference is that the feds can only intervene after the fact, in fact there is nothing stopping the feds from suing NC about this law under the voting rights act
Brown_Pride
All Star
i'm pretty sure that not all states have the same voting laws. Else wise why are some states, including my own, either pushing for or already have legislated things immediately after the SC judgement?
Isn't it telling that immediately after the SC judgment several of the states started popping off laws n such? http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/state/Voting-Rights-Act-decision-and-how-it-affects-Arizona-
The decision changed things to a more standard nation wide model...which sounds great when you read it. But then you look at the actions immediately following the SC decision and I can't help but be like WTF? Why?
Essentially the SC said, since the law needs to be updated, we'll do away with it. Rather than saying we'll keep what protections we do have for voter rights and direct congress to updating the list.
another classic 5-4 vote along party lines. Good thing our SC isn't affected by "political winds"...
Your post is filled with uninformed nonsense and it misses the greater point. It only makes sense to people who think the argument is about "equal distribution of preclearance procedures" as opposed to "maintaining preclearance on these states while re-working the formula vs. no preclearance at all." This is why you keep dodging the argument about the greater ramifications because your entire argument collapses when that is taken into consideration. Whatever, little argument you think that you have. With this foolish game of semantics you're playing by saying things like "it's not just the South." I'm sorry, it's predominantly the South. Again, you pick at the minor points. So miss me with that "fluff and nothingness" talk and your advice about "let MLK down." It's so apparent that you didn't read the court opinions, that I don't even know why I'm debating with you. We're sitting here arguing about a case, that made it to the SCOTUS, from a district that is currently and historically acting to disenfranchise AA voters, and you said the SCOTUS "got it right," on a case they never should have heard in the first place.
But let's pretend that your argument makes any sort of sense for a second. We'll also pretend that you didn't dodge me breaking down how you don't even comprehend different sorts of gerrymandering and tossing out charts without understanding what they mean fully. We'll PRETEND. It doesn't matter if it does not take into account places currently looking to suppress votes. In what scenario do you recognize that places are committing wrongs and that there are safeguards in place, but that they don't also cover other places, so you instead decide to eliminate all safeguards entirely....
That is essentially your irrational argument. You believe the court got it right because the current procedure needs to be updated. All the while ignoring that the court could have simply issued an opinion stating that the current procedure needs to be updated or that DOJ actions can be appealed with a stricter standard of scrutiny. All the while ignoring that the alternative way of challenging procedures is largely ineffective and will take very long. All the while ignoring that this essentially switches the burden from the States to the government to prove that states are behaving with the intent to disenfranchise. Thus, the current system continues while the court process runs its course....through primarily southern courts no less, which was half the reason for Sections 4 and 5 in the first place Getting it away from them. Instead of the government having injunctive power to stop a procedure, which at worst would maintain the status quo.
Nina Perales of the Mexican Legal Defense Fund said it best,
Further, states and districts can petition to no longer be subject to preclearance after a certain amount of time of abiding by the principles. This is how many counties in New Hampshire, Virginia and North Carolina escaped preclearance. Florida was not free from preclearance, some districts, were covered. Further, Section 3 of the VRA allowed for a "bail in " procedure in which a district not covered by the act could be ordered to be covered if they acted in a way to violate the act. By a federal judge. Yet, another reason Democratic federal appointments have been held up. The formula is flawed in that states have gotten more creative, but the order should have been to strengthen the formula so that more districts are covered, not to strike it down.
Last, your arguments about Mississippi and other states having higher percentages of black registered voters is encompassed by the dissent's point:
"The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the [Voting Rights Act] has proven effective ... Throwing out preclearance 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."
And of course,
"The same cannot be said of the Court's opinion today. The Court makes no genuine attempt to engage with the massive legislative record that Congress assembled. Instead, it relies on increases in voter registration and turnout as if that were the whole story. Without even identifying a standard of review, the Court dismissively brushes off arguments based on "data from the record," and declines to enter the "debat[e about] what [the] record shows"
That is the crux of your argument, and it's a poor one. I earnestly suggest you go read the 35 pages of Ginsburg's dissent before continuing along these lines.
Brown_Pride
All Star
basically what i saidYour post is filled with uninformed nonsense and it misses the greater point. It only makes sense to people who think the argument is about "equal distribution of preclearance procedures" as opposed to "maintaining preclearance on these states while re-working the formula vs. no preclearance at all." This is why you keep dodging the argument about the greater ramifications because your entire argument collapses when that is taken into consideration. Whatever, little argument you think that you have. With this foolish game of semantics you're playing by saying things like "it's not just the South." I'm sorry, it's predominantly the South. Again, you pick at the minor points. So miss me with that "fluff and nothingness" talk and your advice about "let MLK down." It's so apparent that you didn't read the court opinions, that I don't even know why I'm debating with you. We're sitting here arguing about a case, that made it to the SCOTUS, from a district that is currently and historically acting to disenfranchise AA voters, and you said the SCOTUS "got it right," on a case they never should have heard in the first place.
But let's pretend that your argument makes any sort of sense for a second. We'll also pretend that you didn't dodge me breaking down how you don't even comprehend different sorts of gerrymandering and tossing out charts without understanding what they mean fully. We'll PRETEND. It doesn't matter if it does not take into account places currently looking to suppress votes. In what scenario do you recognize that places are committing wrongs and that there are safeguards in place, but that they don't also cover other places, so you instead decide to eliminate all safeguards entirely....
That is essentially your irrational argument. You believe the court got it right because the current procedure needs to be updated. All the while ignoring that the court could have simply issued an opinion stating that the current procedure needs to be updated or that DOJ actions can be appealed with a stricter standard of scrutiny. All the while ignoring that the alternative way of challenging procedures is largely ineffective and will take very long. All the while ignoring that this essentially switches the burden from the States to the government to prove that states are behaving with the intent to disenfranchise. Thus, the current system continues while the court process runs its course....through primarily southern courts no less, which was half the reason for Sections 4 and 5 in the first place Getting it away from them. Instead of the government having injunctive power to stop a procedure, which at worst would maintain the status quo.
Nina Perales of the Mexican Legal Defense Fund said it best,
Further, states and districts can petition to no longer be subject to preclearance after a certain amount of time of abiding by the principles. This is how many counties in New Hampshire, Virginia and North Carolina escaped preclearance. Florida was not free from preclearance, some districts, were covered. Further, Section 3 of the VRA allowed for a "bail in " procedure in which a district not covered by the act could be ordered to be covered if they acted in a way to violate the act. By a federal judge. Yet, another reason Democratic federal appointments have been held up. The formula is flawed in that states have gotten more creative, but the order should have been to strengthen the formula so that more districts are covered, not to strike it down.
Last, your arguments about Mississippi and other states having higher percentages of black registered voters is encompassed by the dissent's point:
"The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the [Voting Rights Act] has proven effective ... Throwing out preclearance 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."
And of course,
"The same cannot be said of the Court's opinion today. The Court makes no genuine attempt to engage with the massive legislative record that Congress assembled. Instead, it relies on increases in voter registration and turnout as if that were the whole story. Without even identifying a standard of review, the Court dismissively brushes off arguments based on "data from the record," and declines to enter the "debat[e about] what [the] record shows"
That is the crux of your argument, and it's a poor one. I earnestly suggest you go read the 35 pages of Ginsburg's dissent before continuing along these lines.
Ether
How anyone looks at what the SC did and turns that into a "good thing" is beyond my comprehension.
that isnt a contradiction, every state has their own laws and all states are regulated under the VRA
the SC did the right thing because the pre clearance was obtuse, all the protections are still there, its just the pre clearance that was eliminated, if AZ is passing restrictions that is more evidence that the pre clearance section was useless because AZ was not on the list
i dont agree with more restrictions but i dont think its a crisis either
