GOP National Voter Suppression (Interstate Crosscheck, ID, Poll Closures, Voter Patrols)

[No1]

alot of gullible people on this site.

Where your sig from again...it's been bothering me

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

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.

 

[theworldismine13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965
says arizona is on the list?

my bad, i didnt know, but i think the point is there is a lot voter suppression in other states besides those specific ones and the only thing that has changed is the pre clearance, the body of VRA and its regulations hasnt changed

 

[MostReal]

Where your sig from again...it's been bothering me

The Spook Who Sat by The Door.



what's crazy about that quote is that is exactly what's going on today with these groups of young black kids going around wilding out from time to time. Yet, cacs act like they don't understand why These kids have been made into what their actions are today...what do you expect to happen?

 

[Brown_Pride]

my bad, i didnt know, but i think the point is there is a lot voter suppression in other states besides those specific ones and the only thing that has changed is the pre clearance, the body of VRA and its regulations hasnt changed

Not yet. My point is the blood is in the water now and the reasoning, namely that racism doesn't exist anymore by evidence of black people being elected and such. Look at the states that had that shyt removed, what is THE FIRST THING they did? They didn't redistrict, they started propping up ID laws and such, I.E. they are going after the other sections now and will most likely use the same "racism is dead" type logic to push that shyt too.

we didn't need LESS regulation, we needed refined regulation. We took a step in the wrong direction on this no matter how you slice it.

 

[theworldismine13]

Not yet. My point is the blood is in the water now and the reasoning, namely that racism doesn't exist anymore by evidence of black people being elected and such. Look at the states that had that shyt removed, what is THE FIRST THING they did? They didn't redistrict, they started propping up ID laws and such, I.E. they are going after the other sections now and will most likely use the same "racism is dead" type logic to push that shyt too.

we didn't need LESS regulation, we needed refined regulation. We took a step in the wrong direction on this no matter how you slice it.

its not that there isnt racism anymore or that these laws new laws arent racist, its that overall black turnout is up, not down, these laws are just pathetic more than a real threat

should we try to stop these laws, sure, should we lose any sleep over it? no

 

[Brown_Pride]

its not that there isnt racism anymore or that these laws new laws arent racist, its that overall black turnout is up, not down, these laws are just pathetic more than a real threat

should we try to stop these laws, sure, should we lose any sleep over it? no

should we lose sleep over people trying to manipulate voter turnout?

I'm thinking yeah maybe a little we should be worried that no one is going to put up the good fight. When should we start worrying? When districts are set up so that the minority vote is watered down?

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Your post is filled with uninformed nonsense and it misses the greater point.

Typical angry, grandiose, pretentious Barnone bullshyt. *briefly reads in Pinky and the Brain voice, laughs, and ignores*

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."

I thought you just said Congress will never re-work the formula, and that's exactly the reason why the SCOTUS shouldn't taken away the preclearance requirements in section 4?

You're not even interested in whether or not the SCOTUS ruling was legally correct in its interpretation of the Constitution or not. You're only interested in an existential vision of the greater good of the nation. Your logic is Congress sucks, so the SCOTUS shouldn't have made things worse. That's fine. That's even a respectable position imo. But acting like somehow you are clearly right and anyone who disagrees with you is clearly wrong and has an invalid position on this obviously subjective issue is making you like quite foolish. But hey, you do that whenever you argue about anything.

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.

Typical angry, grandiose, pretentious Barnone bullshyt. *briefly reads in Pinky and the Brain voice, laughs, and ignores*

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.

What the kinda strawman shyt is this? Whether it's mostly in the south or not is neither here nor there. Obviously, it was mostly southern states that suppressed the right of black people to vote in the first place, hence the preclearance requirements applying to mostly southern states based on the data. Nobody's defending the south here. In fact, if you read my post, I was in favor of adding the whole state of Florida, a southern state to the preclearance requirements. Maybe Rick Scott wouldn't have gotten away with the fukkery in the 2012 (which backfired) if Florida was included.

The point is the preclearance requirements are outdated and need to be updated, and the voter suppression going on today attempted and real does not overlap with the originally preclearance map. Actually, I think there should be a uniform preclearance requirement for the entire country. The rate of preclearance objections has been practically negligible for the past 2 decades. So it works. It should be expanded. But your argument will inevitably boil down to "Congress sucks, so the SCOTUS should do their job for them."

Again, you pick at the minor points. So miss me with that "fluff and nothingness" talk and your advice about "let MLK down."

Nah. Your talk about "letting MLK down" and some of the other shyt I've heard from Al Sharpton and other pundits is silly fear-based hyperbole, of the type we usually criticize teabaggers for. It's like a left-wing version of "They're coming to take our guns." Regardless of what the SCOTUS did, this shyt honestly isn't that big of a deal. The VRA still stands. Nobody can do any poll taxes, or literacy tests, or personality tests, or property requirements. You, I and any black person can vote if we want to. In NC, you need an ID now if you want to vote and they reduced the number of voting hours. Stupid, yes. Blatantly targeting the black vote, yes. But sorry if I don't see this as the second coming of Bull Connor. If you want to vote, get an ID. It's not that big of a deal. It might not even hold up anyway.

shyt, they did the reduction of voting hours in Florida in 2012 and it backfired. Black people got pissed and came out in mass and won Florida. Sometimes you need shyt like this wake people up and initiate change.

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.

So now you're the decider of what gets to be heard by the SCOTUS? Okay, Oliver Wendell Holmes.

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.

Typical angry, grandiose, pretentious Barnone bullshyt. *briefly reads in Pinky and the Brain voice, laughs, and ignores*

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.

No, my argument is that the SCOTUS make the right legal ruling, and "Congress is incompetent" isn't a sound legal basis.

Continued next post...(this new skin needs more characters allowed).

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

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.

You may know something I don't know here. I'm not sure what their entire array of legal options were here.

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.

Nobody's ignoring anything. You can type until your blue in the face, but again, it's not the SCOTUS' job to make the DOJ's job easier. It's they're job to interpret the law. The DOJ can still issue injunctions, it's just that they will be playing catch up now.

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.

Yeah, if you divide the period since the VRA was implementing in 1964 into 3 parts, in the 2nd part, the DOJ only objected to 1.2 proposed changes. In the 3rd part only 0.6. The objection rate has been less than 0.1 in the last 10 years. Meanwhile, there's circumstantial evidence that the 2000 election was stolen based on fukkery in Florida, and the 2004 was stolen based on fukkery in Ohio. This happened while the DOJ was processing regulatory paperwork for states no one gives a fukk about like Mississippi and Alabama. The policy doesn't match reality today. Which is what the SCOTUS said.

Florida was not free from preclearance, some districts, were covered.

I know. Only 5 counties were.

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.

Which is why there be uniform, universal preclearance requirements.

Last, your arguments about Mississippi and other states having higher percentages of black registered voters is encompassed by the dissent's point:

Those states have gotten on relatively good behavior due to the preclearance requirements. You pointed out those isolated cases in southern states in your previous post, but the reality is attempted voter suppression in most of the preclearance states is negligible. You would've been better off citing the lack of fukkery in those states to try and make your case at how effective the preclearance requirements have been. Meanwhile, states like Ohio and Florida have been going ham.

At the end of the day, the shyt isn't that big of a deal. I don't know you're acting all alarmist by this. Surely you could focus your passion elsewhere. The VRA still stands. The DOJ still gets to issue injunctions. It's just harder for them now. Nobody's issuing any literacy tests. They're just doing shyt like requiring voter ID and shortening early voting hours.

Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, and Tennessee have voter ID laws. Acceptable non-photo ID is required in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington. Arizona, Ohio and Virginia and a few other states pending approval.

I'm sure it's done to suppress the black vote in NC because NC has a lot of black voters and many don't have IDs. It's being challenged in court. We'll see what happens.

"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.

It's pretty clear what I said. I don't need you to try and filter it. Tell the people in your Democratic party to get to work on a modern-day preclearance system. Crises precipitate change. I for one, hope there are more and more North Carolina-like laws implemented, so then hopefully we can speed up a voting regulation procedure that reflects today's world. If your party can't turn this into political capital, then they deserve all the criticism they get for not caring about black people.

 

[theworldismine13]

should we lose sleep over people trying to manipulate voter turnout?

I'm thinking yeah maybe a little we should be worried that no one is going to put up the good fight. When should we start worrying? When districts are set up so that the minority vote is watered down?

sure you should lose lose sleep when people try to manipulate voter turnout and they are successful, but overall the efforts to suppress minority voters have failed and a lot of the places where there are trying to do it are not covered by the pre clearance law

im not saying it isnt an issue, im just saying the SC decision has to be put in its proper perspective in that these efforts where going on regardless and the pre clearance section was obtuse, the SC decision was not a great tragedy becuase if the pre clearance would have been kept it would not have stopped a lot of the voter laws

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Damn @BarNone how you let Kool G Trap shyt on you like that?

 

[Rekkapryde]

I have long said that I would have rather had Obama save his blurb about the Trayvon Martin verdict and address this issue, because it seems many Black people aren't even aware our civil rights are under open attack.

What he gonna do? Make NC politicians or the congressmen who let this shyt expire (again, you know who) changed their mind? They know they are a dying breed and are doing everything they can to keep hope alive for their fukkery. The end is near for these closed minded closet racists clowns and they know it. But there is NOTHING Obama could have done to stop them.

Even if Obama brought it up, they were going to do what they were gonna do regardless. Sad shyt is, while they trying to shyt on blacks, it also will fukk over more of their base as well.

@rodimusprime brought this shyt up on one of his podcasts a few weeks back and all I could do was at the shyt they were doing.

 

[No1]

Department of Justice Files Suit Against Texas Voting Law
Attorney General Holder announced the Department is suing Texas over the state’s new voter ID law and 2011 redistricting maps.

By Maya Rhodan @m_rhodanAug. 22, 2013

19 Comments

Follow @TIMEPolitics

The Department of Justice announced Thursday it will be filing a lawsuit against the state of Texas, the Secretary of State and the director of the state’s Department of Public Safety over its newly implemented voter identification law. The Department is also filing a motion to intervene as a party in a redistricting case in the state.

In July, the Justice Department asked a court in Texas to “bail-in” the state under Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act, which would require the state to gain permission from the DOJ before enacting new voting laws. The Department’s latest action against the state says Texas’ voter ID law violates both Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th and 15th Amendments.

“We will not allow the Supreme Court’s recent decision to be interpreted as open season for states to pursue measures that suppress voting rights,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

In 2012, a federal court in Washington found the Texas voter ID law and the redistricting plans to be discriminatory against certain race and language groups. In June, however, when the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, the decisions of the court were thrown out. Section 4 determined what states needed to seek permission from the federal government before enacting new voting laws, and without it Texas and 14 other states with a history of voter discrimination are free to enact voting laws without federal pre-clearance.

Just hours after the announcement of the decision, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the redistricting maps and voter ID law, which originally passed in 2011, would take effect immediately.

The Justice Department’s suit against the law says it was enacted to prevent people of certain race and minority language groups from voting, and asks that Texas be bailed-in to the preclearance requirements under Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act. The Department also contends that the state’s 2011 redistricting maps were designed for the same purpose—to prevent certain minority groups from voting. In that case, the Department is also seeking to bail-in Texas under Section 3.

“We are determined to use all available authorities, including remaining sections of the Voting Rights Act, to guard against discrimination and, where appropriate, to ask federal courts to require preclearance of new voting changes,” Holder said. “ This represents the Department’s latest action to protect voting rights, but it will not be our last.”

North Carolina, whose governor recently signed sweeping voting provisions into law last week, is likely to face similar scrutiny in the coming months.



Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/2...-suit-against-texas-voting-law/#ixzz2cj83YSj8

@Brown_Pride @Serious @Kool G Trap @theworldismine13 So it begins....

 

[Momentum]

Hey North Carolina, you're next

 

[88m3]

state governments need to be thrown in the bushes