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

[theworldismine13]

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....

this is the way its suppose to work, the courts should decide whether the laws are discriminatory or not, not some DOJ bureaucrat

 

[Brown_Pride]

this is the way its suppose to work, the courts should decide whether the laws are discriminatory or not, not some DOJ bureaucrat

the law is set up so that the DOJ has jurisdiction over the "opt-in".

Like I said in that other thread, what's going to happen now is that each clause will get taken to the SC and each clause we be whittled away. the VRA will be a hollow shell before long and congress isn't going to do a damn thing.

 

[theworldismine13]

the law is set up so that the DOJ has jurisdiction over the "opt-in".

Like I said in that other thread, what's going to happen now is that each clause will get taken to the SC and each clause we be whittled away. the VRA will be a hollow shell before long and congress isn't going to do a damn thing.

and like i said, im not losing sleep over it

 

[Brown_Pride]

and like i said, im not losing sleep over it

and like i said when are you going to? When you can't vote? Or when large masses of other's can't. For someone who is all about "black plight" and what not you sure seam to not give two fuks when black rights are being attacked.

 

[theworldismine13]

and like i said when are you going to? When you can't vote? Or when large masses of other's can't. For someone who is all about "black plight" and what not you sure seam to not give two fuks when black rights are being attacked.

im a strategist, im not a wild animal that attacks blindly, i attack and plan battles that are the most effective and efficient at meeting set goals, this whole voter suppression thing is not that important, its pathetic and not very effective at suppressing votes and none of these laws are stopping anybody from voting

like ive said before any negro in the united states that doesnt have a state id should be slapped

 

[Brown_Pride]

im a strategist, im not a wild animal that attacks blindly, i attack and plan battles that are the most effective and efficient at meeting set goals, this whole voter suppression thing is not that important, its pathetic and not very effective at suppressing votes and none of these laws are stopping anybody from voting

like ive said before any negro in the united states that doesnt have a state id should be slapped

voter suppression hasn't worked very well since the law was put in place because...wait for it...
.
.
.
THATS WTF THE LAW WAS DESIGNED TO DO.

Clearly you didn't read the dissenting opinion.
The whole umbrella analogy was dead on. You want to fold up the umbrella cause you ain't getting wet. out of curiosity what is your "end game" then and how does NOT VOTING play into that?

 

[theworldismine13]

voter suppression hasn't worked very well since the law was put in place because...wait for it...
.
.
.
THATS WTF THE LAW WAS DESIGNED TO DO.

Clearly you didn't read the dissenting opinion.
The whole umbrella analogy was dead on. You want to fold up the umbrella cause you ain't getting wet. out of curiosity what is your "end game" then and how does NOT VOTING play into that?

again, the law is still there, the SC did not change the law it just deleted one particular section that was obtuse and outdated

the end game is to make all negro's get their ID and focus on economics and education

 

[Box Cutta]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/u...l-bans-on-voting-by-felons.html?rref=homepage

Holder Urges States to Lift Bans on Felons’ Voting
By MATT APUZZOFEB. 11, 2014

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. called Tuesday for the repeal of laws that prohibit millions of felons from voting, underscoring the Obama administration’s determination to elevate issues of criminal justice and race in the president’s second term and create a lasting civil rights legacy.

In a speech at Georgetown University, Mr. Holder described today’s prohibitions — which in some cases bar those convicted from voting for life — as a vestige of the racist policies of the South after the Civil War, when states used the criminal justice system to keep blacks from fully participating in society.

“Those swept up in this system too often had their rights rescinded, their dignity diminished, and the full measure of their citizenship revoked for the rest of their lives,” Mr. Holder said. “They could not vote.”

Mr. Holder has no authority to enact the changes he called for, given that states establish the rules under which people can vote. And state Republican leaders made clear that Mr. Holder’s remarks, made to a receptive audience at a civil rights conference, would not move them.

“Eric Holder’s speech from Washington, D.C., has no effect on Florida’s Constitution, which prescribes that individuals who commit felonies forfeit their right to vote,” said Frank Collins, a spokesman for Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican.

The speech by Mr. Holder reflects his role as the president’s leading voice on civil rights issues. Mr. Obama has spoken only sporadically about race during his presidency, approaching the subject gingerly.

But Mr. Holder has made racial inequities a consistent theme, and in recent months he has made it clear he sees criminal justice and civil rights as inescapably joined.

He has sued Texas and North Carolina to overturn voter-identification laws that studies show are more likely to keep minorities and the poor from voting. He is pushing Congress to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. And he has encouraged low-level drug criminals sentenced during the crack epidemic to apply for clemency.

“On all the issues that he’s framed, he’s put these two themes together and he sees them very much as intertwined,” said Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, a research group that favors more liberal sentencing policies. “The criminal justice system is the civil rights issue of the 21st century. He hasn’t used those words, but that’s what I hear when I listen to him.”

Mr. Mauer said Mr. Holder was the first attorney general to advocate repealing voting bans. The Justice Department said it knew of no other attorney general who did so.

Like mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine offenses, laws banning felons from the voting booth disproportionately affect minorities. African-Americans represent more than a third of the estimated 5.8 million people who are prohibited from voting.

Nearly every state prohibits inmates from voting while in prison. Laws vary widely, however, on whether felons can vote once they have been released from prison. Some states allow voting while on parole, others while on probation.

Some states require waiting periods or have complicated processes for felons to reregister to vote. In Mississippi, passing a $100 bad check carries a lifetime ban from voting.

In four states — Florida, Iowa, Kentucky and Virginia — all felons are barred from the polls for life unless they receive clemency from the governor.

“This isn’t just about fairness for those who are released from prison,” Mr. Holder said. “It’s about who we are as a nation. It’s about confronting, with clear eyes and in frank terms, disparities and divisions that are unworthy of the greatest justice system the world has ever known.”

Mr. Holder’s statements carry little political risk. Congress could pass a law guaranteeing felons the right to vote, but similar proposals have failed before and the Obama administration has not advocated similar legislation, despite Mr. Holder’s comments.

Studies show that felons who have been denied the right to vote were far more likely to have voted for Democrats than for Republicans. In 2002, scholars at the University of Minnesota and Northwestern University concluded that the 2000 presidential election “would almost certainly have been reversed” had felons been allowed to vote.

In Florida, the state that tipped that election, 10 percent of the population is ineligible to vote because of the ban on felons at the polls, Mr. Holder said.

In 2011, Governor Scott required felons to wait five years after completing their sentence before they can apply to vote again.

“For those who are truly remorseful for how they have wrecked families and want to earn back their right to vote, Florida’s Constitution also provides a process to have their rights restored,” said Mr. Collins, the governor’s spokesman.

In Iowa, felons can apply to the governor to restore their voting rights if they can prove they have paid their fines and court costs.

“Iowa has a good and fair policy on restoration of rights for convicted felons,” said Jimmy Centers, a spokesman for Gov. Terry E. Branstad, a Republican. “We don’t have any plans to change the process.”

Kentucky, however, is considering changing its Constitution to allow some felons the right to vote. The proposal passed the Democratic-led House last month, and Republicans, who control the Senate, have indicated a willingness to consider it.

Gov. Steven L. Beshear of Kentucky, a Democrat, says felons — except for violent offenders and sex criminals — should get to vote again once their sentences are complete. He supports the proposal being considered in the Senate, his spokeswoman said Tuesday.

In general, state laws have become more lenient toward felon voting over the past two decades as crime decreased and voters cared less about tough-on-crime policies. More recently, liberal Democrats have found allies among civil libertarians as the Tea Party movement gained momentum.

Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and possible presidential candidate, has endorsed his state’s effort to give felons the right to vote. He has also joined Mr. Holder in calling for reducing the prison population and an end to mandatory minimum sentences for low-level drug crimes.

“His vocal support for restoring voting rights for former inmates shows that this issue need not break down along partisan lines,” Mr. Holder said of Mr. Paul.

I've always felt like this was one of the most racist policies in the US. Lock us up, take away our voting rights, take away our political power.

I hope the administration really pressures states on this issue.

 

[88m3]

 

[Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson]

erik holeder is a uppidy yella no good negro. he shood be focus on stoppin messicans from comin ova da borda and keepin da bla panthas from bullyin whie folts at da poles. he wood be a felon hisself if it wuzint fuh afumative atshun.

 

[无名的]

I'd rather see a law that expunges non-violent felonies (drug crimes) from records or at least reportable records after a certain period of time, so people can seek and obtain meaningful employment because otherwise, they're going right back to the same lifestyle and eventually, back to prison.

 

[Strapped]

Sometimes I feel holder is on the coli & spying on me

 

[Jhoon]

a step in the right direction.

 

[you're NOT "n!ggas"]

Holder is getting too real

 

[Box Cutta]

Sometimes I feel holder is on the coli & spying on me

Given this administration, he probably is....