E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA central part of election law dating back to the historic civil rights struggles of the 1960s could be scrapped or curtailed in the coming months as a critical case makes its way through the courts.
The fate of a key part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is now being decided by the federal appeals court in Washington, as a three-judge panel weighs an appeal from Shelby County, Ala. asking the court to find that Congress exceeded its power when it renewed section 5 of the law in 2006.
Under section 5, nine states, mostly in the South but also including Alaska and Arizona, and dozens of counties and townships in other states, must get permission, or “preclearance,” from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington for any change in voting procedures, no matter how small, that they seek to make.
Just last month, the Justice Department used its section 5 power to block South Carolina’s law that would have required voters to show photo identification before they cast their ballot.
Why would section 5 of the VRA – which Congress renewed for another 25 years in 2006 -- be unconstitutional?
Because, said Shelby County’s lawyer Bert Rein during oral argument Thursday before the appeals, the formula used to determine which states are covered by section 5 is “archaic” – based on voter turnout and registration data from 1972 -- and the flagrant racial intimidation and discrimination in voting procedures that prevailed in those states when the law was written in 1965 and renewed in 1970, 1975, and 1982, no longer exists.
Rein said, “Use of old numbers doesn’t work…. There’s something amiss in the formula.” Judge Stephen Williams seemed sympathetic to that line of reasoning and pointed out during the oral argument that under the 25-year extension of section 5, section 5 coverage will be determined by voting data that will be 59 years old by the final year of that extension.
Rein’s argument was that Congress’s decision to impose section 5 on states such as Alabama for another 25 years wasn’t proportional to the problems in those states which, he contended, might be addressed through case-by-case litigation, as the Justice Department does in the other 41 states, using a different section of the Voting Rights Act, section 2, which bans any election procedure that denies people the right to vote on account of race or color.
When the House voted to renew expiring sections of the Voting Right Act in 2006, three Republican members from Georgia and Texas proposed amendments that would have limited the extension of the expiring provisions to ten years, rather than 25 years, and would have made it easier for states and other jurisdictions to show a record of non-discrimination and thus be freed from section 5 oversight. Those amendments were defeated on the House floor.
Overshadowing Thursday’s appeals court argument was the Supreme Court’s decision in a 2009 Texas case, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One vs. Holder. In that decision the court expressed doubts about the continued need for section 5, noting that “voter turnout and registration rates now approach parity” between whites and blacks in the section 5 states.
Judge David Tatel complained to Justice Department lawyer Sarah Harrington during Thursday’s argument that the Justice Department brief made no mention of the 2009 Northwest Austin decision, saying the brief “doesn’t engage it; it doesn’t cite it…. Is that because you don’t think we’re bound by Northwest Austin?”
Harrington answered, in effect, that, no, that’s not the Justice Department’s position, but that section 5 is still good law and necessary public policy, under prior Supreme Court decisions. Tatel repeatedly pressed Harrington on how the Northwest Austin decision should guide the court in the Shelby County case.
But Rein came under pressure, too. Judge Thomas Griffith asked him what evidence of discriminatory practices in the section 5 states Congress had before it when it decided to reauthorize the law in 2006. “You’re not arguing that (Congress had no evidence), are you?” Griffith asked.
When Rein replied: “We believe the evidence was equivocal,” Griffith implied that assessing that evidence was the job of Congress, asking, “Isn’t that fundamentally a legislative task?”
Griffith asked Rein what would happen in the nine states if section 5 were removed, seeming to imply that discrimination might return.
“I’m not able to make that kind of prediction,” said Rein.
“But Congress is,” replied Griffith, seeming to signal his skepticism about having the court substitute its judgment for that of Congress.
Responding to Rein’s portrait of conditions in the section 5 states as being completely different today from what they were in 1965, Harrington said things have gotten better in those states, but “things have not gotten better enough.”
Election law expert Dan Tokaji at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law said, “If I had to speculate on how this panel rules, I’d say they’d uphold section 5,” but he added “there’s a very good chance it will get to the Supreme Court.”
Leave a Comment:
New Gingrich needs to "run not walk" to the closest ANGER MANAGEMENT CLASSE ASAP...he has an uncontrollable temper which is scary if he ever takes CONTROL of the USA...can you imagine him trying to negotiate with Dignataries of other World Countries......? He'd BOMB rather than NEGOTIATE becuz that word is just NOT in his vocabulary...his past political goofs should be proof of that... And here is a guy who talks about FAMILY VALUES (as do the rest of these fanatic right wing Evangelical candidates ) and he's proven to lie about this and Yes, his past behavior, private and personal will and does reflect on his "running" for President ..so WAKE UP GOP...is this Weirdo really the guy you want to put up against OBAMA???? Obama will beat him HANDS DOWN every time...
with a supreme court that is not accountable they can vote anyway they want .. try to impeach one of them would be impossible .. this country needs S C Justices thet are not connected in any way to either political party and are free from the lobbies and special interest groups that seem to be influenceing their decisions over the last 4 years ... Justice Scalia and Thomas were recently treated to a dinner as guests of honor .. of the law firm that will try to overturn the affordable health care act ... justice Thomas wife is a lobbiest ,, our country is going down a slippery slope and corrupt Supreme Court Justices that are now legislateing from the bench should be reined in
It is ironic that the Right has loudly and often accused the Liberal Judges of making law based on their politics and not the Constitution. Nothing can compare with what this far Right Wing five in this Court are capable of when it comes to making law from the bench.
I don't give a @!$%# what they say, Corporations are not people and money is property, not speach.
The only way to eventually get rid of these guys is to keep voting Democratic until they are out of there. I'm not all that keen about either party but the Republicans have entirely dumped their Conservatism in favor of Fascism.
Its kinda ironic that the Supremes would consider money to be "free" speech. I thought that one of the tenets of free speech was the idea that it didn't cost anything, or that one's speech should not go unheard due to the din of anothers' . So if free speech is free, why do you need money--except to amplyfy the speech so it drrowns out all others. So much for the market place of ideas.
Jeanne, you must realize that the GOP has be come the party of the angry. They are looking for a candidate to express that anger, and Newt fits that to a tee. Much of modern conservatism is based on fear, and that play hand in hand with anger. So until we can raise the aggregate education level, to increase tolerance and reduce the fear of change that is endemicwith modern society, we will have to deal with a segment of the population that responds to that fear with anger and hatred. Life is not going to slow down, the pace of change is not going to slow down; so since we can not go back to the leisurely pace of the 1950's, the only path forward is to educate people to manage the change. Until then there will just be some people who are bitter and angry at everything that is outside their nostalgic comfort zone.
Without statistics, it's hard to determine what's proper. I find it hard to believe that Congress passed a 25 year extension without a review of the record, but then Congress isn't exactly the 'brightest crayon in the box' these days.
Times are changed for the better and a 25 year extension in 2006 was a cop out so that Congress could adjourn for vacation. The rule is being used today for political gain, not helpful for regular people.
Hmmmm. Let the south go back to deciding the criteria for elections on their own. After the racist remarks evoked standing ovations in South Carolina, I'm finding it a little tough to believe that they have redeemed themselves from their previous bigoted voter suppression urges.
Leave the law alone. If anything, the federal government needs to take a stronger stance on making sure any U.S. citizen, ID or not, can vote if they want to.
The voter fraud argument is a very poorly and easily debunked straw man, cooked up by a party that knows it's losing it's relevance in the face of a more intelligent electorate.
If you're too lazy or too dumb to figure out how to register to vote and get a free ID then just maybe we shouldn't be counting on your judgement as to who should be the Mayor of your town, or State Representative, or Senator or President....The Dems are counting on people voting for the candidate that promises them the most free stuff....It's the Democrat Party's Peter Principle.....The Candidate that promises to take from Peter and give to Paul will always have enough Paul's to keep them in office. All you have to do is look at the Democrat Strongholds to see that I am right.
If money is free speech, and we don't have any money then we don't have free speech. They finally admitted that in this country if you want to be free, then you need money.
You're not only wrong but willfully ignorant as well.
HOW FITTING !! A person from a STATE (Indiana) where just yesterday a Legislator proposed a LAW that
would FINE OR IMPRISON ANYONE for "embellishments or deletions" during the performance of THE NATIONAL ANTHEM...!
That's right, forget a word GO TO JAIL...
sustain a note GO TO JAIL
change a quarter-note to an eighth? GO TO JAIL
sing in any language but AMERICAN ENGLISH...GO TO JAIL
sing a note flat or sharp..GO TO JAIL
I posit that INDIANA is entirely made up of the IGNORANT,
kids in the Northern half of the state think that they live in
MICHIANA !
Kids in the Southern half think THEY live in
KENTUCKYANA
...and you want to be our latex salesman....
Mister Fids.....Why would you make such untrue statements, as to how the bill reads, in an attempt to Disparage another Viner and the whole State he lives in.....Shame on you. ...And you also failed to mention that 2 of the BLUEST States, Massachusetts and Michigan.....already have such laws on the books.....
"Indiana Senator Vaneta Becker is pushing
a bill to impose a $25 fine on anyone who deviates from a set of standards
in performing "The Star-Spangled Banner" at events sponsored by public schools
and universities. According to Becker, the bill is not intended to punish those
who may flub a note or two while singing the national anthem. "It’s not like
we’re going after anyone’s ability to sing," Becker said in an interview
yesterday. "It’s more that we just want them to respect the words and the tune
as it was originally intended and we normally sing it."
"If this bill passes in Indiana, it would not be the first state law strictly
governing the performance of the national anthem. Massachusetts has a law
imposing up to $100 in fines for playing the song "as dance music, as an exit
march or as part of a medley." Michigan prohibits anyone from performing the
song in a public space except in its entirety and "without embellishment."
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/indiana-senator-pushes-bill-to-fine-singers-who-alter-star-spangled-banner-20120105
P.S.....No JAIL time is ever mentioned. You owe an apology....
Mike in Delray
This shows how disconnected the Far Right has become from reality. All the BS talk about personal freedom goes down the drain with idiotic laws like the one proposed. Don't we have FAR MORE IMPORTANT things to deal with?
Section 5 will be upheld. Several of the Section 5 states are currently passing bills that restrict voter rights and are discriminatory. They still need to be monitored.
Re-Elect Obama 2012
you are so correct, here in Texas we fall under section 5. Texas has started Voter ID, limited early voting, limited absentee, and no more same day registration. Plus there is a legal battle over 5 new districts due to population growth here. Everyone drew their own lines but Texas has to get approval from feds...
It's still beyond me how requiring people to prove who they are when they vote is discriminatory. Everyone has equal access to getting legal ID. It doesn't even have to be a drivers license, it can be just a state issue id card, which quite a few states give out for free anyways.
This has nothing to do with age, race, or anything else. What it does have to do with is liberals realizing how much fraud has been committed in the name of their party, and them not wanting it to stop.
How about this, I'll just register as a Democrat, and then the next time I'm asked for my ID for anything, I'll tell them to get f*cked, that I'm a Democrat and they are racist, full of hate and bigotry!
It needs to be expanded. Other states, Kansas for instance, also have new voter ID laws in preparation for the next election. You reduce turnout for poor and minorities and you get an instant Republican advantage. As if they need any help in Kansas...
AlexM ... until about 40 years ago there were thousands of poor people Black and white that were born at home every year ..people that could not afford doctors or hospitals .. had no education or knowledge of the law .. the parents of thousands of Americans never knew how or didnt have the opportunity to register their children .. your post shows your ignorance and your tone shows your bigotry
Jim, and exactly how do these people exist without any proof of who they are.
You have to have a license to drive, a S.S. number to work...can you please explain??
Bigotry is something you should learn the definition of instaed of throwing it around as an insult.
So bill, you assume all poor and minority people are democrats?
No poor or minority person in the state have ever driven, worked, attended school, purchased alcohol or tobacco products.....
Really?
Hard as it may be to comprehend, I have met MANY ppl who do not have a shred of ID and each circumstance is different. In the 80's when I traveled the south, I met ppl who could neither read nor write! It blew my mind! Some were the children and grandchildren of ppl who were born on somebody's plantation so there was no record of their birth. To this day; they use a system whereby if they want groceries for example; they pick out the food they want and "make their mark" (usually an X) and the grocer runs a tab. Admittedly, these ppl are very rural and most are black. I have a bible that my spouse gave me that belonged to her father and it has several columns of names which once served as birth certificates. I cannot say that such is the case everywhere or even ANYWHERE else in this nation, but I actually did run into those who faced with having to produce an ID to get a state ID, they could not prove who they are! (I can't imagine not knowing how to read or write; can't fathom it!)
Just curious, what states have taken action to restrict voting rights? What have they done to restrict such rights? The fact is that no one buys the lies from the left anymore. Only libs think that requiring a valid ID restricts rights. By definition, requiring such ID can't restrict any rights. All states give out photo IDs for free if a person can't afford the $1.00 fee. If a person can't establish that they have the right to such an ID with the state then they aren't being denied any rights to vote because they don't exist.
I do find it funny that libs assume that the ones who are being denied the right to vote with such requirements are libs. Apparently they are correct in assuming that libs are too stupid to go get an ID so they can vote. No one makes that kind of an assumption of conservs, If I were a lib I'd be offended by the assumption that libs always make that they are too dumb to take care of themselves and too dumb to think for themselves. But, it might just be that libs aren't smart enough to realize that that is what they are being told by the lib powers that be.
The other thing I don't understand is why libs don't support the rights of legitimate voters to have their votes count. When you vote don't you want your vote to count? If there is a local election in a small town with 1000 eligible voters wouldn't you feel your voting rights were denied if the candidate who opposes the candidate that you support shows up with buses of people from another town to vote for them? Or, do you think that is only something your side would do?
Re-Elect Obama 2012..(#2)..."Section 5 will be upheld"
Read this and weep....The end of Section 5 is near
"The U. S. Supreme Court overturned the San Antonio court
redistricting map this morning, opined that the court must give much greater
deference to the legislative map, and remanded the case for further proceedings
in the San Antonio court. The ruling was per curiam, meaning that it was
unsigned. There were no dissents to the ruling, and there was a concurring
opinion from Justice Thomas stating that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
(VRA) was unconstitutional."
http://llbl.blogspot.com/2012/01/supreme-court-rules-on-texas.html
I wonder how much money Thomas got THIS time for opining that Sec 5 of the voting rights act was unconstitutional. This guy has made LOTSA money from "conservative" people and organizations (then tried to hide it) and then voted in favor of the causes championed by these people and organizations!! When the DEMs take back the house, there should be an impeachment inquiry.
Tom in NH-294381
Or maybe, as in other things he has written, he's sick and tired of Eric "My People" Holder and others that keep blaming melanin as a genetic factor in peoples inabilities to do what the rest of the population is quite capable of doing....Have you read Justice Thomas's book "My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir"....an insight to his beliefs...or are you content to brush him off as an Oreo ??
witch runner all states do not give state ids for free.the last time i got one in cal it was 10$.get your facts straight.
Jpeg ... in PA all you need for a drivers license is to have proof of residency and pass the drivers test ....My sisters husband had no birth certificate all he had was a note in his churches baptisimol records and a social security number .. 50 years ago you could walk into the local ss office and get a ss # without proof of anything ... you can serve in the armed forces without a birth certificate Jpeg you probably have had family members that had no birth certificate ..almost every one does or did ..I dont throw the word Bigot around .. I also know the definition of a bigot and it should be taken as an insult .. if you dont believe it is an insult what does that say about you
Mikey. it seems YOU have brushed off the unethical and possibly illegal activities of Justice Thomas and his apparant partiality towards "conservative" causes! Remember, for MOST of his public life, he was a POLITICIAN and NOT a judge! And he's always been a rather slick individual who wont give no matter what UNLESS he is forced to. Perhaps it is time for him to be FORCED to explain his financial/political dealings!
ted patrick.....Wow...10 bucks......that's less than a pack of cigarettes in NYC.....or a 2-6 packs pack of beer anywhere....now, what's more important.....Newports or Voting.....Budweiser or voting ??
Ted, you obviously can afford the fee. Did you tell them you'd like an id but can't afford the $10? I doubt it.
I'm in Arizona, we are a section 5 state too....
Right wing Republicans have stepped up their attacks on all majority Democrat demographic groups rights in every state they can, including Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio. Minorities, the elderly, college students, union workers, voter registration organizations, and registration convenience rules and facilities are all under attack.
The anti-government and anti-democracy movement in America is growing and becoming more and more intrusive. The perpetrators still yell about communism (RIP) and fear monger socialism while resorting to fascism. In Michigan, state government in the executive branch has been given dictatorial power over local governments and has nullified the local elected order in six cities so far - mayor and councils stripped of their prerogatives and authority. Local citizens in those jurisdictions have no government but a bureaucrat, under the authority of the governor. The system functions like a communist collective of urban centers.
Hugo Chavez would love to see American Republican changes to government. He is familiar with the strategy.
Hmmm, last election there were 4 absentee ballots in my mailbox, 2 were for people who had moved a year before. What if I wasn't law abiding and just filled them out and fudged the names> In my state of CO everybody who is a registered voter is sent a ballot in the mail. No one ever checks on anything and this means deceased votors can vote and they have. This practice was started by the Democrat state house to make sure everyone got a chance to vote. This is so wrong. There have been attempts to stop this because it costs so bloody much but the dems defeated the measure. Everyone should produce a photo ID to vote, plain and simple. Jettison section 5 because it has been over 50 yrs and is not needed.
sumpthin' smells like poo-poo...oh i know, it's the teabaggin' 'publicans and the new laws the people wanted !!
No, I think it is the liberals crapping their pants over this decision!
Sorry,sending absentee ballots to addresses seems stupid. In my town you have to go to the town hall, get the ballot there and complete it at that time. You do not need an id but your name and address have to be on the rolls.For people wanting to vote for the first time there are frequent places to register all over the town,police,fire stations,library,and town hall.
Let's see.Who's for smaller Government,and who's for voter ID?
Who's for redistricting,and no recall elections?
Does anyone really think that big Government will go away with another ID card in your extended wallet?
Next time you will just get a chip from Digital Angel, and you won't need a card.
I have to show a picture i.d.(d.l.) to my elections comissioner (cousin) to prove who I am-for 17 years. What is wrong with identifying oneself to proper authorities.
Sounds like there may be a reason your cousin doesn't trust you? No, it's just plain stupid!
You have to show ID to cash a check, get drivers License, get a Visa. I know Demorats don"t like because it makes it harder for ACORN to dig up bodies to vote like last election.
yes unlike the repub/teabaggers who just had one of their own video tape himself committing voter fraud in NH! what amazes Me is the fact you repub/teabaggers claim Dems commit voter fraud but can not seem too see it as voter fraud when you commit it yourselves. do a little fact checking and the majority of voter fraud is on the repub/teabagger side of the fence.
WAKE UP REPUB/TEABAGGERS YOUR THE ONES WE NEED TO WATCH!!!!!!!!!!!!
oh and PS in My home state a simple state id cost $10
RAS, all those things you mention are acts of commerce that someone is setting the rules for and not rights. Every citizen has the right and duty to vote, and if requiring an ID infringes on that, it is not allowed.
Voting is not a privilege, it is an obligation! Anything that is done to restrict the ability of anybody to vote is unconstitutional! All states should be working to make voter turnout increase (i.e. easier), not trying to promote their own agenda (save their sorry asses). Get rid of all voting restrictions and do it now!!!
Even the dead? They always vote Democratic.
Showing ID does not restrict your right to vote. Sorry, some up with a new complaint because that joke is so unfounded it isn't even justifiable.
@Ed,
So you're saying it's fine that I have to show ID to buy beer, smokes or porn, I have to show ID when I get pulled over by a cop or if I want to buy a gun... But I shouldn't have to to vote?
If I shouldn't have to show ID to vote, which is one of our greatest rights in this country, then I don't think I should have to show ID for anything else in this country.
Shut up and drink some more kool-aid.
I have to show ID to vote.....but not to register to vote. I can, however, afford to have my licensed renewed every 6 years. Here in Maryland, it costs $40 to renew a driver's license. The cost of a state ID is not quite that high, but not far from it.
I would be happy to agree that every voter in the United States be required to show photo ID at the voting booth....as long as you agree that said ID be manufactured by the state and provided to ALL voters completely free of charge.
This screed about dead people voting is so funny, and so wrong. It seems lately the only vote fraud being committed is by the republicans. Nice....
Ed - You need to review a few words in the dictionary. Voting is NOT an obligation. I just don't see us rounding up everyone and forcing them to vote. Rounding up all the illegal criminal aliens yes but not enforcing a mandatory vote law.
How about no food-stamps if you don't vote or maybe no welfare if you don't vote?
FREE? EQUAL? I remember having to stand up when Daddy took me with him to pay bills on Fridays here in Ohio and we had to stand up when stopping in the Five and Ten to have a cold drink, instead of being allowed to sit in a pretty red booth; or only being allow to go skating on Monday night's and the closest ice cream parlor would be closed that night (wonder why?). I am thankful for the work of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement, believe me. But, I'm not truly free or equal when my right to vote has to be reconsidered every 25 years. I wondered if this Act applies to Naturalized Citizens from Black Nations? The power to change this is in Washington. Make all men and women FREE and EQUAL!
Any citizen, 18 years of age or older .. has (with few exceptions) the right ot vote. I agree with your comment about the contributions of Dr. King that enhance the lives of all, but showing an I.D. does not make you unequal or un-free.
Why would someone have to present an ID to vote. That is the dumbest idea ever. Why not force everyone to wear lightening rods on their heads at all times. That happens more often than vote fraud. Or, why allow people to drive? Thousands of times more people die in car crashes than commit vote fraud. And don't listen to this nonsense about ACORN. The republicants ain't happy unless they can find someone to make all the idiots in the country hate.
Your just not bright are you? Bye the way, ACORN has been caught on tape more then once.
John - You seem to have forgotten that you need to show a Driver's License in order to drive. So what is wrong with requiring one to vote?
Perhaps you want voting over the Internet? Now that would be a dumb idea.
I actually don't even trust these computors we vote with. I think there should be federal officials overseeing all of voting in America. With all this other junk going on you know technology has to be factored in. I think at least there should also be a paper trail that can be followed. It is sad but Big Money is involved in our politics now like it or not. Too much big money! I smell a skunk in these southern states. I mean we have all these holidays that don't hardly mean nothin. So why can't we have a national holiday once every 4 years and give everybody the opportunity to vote? I hate to say it but they don't want everybody to vote.
Don't worry, obama and the DNC have contracted the SEIU (American Communist Party) and ACORN to oversee the election results. MSNBC has already proclaimed obama the winner with 100 percent of the votes going for obama.
ACORN? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! They haven't existed for a long time! I can see Cluster Fox is still hiring dimwits to spread lies on any blog they can!
Sorry to rain on Pete's Kool Aid party, but ACORN changed their name and went on recruting dead voters and bussing paid voters among polling places.
In many cases, the "new" organization used the same offices, furniture and even phone numbers as ACORN. Not that the media tells anyone about it.
Abner Y
When you make criminal accustations, you need to show the proof. Otherwise, shut up.
Here you go, its from wiki with references on the wiki page.
ACORN is the epitome of corruption in America.
Watch out for that ACORN. One might fall on a teabagger and knock some sense into him.
Just WTH does ACORN have to do with this story? uuumm NOTHING! I love how when one side cant dispute the facts they simply, like a magician with a hat, try to direct your attention to somewhere else to deflect from the point at hand. ACORN has a long list of abuses and usurpation, but i dont see the bearing of that on the present story one bit.
ABner, I suppose you can prove that!! If you cant, you probly should retract it and apologize for posting falsehoods!
ACORN needs to start up again and issue "official" ID cards when they register voters. I am sure the Democrats in Congress and Obama can funnel some stimulus money their way.
It is obvious to everyone not a conservative that the GOP is dependent on FOCUS GROUPS like
ACORN
NAZIS
COMMIES
SOCIALISTS
COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS
LIBERALS
TREE HUGGERS
to scare their voter base...
you have to blame BIG GROUPS of people in conspiracy to get any traction with conservatives
because they simply are too damned dumb to believe that all there is to their voter fraud cases are
onesies & twosies and not thousands or TENS of THOUSANDS of fraudulent voters trying to usurp the GOP agenda...
The FUNNY THING IS.... there are NO CONVICTIONS & NO FRAUDS of that scale ANYWHERE in the USA..
BUT the GOP & it's cheerleaders are POSITIVE that massive voter frausd has been or WILL BE committed...
and the small government advocates with the smaller minds demand MORE LAWS not LESS & another Agency & another layer of bureaucrats .....for something that does not exist
VOTE EARLY & OFTEN is a REPUBLICAN response to any impending Democratic office win ..!
Its a right-wing court.
Which means the people's rights will be subverted for the good of the ultra rich and BIG BUSINESS.
I would like to know if I have to prove who I am and that I have the legal right to vote how that restricts my right to vote.
If you cant afford the picture ID the state forces you to pay for then you have been disenfranchised. Of course this has the affect of disenfranchising only one parties voters, which is why the vitriol of the fight. Let the state pay for those indigenous in their population to get an ID to prove who they are to vote and I have no issue with the idea. Until then, poor is not a reason to hold one from voting. This is America and every citizen of this country has the right to vote unless by due process of law that right has been withheld. Funny that is those who would most profess patriotism that are the first in line to take away this most basic of American rights!
And I am willing to bet that no Republican will squawk about providing ID to those who can't afford it. There. Case closed. Provide poor people with free Voter iD cards and then require that ID at the polls.
Its the fifteen to twenty five dollars it takes to get a proper state photo ID that is the problem for many poor people, those that have not had Photo ID in the past or need to renew because of redistricting. Many of these people are elderly and are all ready choosing between their meds and groceries. If states want to bypass section 5 mabe they should offer free picture Id,s to folks that have had their district changed and first time appliers . But that would nulify the voter restriction efforts of the the GOP
Sorry C.E.O....people without state issued I.D can get a voter I.D. free of charge.
If you want a state I.D or Driver's license, you pay like everyone else.
just another game Republicans are play, trying to stack the vote
yes, just like the dem's in N.Y. stuffing the ballot box with fraudulent absentee ballots.
Reminds me of the dead people in Chicago that vote Democratic each year.
Both parties gerrymander to produce an outcome favorable to their interest. The party with the most Supreme Court Justices that share the same political philosophy will determine the outcome of the redistricting. Section 5 states need to get the boot of the Justice department off their necks.
Too much potential for voter fraud, no ID or other form of indisputable proof of said voter then no vote.
The argument that poor and underprivaled do not have a few dollars to get an ID is baseless, what are they using in the form of identification to get government services.
Some of these states will NOT accept the usual ID cards such as a PHOTO ID card for university students or ID acceptable for health or social security services. THAT is the point.
Normal forms of ID that most of us would think acceptable are not what they are talking about. And it also discriminates against those with religious objections and those who are handicapped and have difficulty accessing those "new" requirements. Will YOU volunteer to pick up and drive every person down for a new ID? Why do you not know this?
pog - In Georgia the state said they would send someone to your home if you did not have a voter ID. Any photo ID is acceptable as long as it was prepared by a government agency.
There is NO photo ID for social security services.
Why this is even an issue is beyond me...it's even laughable. If your a "citizen" of this country you more than likely have id to prove that. It takes 2 seconds to show it at the door and then you vote. This isn't brain surgery people. It also prevents idiots from screwing up the election process. Geezus!
Details can be particularly devilish. Different states require different forms of ID. Regulations can change. And, as literacy tests showed not all that long ago, enforcement can be highly discretionary.
The need to retain section 5 is amply demonstrated by state laws that are specifically designed to target and impede voting by minorities and the poor (two groups which largely overlap as being a minority in this country makes one extremely vulnerable to being poor.)
States should be able to adopt laws specific to their in-state elections if they want, but elections for federal offices (President, Senator, Congressman) should be governed by federal law which is consistent throughout the country. Most states would not go to the expense of a two tiered system but if they decided they wanted to then the repercussions of discriminatory election laws would primarily be felt locally and not nationally.
Anita could you please cite a few of the "state laws that are specifically designed to target and impede voting by minorities and the poor?"
So the legal argument here by the State is, sure we used to disenfranchise black voters, but they cant prove we have done that in years now, so we should be allowed to find new ways to disenfranchise voters based upon socioeconomic class because that way we get the black voter and all the undesirable white voters too. Anyone missing that this fight to abolish the law isnt over the enfranchisement of people to vote, but to abolish the federal election law so South Carolina can find newer ways to keep people they dont like from voting? These fights by both sides of the partisan alley to get more of THEIR voters enfranchised to vote is the most ridiculous, un-American, unpatriotic things I can imagine...
South Carolina welcomes all legal voters. Your premise is faulty!
Proof of identification should be mandatory. It would eliminate voting fraud and make elections more legitimate. Anyone on either side of the aisle who supports honest elections should support this ideal.
Yeah, we should have a national photo ID card...or maybe numbers in tatoo form on our forearms...
This is in reply to @TheRealMerridian comment.
The point is that only legitimate voters should be allowed to vote; there is no need for anything but a picture ID which most people already have in the form of a driver's license, passport, TWIC card, state issued ID, etc. Anger does not address the issue that some people vote who are not qualified to do so or that some vote more than once during an election. We should ensure the people that are voted to represent us are the people we actually voted for and that the vote is as accurate as can be.
I don't see a problem in requiring a photo ID unless I want to cheat!
"Because, said Shelby County’s lawyer Bert Rein during oral argument Thursday before the appeals, the formula used to determine which states are covered by section 5 is “archaic” – based on voter turnout and registration data from 1972 -- and the flagrant racial intimidation and discrimination in voting procedures that prevailed in those states when the law was written in 1965 and renewed in 1970, 1975, and 1982, no longer exists."
You can't pay comedy writers to come up with better material than this.... Rein claims that there is no need to use the Voting Rights Act block the proposed discriminatory practices involved in voter ID requirements that disenfranchise 5% of the population, mostly minority, poor. and eldery, because the discriminatory practices that disenfranchised mostly minority, poor, and elderly voters in 1965 don't exist!?!?
When a law disenfranchises 5% of a population in a state that can't document more than .01% invalid votes in an election, somthing stinks! When people who have legally voted for 60 years can't meet the requirements of these voter ID laws, something stinks. When in Texas you can't use a student ID issued by a state university but you can use a license to carry a gun to vote, something stinks! The intent of these laws is so transparent, obvious, and despicable - shame on anyone who supports them.
There is absolutely no reason that all legal voters will not be able to vote if this law is repealed.
The thing that is vastly misunderstood is that while the idea of some identification to prove who you are sounds legitimate, at this time in the way it is being done and for obvious reason, that is to cut down the number of people that might vote democratic is clear.
The Republican party has got down in the dirt and IMHO, true conservatism has been dumped in favor of the power lust and the insane need to support the very people that are taking the nation down.
I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. If we are to have those with social agendas run the country as they see fit, something that presses on our freedom far away from where that crap gets started, then something is very wrong. We cannot say we are feee when a relative few can say what the majority should accept merely because it fits in with their religion or twisted political outlook.
Pippo - So you are saying that the Democrats are more likely to not have ID and therefore not vote?
Ridiculous, ID has nothing to do with your political party. If you board a plane, cash a check, use your credit card, go into a bar, buy cigarettes and on and on you need ID.
The democrats feel they have more illegally registered voters.
There is plenty of time to get an ID before the next election; most people have a picture ID already as it's required in many transactions for something as simple as cashing a check or driving a car.
You have to show ID to vote in person, but anyone using an absentee ballot does not show ID. People in nursing homes do not have to show ID. The whole ID thing is basically flawed, not fair across the board, and of course it discriminates against the poor and the elderly living at home. In Indiana, where the ID law was pushed by republicans, there had never been any serious charges or proof of fraud. The Supreme Court withheld the law, the State court called it unfair. It definitely is not applied to all voters in the same way. We all use our own ability to obtain ID as the guideline for others, and that is just not true.
I haven't heard of voter fraud initiated in nursing homes, but anyone in such a home has to have proof of who they are in order to be there; identification can be easily verified. The poor are not being discriminated in the least; they can get a state ID at no cost. As for absentee voting, that is a stickier issue, but addresses could be used to help ensure legitimate voters; if more than the amount of persons voted from one location, those votes could be verified. The problem is that when this law was passed there was obvious discrimination taking place during elections; today, both [major] sides claim there is voting fraud, and naturally claim that it takes place in favor of the opposing party. We have to make sure are elections are legitimate, or we will no longer have a democratic republic.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it highly ironic that many "red" states now have to get approval to make any voting changes from a Democratic Justice Department to ensure that discrimination that took place mainly under Democratic state governments don't happen again?
Mike - Excellent question! Makes one ponder the answer.
Here's another one for you. Any liberal out there care to explain why, in states that have voter ID laws, voter turnout along all economic and racial lines has INCREASED? Kind of shoots down the whole disenfranchised argument, doesn't it?
Did it ever occur to you that you don't need to have a chip in your forehead yet? They are putting them in one of your many new ID"s. Thanks for being naive about bigger Government.You might as well get chipped now. you fell for it,hook line and sinker.
How come liberals all believe that Southerners are just a bunch of hicks or rednecks, ignorant and uneducated?
And yet, still smart enough to figure out how to get a photo ID from their home state.
Seems to me you stigmatize old, poor and minorities when you imply that they aren't smart enough to figure out how to do the same thing that those ignorant, poor rednecks have SOMEHOW managed to do!
In my case,mike, it's because I live in a Southern state that has one of the lowest highschool graduation rates in the country...and obviously, one of the highest high school drop-out rates in the country. That's why I figure that.
The reason many believe that is because it's true. The South is all about talking big about freedom while they consistantly try to have government make laws to to force the country to live by their stupid beliefs.
NO THANKS!