E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images, file
U.S. Supreme Court members (first row L-R) Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, (back row L-R) Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito and Associate Justice Elena Kagan.
The U.S. Supreme Court this week will consider whether a landmark civil rights law, the Voting Rights Act, remains constitutionally valid, given the growth in the political power of minority voters and candidates.
Civil rights groups fear the court's conservatives are prepared to gut what the ACLU calls "the most important piece of civil rights legislation Congress has ever enacted."
The justices will hear oral arguments in the case Wednesday and rule sometime before the current court term ends in late June.
Passed by Congress in 1965 and renewed four times since then, most recently in 2006, a key provision of the law requires states with a history of discrimination at the polls to get federal permission before making any changes to their election procedures — from congressional redistricting to changing the locations of polling places.
The law was at the core of last year's successful efforts to block strict voter photo ID laws in Texas and South Carolina and to prevent Texas from redrawing its legislative and congressional boundaries in a manner that challengers claimed would have discriminated against minority voters.
"The last election vividly showed that voter suppression and voting discrimination are not just problems of the past. They continue to undermine our democratic process," says the ACLU's Steve Shapiro.
The challenge to the law comes from Shelby County, Alabama, a mostly white suburb south of Birmingham. It argues that the pre-clearance requirement — which covers nine entire states and 66 counties or townships in seven others — is unconstitutional.
The areas covered by the law, it says, include some localities that have made substantial reforms but leave out other parts of the country that have failed to root out discrimination at the polls.
"Florida has been forced into pre-clearance litigation to prove that reducing early voting from 14 days to 8 is not discriminatory, when states such as Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania have no early voting at all," says Bert Rein of Washington, DC, the lawyer for the county.
While the history of blatant discrimination at the polls justified renewing the law in the past, Shelby County says, Congress failed to marshal enough evidence in 2006 to justify extending it for another 25 years. "At most, the 2006 legislative record shows scattered and limited interference with voting rights, a level plainly insufficient" to sustain the pre-clearance requirement, Rein says.
Since 1990, adds Alabama’s Attorney General, Luther Strange, African Americans in the state have registered and voted in larger percentages than in states outside the South.
“African Americans hold seats in the legislature at percentages that are roughly commensurate with Alabama’s 26 percent African-American population,” Strange says.
But the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund says the current map is a close enough fit to cover the areas of greatest concern. "Congress is not a surgeon with a scalpel when it acts to legislate across the fivty states, but it can reasonably attack discrimination where it finds it," the group says.
If the law were struck down, civil rights groups fear the areas covered by the law would revert to their old habits.
Warns the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human rights, “There is a significant risk of backsliding and a likelihood that millions of minority voters will face new barriers to the exercise of their most fundamental human right.”
President Obama expressed a similar sentiment in a radio interview last week. If covered jurisdictions no longer had to defend their electoral changes in advance, Obama said, civil rights groups would be forced to file lawsuits after voting changes were already in place.
“There are some parts of the country where obviously folks have been trying to make it harder for people to vote. So generally speaking, you’d see less protection before an election with respect to voting rights,” Mr. Obama said.
The Justice Department, which is defending the law before the Supreme Court, argues that the coverage formula is flexible, allowing local governments to bail out of the pre-clearance requirement if they can demonstrate they have not discriminated against minority voters for at least ten years.
During the past three decades, 38 bailouts have been granted, freeing 196 local jurisdictions of the preclearance requirement, the Justice Department says. They include the first ever granted from parts of Alabama, Georgia, Texas, and Virginia, four of the states that are otherwise covered by the law.
Four years ago, the Supreme Court strongly suggested that several justices had doubts about its constitutionality, given recent electoral reforms. "Things have changed in the South," the court said in 2009. "Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare."
The court then went on to reject a constitutional challenge to the pre-clearance requirement, but it strongly suggested Congress should update the coverage formula. Because, however, no changes have since made, the court may prepared to go the rest of the way this time.
Leave a Comment:
It is absolutely still revelent and valid. A lot of states are still trying to block the vote or make it harder to vote. I hope they decide right, but they haven't been too good at that lately, with the exception of Obamacare being ruled constitutional.
Lois: I agree. I hope the Supreme Court upholds the 'Voting Rights Act' (which would be the right thing to do) but since they decided that corporations are people too I have my doubts.................
Really prove it or is this just a feeling? Illegal immagration is out of hand every, (don't deserve a vote) legal citizens have the right to vote, because they choose to be lazy then blame it on the law is pure crap, I hope they either over turn or modify the Law, like unions it had a purpose but now is not really necessary.
Discrimination is wrong and voter intimidation is illegal. Allowing states to enact common sense reforms like requiring identification to vote or to redistrict as they see fit makes sense. Requiring state to get approval because they MIght I repeat Might be bad is silly. Punish bad behavior not the possibility of behaving badly.
This law is a ticking time bomb and unnecessary. Minorities will be the majority in 25 years and these laws will be used to enslave white voters. Every single proposal Obama has made has been to the detriment of Conservative whites. Its why Democrats encourage illegals to flood America, they're not white illegals. If the illegals were Conservative Irish, there'd be an outcry from minorities.
Really? Tell that to the poll worker in Ohio who voted 6 times for Obama
Really Nana, no one has proven that yet! INNOCENT until proven guilty
however, it is time we had national election laws to keep these rouge states from stealing democracy.
Really Karl Rover, she admitted to voting atleast twice. SHE ADMITTED IT.
I wish they had the option of expanding it to Pennsylvania. Our minority voters' rights are under attack with unnecessary voter ID laws and coming soon an attempt to change our electoral college vote allocation.
There were, out of the huge voter population of the Cincinnati, Ohio, region, 20 voters who are being investigated. Except for this old gal who is a poll worker and may have voted her family member's absentee ballots as well, the 20 had done absentee voting - then went to polls to vote - votes which were DISCOUNTED, as the system caught the discrepancy.
Because it would mean the end of the gravy train. It's a scary concept when you're part of the third or fourth generation welfare crowd.
Voter ID laws are not discriminatory, nor do they keep people from voting. GA put ID laws in place a few years back, and there were ZERO instances of discrimination or people being denied the right to vote. The ID's were given out for free to legal residents.
While there may be some people out there that still hold racial views, the vast majority of us don't care what color you are. Voter ID laws are in place to protect everyone's vote. Not just white votes. The only people still holding onto race and dividing the country are the NAACP, and the rest of the Black Community. I listen to left leaning traditionally black talk radio, and race is brought up about every 30 seconds.
A poll worker in Ohio admits to having voted for Obama at least 6 times, and she doesn't see that as a problem. Just wanted to make sure her vote was counted, and those of a few others she felt would otherwise not have voted. Funny really, as most liberals deny there is such a thing as voter fraud.
So let the law be gutted, let Congressional/State legislative districts be re-drawn willy-nilly... And when the REPUBLICANS and CONSERVATIVES eventually end up on the "short end" -- let 'em squirm.
Get off the RACIST bandwagon, skibum. Unless y'all want to have the entire world see your own White Supremacist RACISM.
Oops, too late, you just put it out there for everyone to see.
@happytimes, I love how you and others with a like mind use those small numbers that get caught and say "Look, look the system works" like it actually means something. As with all things created by the hands and minds of people, the system is imperfect and there are cracks. Small ones to be sure, but a lot of people know where to find them and slip right through.
The biggest piece of crap in this room is that it happens on both sides, but the winning party will always deny it while the losing party cries about it (2000 Bush v Gore is the biggest prime example in recent history). Sorry, but the "progressive" thing to do would be to change the laws so that only the people born in/legally migrated to this country and no one else has the ability to vote for the laws and leaders for this country.
We MUST allow these changes in order to root out voter fraud, all of those less than 100 cases, so what if it disfranchises tens of thousands of voters. They weren't going to vote the right way anyhow.
They should strike down the provision that targets specific states which would force congress to either make it global to all states or not have it at all. I personally think it should be applied to all states equally.
The problem is that the VRA is being misused by people with an agenda to try and block things that have nothing to do with voting rights or attempts to keep people from voting. There is nothing discriminatory about requiring proper ID in order to vote. States that have implemented voter ID laws have not only not seen a drop in minority voting, they have seen increases. The fact that the liberal crowd misuses the VRA to block common sense changes is what is putting the law at risk of being thrown out. They use the VRA to force redistricting to ensure minorities win elections. This is not stopping discrimination, it is causing it. They should not be drawing districts to let minorities win any more than they should be drawing them to keep them from winning. Trying to claim that reducing the number of days for early voting is discriminatory was a crock. Since those with an agenda seem bent on misusing the law for their own purposes, the only option is to either rewrite it or throw it out. The VRA in it's current form has outlived its usefulness.
Another federal law that has out lived its purpose. The Voting Rights Act is discriminatory in its own right. This is the problem with laws passed by the Federal Government, once they are on the books rarely are they removed, even when proven they no longer serve a legitimate purpose.
The United States has came a long way since 1965 and all race related laws including The Voting Right Act, hate crime legislation, and affirmative action programs.
BTW, it is about 20 months before we have another major election, and I will bet the left wingers will still be complaining about voters being required to have a photo ID in order to vote. Come on people you have 20 months to get off your a$$es and get a picture ID Card, quit complaining.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
"The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too." --Oscar Levant
Bwhahahaa, omg, the hyperbole, it's hilarious.
There is no reason for the VRA to come off the books. If a state isn't attempting to perform shenanigans on their voting procedures, they have nothing to worry about with this law. In fact, the VRA should be expanded to include all 50 states.
got a link for that?
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2012/11/20/the-108-ohio-obama-voter-fraud-myth-and-the-recount-petition
Voting rights will only become relevant when voting actually has value.
So, it's "outdated", and is no longer needed..... Well, the U.S.A. has an excellent and very well equipped Military -- so the 2nd Amendment should no longer be needed.
Oh, and once y'all have that Voter I.D. thing in place, what'll be next -- Voter Tattoos or Voter Micro-chips? Strange how people so dead-set against COMMUNISM and everything connected with it can be so in favor of the one thing that every single COMMUNIST Nation has ever instituted: "Your Papers, Please".
To BrainiacV
What is the proper way to vote? with one person on the ballot?
President Obama wants to change the voting process. Computers, the Internet. How are we going to handle Voter ID, at that point this law becomes mute, but voter ID becomes the issue. DO you trust the Government to handle the security of this.
Brainiac's comment was sarcastic in nature. Yeah, it took me a while to see it, too.
And the GOP wants to gerrymander voting districts so the GOP has the advantage -- AND change the voting process so the GOP has the advantage. But yeah, all of that is MOOT (not "mute"), because of the new technology that is increasingly being used to cast and count votes.
But never mind whether Government will be able to handle the security of the new technology... Do you actually trust the Wall Street Corporations that "happen" to have politicians in their greedy hands to handle the security of their own machines?
If Alabama's blacks make up 26% of the populous than that tells me that not one white person in AL voted for Obama.....Now why would that be ?
Because it's Alabama, unlike Florida where we have our stuff together until election time.
Lois20721921 Comment collapsed by the community
It doesn't apply to every state, just those that had a problem 60 years ago. Just another antiquated law that is defended for reasons having little to do with it's original intent.
Wonder how Corporations (ruled people by the Supreme Court) are going to get a Voter ID? Also does the Supreme Court suggest that each Corporation could get a corresponding number of Votes dictate by the number of Employees at a point in time? Since the personnel within a Corporation already have Voting Privileges would not be two votes cast per each employee? Think about that possibility!
Maybe the next Election cycle will be one based on votes by Corporations rather than by everyday Voters? Remember Corporations and the 1% already have bought and own Congress.
I do a lot of mechanical work and therefore have a multitude of tools. Many are used only rarely. But one thing I know is that you never just throw away a tool. The same goes with the protection of the VRA. IF someone did vote multiple times, prosecute them. But it's clear from the hanky-panky in Ohio and Pennsylvania (and elsewhere) that there are still forces that see the road to power by controlling the process. Stalin said that the real power is not in the voters, it's in the vote counters. It's clear our process has some bugs and it's equally clear that the repugnicans want to disenfranchise the poor and minorities.
@DrowningGrover
Is the below sufficient evidence of voter fraud? An actual admission, by a Cincinnati voter. Or is an admission still insufficient for you?
Nana by the time they get around to looking at the voter fraud Obama will be on the lecture circuit and the files will be in the shredder.. Why is there such an uproar about having a valid ID and being registered legally?? Could it be that people are sick of the dead voting and all the ACORN fraud??
According to the article you posted , from the Rev. Moon owned news paper, the women and 18 others are being investigated. So if they are guilty, what happens? they go to jail.
Now the voter fraud of the 2000 election goes un-investigated, so what happens? Bush and Cheney live happily ever after with all the defence contractors they made rich. And Obama digs us out of their mess. So your complaining about what? about 19 people vs the actions of die-bold, and that Florida republican mafia that cheated Al Gore of his office?
I'm guessing you where out sick in third grade when they taught about "proportion and measurements". I really hope that i'm standing behind you , on line, when judgement day comes. i cant wait to hear your whining pleas for Mercy as God denies you.
"...voter suppression and voting discrimination are not just problems of the past"
Black Panthers with clubs, poll workers casting multiple votes, bribery, FRAUD.... just a typical day for a community organizer..........
The following snippet says it al about the Voting Rights Act and whether it has any relevance today:
"Florida has been forced into pre-clearance litigation to prove that reducing early voting from 14 days to 8 is not discriminatory, when states such as Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania have no early voting at all," says Bert Rein of Washington, DC, the lawyer for the county.
Apparently Mr. Obama and leaders in the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund think the affected states are GUILTY until proven innocent. This attitude from a president reputed to be a constitutional “scholar”. I wish Mr. Obama would offer some evidence of his claim “There are some parts of the country where obviously folks have been trying to make it harder for people to vote. So generally speaking, you’d see less protection before an election with respect to voting rights,” I don’t expect the president will show any such evidence, because he of course he can’t.
Worse yet, it seems clear that neither Mr. Obama or the NAACP think those they are claiming will be affected by freeing states to run their own elections are incapable of filing a complaint. If such an insinuation emanated from a conservative republican it would no doubt be plastered on the front page of the NY Times and Washington Post as a racist homily.
I guess the old concept of innocent until proven guilty codified in our Bill of Rights is anathema to the Obama administration. It seems to get in the way of their agenda. Unfortunately for Mr. ObamaI it seems the Supreme Court telegraphed its leanings back in 2009 with the following admonition:
“ several justices had doubts about its constitutionality, given recent electoral reforms. "Things have changed in the South," the court said in 2009. "Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare." It strongly suggested Congress should update the coverage formula.”
If the court rules favorably the affected southern states can modernize their voter registrations and provide documentation to all legal residents. Thats what truly frightens Obama.
The black panthers were responding to the tea parties threat to have thousands of poll watchers dispatched to thousands of black districts to intimididate voters. They didn't go into majority white districts to intimidate whites. The tea party were the aggressors. As for corruption most was GOP.
Timothy: Your ignorance is appalling. Your comments suggest President Obama is leading some personal crusade to protect this act which has been the law of the land since 1965. The best you have is some comments by Obama expressing a desire that elections be held fairly.
As the article notes people in Alabama have challenged this law and no where does it note any active effort by Obama to fight it. Believe it or not hundreds of cases make it to the supreme court every year and very few are sent there on behalf of the president whoever he currently happens to be.
Just FYI this act was enacted by Republicans not democrats. The Justice department is defending this law not because Obama ordered it but because they defend every federal law when challenged. It's their job.
sure, gut and revise our nation's voting rights... and while you're at it, let's revise the 2nd Amendment to bring it up to modern day expectations. Just like we don't want "minorities" having control of our elections, we really don't want the minority of gun fanatics running around with assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
You want a voter ID law, fine. Than you shell out the tax money and man power to research, pay for, find, print and distribute all the necessary documents needed in order to be issued the ID, and than distribute the ID's themselves, for every single person who's missing even one of those documents and shows an income and/or transportation hardship. And you have it all done at least six months prior to next election.
Otherwise we stick with the ID system we have in place that's given us a voter fraud rate of .0002%.
http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/doubling-down-dubious-claims-voter-fraud
Sarah., # 1.41,
Ah, I see the nerd high wore off.
Voting as any right can be regulated (ref: sarah-newsvine).
As NYC other progressive cities charge the citizen for the exercise of their enumerated rights (one guess).
Well, gee, it just would not be fair and equal to provide some rights for free and not all...right.
I mean only a bigot would discriminate ...right.
Welcome back, and same warning. lol. Have to go, but I will check back at cob.
Of course rights can be regulated. That's why I'm okay with voter ID, but you need to regulate in a way that DOESN'T disenfranchize.
Larry:
Thank you for acknowledging the role of republicans in passing the Voting Rights Act nearly 50 years ago. Without them it would never have passed. Maybe you can also acknowledge that the circumstances warranting the law have changed during that time. Apparently the Supreme Court is inclined to find law as no longer necessary. In 2009 they put congress as well as Mr. Obama on notice that it has outlived its usefulness. Mr. Obama chose to ignore their warning and instead warns of dire consequences should it be struck down. The courts reasoning for striking the law will be provided for all to see. Unfortunately their reasoning won’t stop race pimps like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson as well as Obama apologists and perpetual victims like you from screaming racism. How predictable.
You don’t dispute what Mr. Obama said about the effect of finding the law unconstitutional. Nor do you provide any proof to back up his charges. Instead you claim that he is only exercising his constitutional duty to “defend every federal law when challenged”. Sorry but that statement demonstrates your ignorance.
In the spring of 2011, the Obama administration announced it would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in 1996 and signed into LAW by Bill Clinton because Obama deems it unconstitutional. Apparently Mr. Obama considers the Supreme court irrelevant when HE deems a law unconstitutional and unilaterally decides what laws he will defend.
President Obama is nothing more than a community agitator whose power derives from dividing the country by creating one “crisis” after another. You can support that strategy if you want but in the end he will be exposed, along with Obama sycophants like you.
Sarah., # 1.43,
OK, we will use NYC's existing method for another constitutional right.
A licence for voting, $ 140 for a long ballot, $ 320 for a short ballot. Of course, as a 'may-issue' state you will have to convince the govt official assigned of your 'need' to vote. Then there is the background check and a three to six month wait for approval.
But as this is past practice for exercise of one constitutional right, it shouldn't raise any protests from honest people, that believe in equality of our rights.
Is that so, Pete Williams? I would have sworn it was DOMA that was No. 1.
I don't think Pete Williams is the one quoted.
As it is all opinion it is all irrelevant.
Voting rights should not be a shield for those who should and are not legally allowed to vote. Voting is NOT a human right, it is the right of law abiding citizens of a Representative Republic. Reasonable voter ID is required to make sure those who are supposed to be allowed to vote are (voting rights) and those who are not can not. Protecting EVERYONEs votes and right to vote from the taint of corruption. If people know it does not matter who they vote for or even if they vote due to lax voting laws allowing those who should not be voting to corrupt and disrupts the right to vote that is in and of itself an attempt to suppress the vote.
Mitt Romney and his cast of goblins must still be sulking.......
Really? is this the best you can come up with? Blame it on Romney? Deal with the issue at least.
Try Rick Perry and his cadre of "Texas Patriots" -- along with Palin, Gingrich, Santorum, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.........
The truth hurts I guess, add in corporate america who lost their election "investment" WWahhh, Waahhh, LOL..........
I don't think saying Romney is crying is blaming anything on Romney....But nobody ever said people willing to live under fascism(Extreme right) are smart.
IXLR8
You must have spent hours perusing a thesaurus for that reply.
Please come back when you actually make it through the fifth grade.
Yawn, and you added nothig Baby Boomer............Please tell, what is your opinion on the TOPIC?? I really think the GOP is trying to carve up voting districts and anything else to get an edge for next time. I was reported a few weeks ago on other media.
The states never should have been allowed to manage federal elections in the first place.
The right to vote is a constitutionally protected right and the states should have no say whatsoever in dictating terms of access to exercising that right.
Name one benefit to the individual voter that state control of voting procedure brings to the table.
State run elections might have made sense when people rode horses from town to town to collect the votes. It makes no sense today.
Also, gerrymandering voting districts should be outlawed everywhere.
Sorry, but this country was specifically designed as a collection of states and thats not changing. Funny to see progressives whine about gerrymandering since it was started by the Democrats and is so ingrained in the cheating we call Democratic politics that it was named after a Democrat, former Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry.
Designed as a Federation of states comprising a Republic.
As to who instituted gerrymandering...it's irrelevant...what's relevant is that it is a purely partisan mechanism that perverts democracy and we should outlaw it.
But again...
Name one benefit to the individual voter that state control of voting procedure brings to the table.
Elbridge Gerry was a Democratic-Republican, the conservative and anti-federalist oriented party at the time. There were no Democrats and no Republicans in 1810.
As for the "collection of states and that's not changing", in fact it is. It changed around 1789 and it changed further around 1865. Confederations don't work.
Your knowledge is underwhelming. States do have the right to decide how elections are to be held. We are a Republic, made up of individual states. Based on your argument, only cities should have jurisdiction since the states don't have to send riders to collect votes anymore.
It appears you also have no idea how representative districts are determined.
The Constitution of The United States of America says (and this is straight from the CoTUSA, so spelling mistakes are not mine):
The individual States do have the right to regulate Federal Elections -- but ONLY as long as Congress allows it.
Wow. Many States have been guilty of violating this part, many times, and many are still doing so. For the purpose of this thread, pay attention to the part where it says No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation, which means skibum609 is wrong again.
There's that word again: "Republican". Not, as many would have it, "Democracy"... But the point here is that the FEDERAL Government protects them all -- but only on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)
It does not matter how many "popular" votes they get. What matters is how many ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes they get. And the members of the Electoral College can vote however the hell they want.
As for actual voting rights of Citizens of the U.S.A., there is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives Congress OR the States the power to dictate what kind of identification someone must have in order to exercise the "privilege" of voting in any election. And by REQUIRING that someone play the bureaucratic game of getting a specific I.D. card, the RIGHT to vote becomes a PRIVILEGE.
Does that mean that states should have no right to tell people what guns they can own too, because by your logic that is the case. Personally I think that states shouldn't be telling people what guns they can't own, but that isn't the point. By your logic any law a state makes involving rights can be overruled by the federal government. Thanks but no, I like my federal government small.
Zeus11114;
Unlike Voting Rights, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an ABSOLUTE Right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment -- which states specifically that it "Shall Not Be Infringed".
Please, try to keep up.
You left out a word. Allow me to correct it:
And as Sovereign entities, the states SHOULD decide how elections are run in their boundaries.
Senators were originally appointed by the state legislatures and were essentially ambassadors of a sovereign entity to the Federal Government. Unfortunately that was not deemed Democratic enough for the Progressives and the gutting of states rights ensued.
Sorry that would step on the toes of those States not directly covered by this ACT.
Too bad the DOJ will only investigate one side of voter fraud.....
I believe you are incorrect in your statement that "NOTHING in the Constitution gives Congress OR the States the power to dictate" voter identification laws. The Tenth Amendment does just that.
4/28/2008 11:50:09 AM ET:
"WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws."
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24351798/ns/politics/t/supreme-court-upholds-voter-id-law/#.US0V8aWTiXl
I guess this law is why many folks in urban areas were allowed to vote more than one time. And before you go bashing this comment, look it up!
If you don't have a valid ID...you should-not be allowed to vote.....period.....several people in Cincinnati voted more than one time....one woman said she voted 6 times....they are going to be indicted for voter fraud...and should be...liberals know they canno't win elections without fraud...in my state you canno't have your water or power turned on without a DL & a SSC....
dixie girl,
Pure BS. Voter fraud has been totally discredited as a reason for the voter ID laws Republicans have been putting in place. There simply is no appreciable amount of intentional voter fraud.
I don't understand how requiring an ID makes it "discrimination", or how it's a racial issue. Want to vote? GET AN ID. Voter fraud is real, and BOTH sides do it.
My mother doesn't drive, and her ID expired in 1997. I would have to take off work to take her to get an ID, if the law passed that IDs were required to vote. Yeah, it'd be a small hassle, but we would do it. She's the ONLY person I know who doesn't have a valid ID, and we're white...so the "discrimination" is lost on me.
You must have a drivers license to have water and power? That's ridiculous. Not everyone drives or has a car. That should not be a requirement to have water and electricity! What about the few million people who live in NYC who rely on public transportation? What about the elderly? What about those who are too poor to own a car? Sounds like a conservative law to me: If you don't have a car you should just be homeless.
How do you go through life without an ID? You need a photo ID to cash a check, open a bank account or get a P.O. box. You need an ID to get on a plane, drive a car or buy a pack of cigarettes. If you are hired for a job most companies will take a picture of your drivers license.
You cannot apply for any government program without identification. Unemployment, food stamps, welfare, Social security, etc.
Why is I can't drive down the street without a photo license in my pocket, but I can vote for the leaders of our country without one?
Sam,
It's called a State ID card. Many times they are free or only a few dollars. You have to show a Valid ID to be able to attend one of Obama's Campaign Rallies. Why is that ok, but not ok to ask for ID when voting?
The Obama/Biden lawn sign remains proudly planted in front of Melowese Richardson's Cincinnati home, three months after the presidential election.
It seems that President Obama has an especially ardent supporter in the veteran Ohio poll worker.
Richardson told a local television station this month that she voted twice last November. She cast an absentee ballot and then voted at the polls as well.
"Yes, I voted twice," Richardson told WCPO-TV. "I, after registering thousands of people, certainly wanted my vote to count, so I voted. I voted at the polls."
Authorities also are investigating if she voted in the names of four other people, too, for a total of six votes in the 2012 presidential election.
"I'll fight it for Mr. Obama and for Mr. Obama's right to sit as president of the United States," Richardson vowed when asked about the voter fraud investigation that is now under way.
Richardson is one of 19 people suspected of illegal voting by the Hamilton County Board of Elections in the last election.
@"culheath", here's your sign:
http://www.jdjournal.com/2013/02/20/woman-being-investigated-for-voter-fraud-in-cincinnati/#
@"samadams", Bullscat. You're entire screed is nothing but that. Perhaps you should check with acorn, moveon, etc., and find the many "creative" ways they can get people to vote.
So, there is nothing anyone is allowed to do in the U.S.A. without a photo I.D.....and all you Right-wing Konservatives are ok with that.
WelKome to AmeriKa. Your Papers, Please.
LOL One person...and one who didn't understand what she was doing. You guys are a joke.
The question is not regarding voter ID per se , the problem is the type of accepted ID and obvious machinations Republican dominated states have gone through to make getting the ID so difficult and charging for it and making the whole process so aimed at voter suppression.
All you should need is a any sort of ID and a bill with your address on it. It's all we needed for years will no voter fraud problems. So tell me, what is the frigging point that all this should take place suddenly and out of the blue?
Why is the drivers license a form of ID to vote ?? Very few photos on a drivers license looks like the holder of that license. The gal at the place I voted even laugh at how awful the picture made me look and said it didn't even look like me but she accepted it anyhow. A picture ID is crazy or a signature comparison would be more accurate. Regardless what all you rightwingers keep saying about getting a picture id for many a person that doesn't have a drivers license it can be hard to get one like where I live I'd have to go 20 miles to get one but my voting place is within walking distance. If I paid cash for every thing I wouldn't need a photo id . If the bank has my signature on file I wouldn't need a photo id. Repeal the right to vote admendment since the republicans are taking away our voting rights.
"So tell me, what is the frigging point that all this should take place suddenly and out of the blue?"
Really? Suddenly? Have not really been following the subject have you?
updated 4/28/2008 11:50:09 AM ET:
"WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws."
"The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud."
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24351798/ns/politics/t/supreme-court-upholds-voter-id-law/#.US0V8aWTiXl
By suddenly I meant the last two elections...you know, when the winning candidate was a Black man.
Where was all the voter ID hoopla when it was Bush or Clinton or Reagan or ....
cul, did you miss this: "The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005…"
From the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform (September 2005 – June 2007):
2.5 Voter Identification:
Recommendations: States should require voters to use the REAL ID card, which includes a person's full legal name, date of birth, a signature (captured as a digital image), a photograph, and the person's Social Security number. It should be modestly adapted for voting purposes to indicate on the front or back whether the individual is a U.S. citizen. States should provide an EAC-template ID with a photo to non-drivers free of charge. States should establish legal protections to prohibit any commercial use of voter data and ombudsman institutions to respond to citizen complaints about the misuse of data or about mistaken purges of registration lists based on interstate matching or statewide updating.
http://www1.american.edu/ia/cdem/usp/np/cbc_progress_2007_06_12.pdf
Cherokee County Herald - Feb 18, 1998:
Republicans in the Senate have fought for a voter ID bill for three years, ... It is now up to the House to take the Senate bill and pass, modify or kill it.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=z5sxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=sz8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6816,1231202&dq=first+state+to+pass+voter+id&hl=en
Where they trying to keep a black Bill Clinton out of the White House in 1995?
Probably. He is considered the first Black president by some after all. :)
So you do have a sense of humor Cul!
As a citizen of these United States, it is your constitutional right to vote. Show me you are an ELIGIBLE citizen with that right. If you can't show me you are eligible to vote, you are unconstitutional and just trampled on my rights. Make an issue of why we shouldn't check for your eligibility and we have a problem. Me thinks you are trying to hide something?
If voting is a priority to you, why the uproar about ID? Didn't seem to bother you to have the ID to drive your car, buy booze, or cash your last check!
Try to enter a federal building without an ID.
I am tired of these screaming blacks. And so does mainstream America
Do you even have your GED??
Actually, what mainstream America is tired of is bigots and Tea Bag extremist politics. That's why the large majority of us re-elected Obama and the TBaggers had to use gerrymandering to keep their seats in the house.
culheath, no, the reason is 51% are now takers and like living on the Democratic Plantation
Why is it ok to call Tea Party people tea baggers? I know how offensive the term is and what it stands for. I do not attack the Occupy people or Democrats but just disagree with their stances. For a group of people who claim to be tolerant this seems silly.
The biggest bigots, racists and haters in America today are Progressives. Vile, despicable people.
Joe, 51% of Americans are takers, Really? Yeah keep thinking like that it will help you side Win over voters Not!!!!
No Joe, the takers are in the red states you conservatives are so proud of. You know the ones in the south, without gerrymandering the GOP would have a lot less seats at the table.
DDW you do realize the red states are conservatives. They want to keep the way things are. Blue States want to make it so the government give you everything.
Come one this is the most basic of political ideaology. Come on Man!
chrischambee, members of the Tea Party called themselves by that term.
Y'all can equate Tea Baggers with homosexual men giving each other blow jobs if you want, but the term itself was used by member of the "Tea Party" when talking about themselves.
What's in a Tea bag? TEA. What's the "Tea Party" basing its own name on? The Boston TEA Party. How does the majority of people make TEA today? By putting a TEA bag into a mug of hot water.
TEA BAGGER.
I am tired of all these screaming Whites. Y'all murdered, raped, thieved, and used your Christian Bible to justify it all. Now y'all are screaming about how "unfair" it is that the people y'all have historically oppressed are now exercising their rights and privileges.......
@VoiceAmerican : You tired of those screaming blacks why don't you do like that gun nut in Florida when he was tired of the blacks playing loud music shoot them and claim self defense Sure showing your true color as a hater of the black people. A true uneducated bigotted teabagger indeed
joe-2849984
culheath, no, the reason is 51% are now takers and like living on the Democratic Plantation
the sad part of that comment is that 6% of that "voter" turnout was from illegal immigrants...i see a very just reason to require valid ID in order to vote. as was said by others, we are required to have a photo ID for all minor life decisions: bank accounts, check cashing, employment. why on earth do we not have to require it for the major ones, like how will our country be run for 4 to 8 years...
personally, i would like to see our elected officials put in place by those that actually give a crap about the country they live in(and arent just 'visiting' to send tax-free money back to their families in some other nation)
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” should be changed to "Let us borrow your huddled masses that could give a rat's behind about our laws and be a constant drain on our economy"
voiceamerica said:
I am tired of these screaming blacks. And so does mainstream America
Really, another fine example of a home schooled genius that gets to vote. Does this persons ignorance have any bounds....
Does he she even have a GED ?" You are being too charitable. Does he/she even walk upright ?
What , the GOP trying to manipulate an election???
Naaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!!
William, you mean like how Obama pandered to the 51% by offering more freebies?
joe, What the h*(l are you talking about? Has anyone here received your fee stuff Joe seems to think we are getting? It could not be that we know what the Republicans and Romney were offering and we did not want any part of that crap pie! No it could not possibly have been that!!!!
You do realize it is the Obama voters that are being investigated for voter fraud.
joe-2849984
Actually Joe, it was the lying about the freebies that swayed my vote. Some people think because they throw a percent sign behind a lie, it makes it true.
Wow, so much crying an complaining about people getting "freebies" from the government -- while those doing the complaining will accept the very same "freebies" whenever they think nobody is looking.
Remember how after Hurricane Katrina all those GOP Right-wing Konservative Tea Bagger types accepted all that GOVERNMENT money to rebuild their own houses...........
They're just trying to get in on the game that the Democrats are playing.
With this case coming before the Supreme court, no doubt some fears are understandable and certainly justified, due to past cultural attitudes and behaviors.Yet it is also true much progress has been made. As was pointed out, great strides have been seen in populations and reaching out to minorities, to help make sure they are registered, including getting help in voting. Even as some areas have exceeded densities, getting permission for a waiver of exemption in some of the very states protected under this Act. Demonstrating the protection this Act provides is required less, not growing. As our society continues to move further from discrimination, gained from the Civil Rights Movement.
If the Supreme Court were to eliminate the core of this Act, I do not believe we would see a back sliding loss and a return to the old Jim Crow days. One group fearful, ignorant, manipulated, unable to speak up. Another no fear, doing whatever,with impunity, no one caring, no consequences.There are good people everywhere who are willing to fight to make sure minorities get their rights and keep them. Even as others pass on the gifts of self respect, education and rejecting prejudice.Now there are federal laws with teeth, and prison time for those caught violating others civil rights. Count on lawyers begging to help you or the ACLU for free. Those folks didn't exist not so long ago. We have generations of children born who know no other way.
As the Supreme Court looks at the constitutionality issue, hopefully more minorities will continue to realize the power and influence they hold. To contribute their votes, talents and voices to making this country so much better, then it has ever been for themselves, their loved ones, their futures and the country
voting should be changed so that when you file your taxesyou vote, ths would cover voter ID and make it simple and easy for everyone to vote.
That would eliminate about 47% of the voting age population.
slodon, Maybe if we paid them enough to actually pay taxes, you would have some kind of point....
How do we not pay them enough to pay taxes. So are you saying we pay them less than $7 an hour? if you make $7 an hour you should be paying ATLEAST $1.05 on that. You think that is taking to much money? 1 dollar and 5 cents for every 7 dollars made. You think that is to much? You know people that earn more money pay more in taxes right. So if another person were to make $200 and hour for that same 7 dollars you paying 2 dollars and 77 cents. That is more than double what the first person pays. Do you understand that?
MORE THAN DOUBLE!
Dmajesty,
Do you really think someone taking orders at McDonalds deserves more than $7 and hour?
@jim : yep thats exactly what the republicans would like to do keep all the elderly, disabled,poor people that doesn't pay Federal income tax but all taxes they pay wouldn't count in their right to vote ! I live on Social Security and one of the 47% that does't file an income tax form to the IRS and you think I shouldn't have the right to vote,
Apparently you are against the right to vote admendment in the constitution !! Lets just tear up the constitution to suit idiots like you.
Landmark Civil Rights Law WOW! The idea that a US Citizen has any rights guaranteed by the US Constitution is a novel idea because when it comes down to legal "nut cutting" be prepared to fight like hell for your rights or they will be taken from you by a legal "slight of hand." A good example of slight of hand is the second amendment "gun" sideshow while rogue banks compromise a justice system that coddles a bank that will move you out of your house and retirement. The question then becomes where do your store your guns when you're on the streets?
This law should either be applied to all states or none. Racist discrimination should not be prevented in one area but allowed to occur elsewhere. There was a reasonable argument for applying it only to the southern states 50 years ago, but today those protections should be applied uniformly across the country.
I agree with you. The law should be amended to require all states to submit intended changes to their voting regulations and voting district mappings to the federal government for approval.
why should the federal government have any say? The federal government will just use this as a way to promote the party that is in office at that time.
It's only the Republicans that any reason to manipulate the process to garner or suppress votes because they are and pretty much always have been the minority party. Look to Pennsylvania's attempts at changing the distribution of electoral votes...that says everything about how Republicans are trying to game the system.
Right after that is decided can we get the DOJ to investigate Louis Farikans call for a race war? Can we get that going too? Can we take back some of the extra votes for Obama? Can we get the DOJ to investigate the NBP at the polling places a couple years ago?
The vast majority of the 80,000,000 gun owners are white, and Farakhan and Reverend Wright would regret that race war.
Can we get you to take off your tinfoil hat and take your meds? Stop peddling paranoia.
We get it, Nana. You hate minorities.
Nana = Moron Can we get them to investigate how Baby Bush was able to steal the election from Al Gore with the help of Jeb Bush? Can we get them to investigate the lies that were told to justify the Iraq War? Can we get them to prosecute The Bush Administration for torture? Until then, STFU?
I live in Florida and I can tell you that letting the states set the terms for voting is a really bad idea. Our state can't even count the freakin' ballots without taking a week or so to do it! The rules for elections should be controlled at the federal level. Now, as for this specific law, I think the last election which saw certain persons hanging empty chairs from trees in their front lawns proves there is still a serious racial prejudice problem in this country, particularly in the old Confederate areas.
Amen - I think the Constitution should be changed if necessary, but whatever it takes, NO STATE should have the ability to control any portion of a Federal election. And Stupid red states like FL and PA are absolutely attempting to disenfranchise minority voters, I don't care which way they slice it or spin it. No state should be allowed to make a change just weeks before an election. What radical states like FL and PA are doing affects us all, not just their own people.
Oh, whats going on now? They got the right to vote years ago. They got their civil rights. They had 40 years of affirmative action. They got their obamaphone. What do they want now? Do they want a limo to pick them up to go to the polling place? Maybe they want free chicken. Maybe a free Walmart gift card on the way out.
We want your uninformed bigotry to die out forever.
Just who is the "they"? Care to explain to us?
RTFS....your answer: 'The opposite of "we".
You sound just a stupid as Clinton did when he wanted to know what is ,is
!
"They" means Blacks and Latinos to VoA which, exampling the cowardice of all bigots, he apparently lacks the balls to state straight up.
@culheath "We" also means Latinos. Latinos are on our side. They work for a living like we do.
Only if the Limo driver driver has a map with the latest changed locations! You know how they are always moving polling places.
@VoiceAmerica ; Change your handle for you are not the voice of America you are not a true believer in American values but a bigotted fool !
VoiceAmerica: What Clayton said! You certainly don't speak for this American! And, I am as white as the driven snow. BTW ignoramus, the so-called "Obama Phone" was started during the first Bush Administration and was mainly for poor and homeless people so that they would be able to access a phone for jobs and emergencies!
Is he talking about Black Panthers standing in front of the polls in Philadelphia trying to intimidate and supress white voters?
No, I think it's a reference to explicit goal of supressing democrat voter turnout by creating laws to prevent something GOP admits doesn't occur.
"supressing democrat voter turnout" That's possibly the funniest thing I've read today. I sure didn't stop that one lady from voting seven times. That's alright though, Holder will protect the black panthers well enough, or at least prevent them from having charges brought against them. And we all wonder who the real racists are...
NPCDan, best post today.
Mark:
How would that only suppress DEMOCRAT voter turn out? My mother has no DL, her ID expired 15 years ago, she would be affected by a voter ID law. She votes Republican. She's also the ONLY person I know who doesn't have a valid ID. & I know A LOT of Democrats, Hispanics, and Blacks (I'm white & live in Houston, one of this biggest melting pot cities in the country).
You honestly don't think voter fraud happens? With all the extremist loons on BOTH sides?
Do you think the KKK would have been pardoned if they were standing outside voter booths with weapons? Do you think it would have been blown over? Do you think that requiring ID's to vote is worse than the Black Panthers THREATENING people?
They didn't threaten anyone. It was two guys standing around and the whole thing is just a right wing email level myth perpetuated by Tea Bagger types. No one was dissuaded from voting and that's why no charges were brought. Pathetic.
So all of the news articles I'm reading, which all say one of the men had a nightstick, are lying?
"Another Panther at the scene this afternoon, Jerry Jackson, said he was there to protect voters, not intimidate them."
Protect them from what? They were there to intimidate, period.
"The episode—which Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer and publisher of the left-wing Village Voice, calls "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen"—began on Election Day 2008. Mr. Bull and others witnessed two Black Panthers in paramilitary garb at a polling place near downtown Philadelphia. (Some of this behavior is on YouTube.)
One of them, they say, brandished a nightstick at the entrance and pointed it at voters and both made racial threats. Mr. Bull says he heard one yell "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!"
PATHETIC.
Lot of whack jobs on this post today. Is it a full moon or something?
Yes, actually there was a huge full moon that rose last night.
Those complaining about voter/redistricting protections, affirmative action and the like - remember that in 2 generations or so, whites will be the largest minority, not the majority of the US population. Remember that before you want to end minority protections and rights today. Half of my extended family is already some shade of brown, and that is just the natural progression of demographics to come. (Those that don't like it, don't worry, you'll be gone.)
Any bets? I say it goes 5-4 conservative (eliminates the Act).
Mark Thomas,
Sadly, you are probably correct!
Your so called "right to vote' is a joke in itself. They let you vote so you can feel like you are a part of the process when in reality its all a sham. They already know who they are going to put in the position. This country has turned into a liars haven and the politicians are telling the story!
easyray,
so just don't bother?
sounds pretty nihilist to me.
Just force people to show a valid ID and an valid W-2 form. Eliminate write in votes except for military stationed overseas. All problems twarted.
a W-2, just so people that pay taxes can vote? See that is the problem, trying to limit access to ALL to exercise their right to vote. If they want IDs then the states that push it should be required to pay for them and make that process easy, put a picture on our registration cards but give people Years to get it done not weeks as it turned out in some cases for the past election.
Older people don't have a W-2, nor do many poor people.
Even republicans admit that incidence of in-person voter fraud isn't material enough to prevent the millions who would be affected from voting.
Exactly. It's nothing more than racist and nativist reactionary politicking against the changing demographics. The best part though is that the South will never ever rise again...and that just drives them nuts.
the saddest part of it all is that it is still necessary! Voting is a right for all eligible voters guaranteed in the constitution's amendments. There should never be a question about ID's or anything that might limit someones access to the process. We register, we vote, we have that right. States should have NO control over general elections for National issues and offices.
OK Robert, I'm listening for you plan to stop voter fraud.
what voter fraud? The Voter fraud that even the GOP acknowledges does not exist? Or the voter fraud that the GOP and GOP super pacs got caught in in Florida this past election? Or maybe the people supposed to be registering voters in Florida and was throwing Democrat Registrations in the trash? Or the ones that refused to register people that declared Democrat?
Where exactly is this big voter fraud issue that you speak of?
Voting is a right to all citizens, it is guaranteed in the 15th amendment of the constitution, too bad we have to have laws passed to support our constitution amendments. Too bad...
Besides when George W. Bush signed the extension of the 1965 voting rights act in 2006 he signed a 26 year extension so maybe we should have this debate in 2032!
VOTER FRAUD is a far bigger danger to Democracy and an infinitely larger one than this absurdity.
It doesn't take much to just get an ID
Tbow009,
You are wrong. If you are elderly and don't drive, it becomes a huge burden.
lois
Tbow is right, there were so many reports coming out of Florida about the GOP and GOP super pacs getting caught committing Voter Fraud! Even people throwing democrat voters registrations in the trash and refusing to register democrats.
We should not have to declare a party to register.
Republicans, when called to task, admit that in-person voter fraud is essentially zero.
So they try to create laws to prevent something from occurring that they admit doesn't doesn't occur with the explicitly stated goal of suppressing democrat vote.
Yeah, I'd say the Act needs to stay in place.
Robert-1960,
I remember seeing the reports you are speaking of. How does requiring voter ID stop those things from happening though?
It doesn't.
it doesn't, voter IDs were intended to make it hard or even impossible for likely democratic voters to get to the polls, period. I was being a bit sarcastic but making my point to Tbow
Absolutely! All these states that are trying to create new laws regarding voter ID are simply trying to make it harder so the likely democratic voters will give up.
Robert-1960,
Opps! My bad. I didn't notice you had the sarc button on. Thanks.
This act supports the fact that discrimination is legal in the US; as long as it's against Whites and Native Americans. Abraham Lincoln had it right in his speech to the Freedmen.
Dangit "cunical", I'm both.
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is in place to "enforce the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution:
That's ALL citizens, including you.
Strange. They don't address the modus operandi of the Democratic Party, "Vote early, and vote often!". Or the fact that someone can vote early, and for someone else, and then vote at the polls. How many votes did that lady get? I lost count, either 7 or 8...
Please name the cases and provide evidence in which, and how many times this has happened.
BTW, good luck.
God has spoken. Let us not go against the will of God.
Leave your God out of it!
Hearing voices of things that are not there is the sign of a psychological condition.
Who made god president? As it is, your god has no place or say in our secular government and laws!
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MINDS??????? Just look at what is going on in the USA and WE have the most liberal laws of any country in the world!!!! OF COURSE WE STILL NEED to protect our voting rights AND it begins with those less fortunate. Those on the court who can't be bought, DO THE RIGHT THING!!!!! Uphold the Civil Rights of ALL Americans; if for no other reason, just to show the world that we do care about doing the right thing!!!
There is no doubt that this law is necessary. Witness the Republican efforts at voter suppression, and current drive to change electoral college in states that the Republicans don't like. This no doubt that given the opportunity, all civil rights legislation would be repealed in the Southern States. Segregation would become the law in Southern States again. Every effort will be made to return to the 1800's. This country has come so far only to have the Roberts court tear everything down. Love of Money is the root of all evil. What a shameful record for the Roberts court.
We've come so far? So far from the days of no drive bys, no teen pregnancy, no crackheads, full employment, leaving the house unlocked, a sold society based on the melting pot. Yes, those days were horrible. So much better to be lead by race pimps, Hispanics and gays....as we swirl around the toilet bowl one last time.