The blatant racial intimidation and discrimination in voting procedures that prevailed in states such as Alabama when the law was written in 1965 and renewed in 1970, 1975, and 1982, no longer exist, the county says.

Oh boy.

It should apply to ALL states (including New Hampshire) or none. There shouldn't be two standards for voting rights in the US.

Think Progress:

WASHINGTON, DC — There were audible gasps in the Supreme Court’s lawyer’s lounge, where audio of the oral argument is pumped in for members of the Supreme Court bar, when Justice Antonin Scalia offered his assessment of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. He called it a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”

____________

There are no words to describe how I feel right now reading that statement.

Houston!

Trashing the Voting Rights Act is "legislating from the bench" by a radical activist judge. If there are parts of it that are obsolete, it should be Congress that changes it, not Roberts.

So I preume that you also believe that all other decisions by the Supreme Court should be overturned until Congress decides to change them? The entire purpose of the Court is to decide on the constitutionality of legislation, which is what it is now reviewing.

From the article: "Many of the justices said that the problems in the south aren't as bad as some places in the north".

This seems to be a 180 from what people typically think about the country.

But the heart of the problem is when political partys continually remap districts so that they can have more control in the outcome of elections. It happens everywhere. When it begins to thwart the voice of certain people it becomes the problem we face today and why this is before the Supreme Court. It is NOT politically one-sided. Both partys are guilty of influencing elections through redistricting.

Something needs to be done and this decision could be more explosive than many imagine.

Robert 3092405, you can officially change your name you know. Chicken Little comes to mind.

If this happens it will be shameful. We go around the world criticizing countries for their lack of democracy, yet we cannot allow all of our own citizens to vote without a hassle. This is simply because they may be poor or not white or both, and do not have access to transportation, disposable funds or other some such hurdle. This Supreme Court is in full activist mode, especially when you hear of Justice Scalia today, litigating about 'racial entitlement'.

What the heck.....we're going backwards with these pompous arrogant right wingers. for goodness sake, people died for the right of ALL citizens to vote.

The fact that many GOP leaders announced publically that their voter ID laws were to make sure the state went republican last year shows that we do still need some Voter protection. I feel that every state should be following the same laws, I live in NY and would love early voting, we don't get a single extra day, and yet we are upset with Florida for shortening something that NY doesn't even have. We need to stop the states from making their own boundaries, like TX. CA should be the flag bearer for how districts are set up.

I am an independent and can't vote in the primaries, and yet other states let anybody vote no matter what party in primaries. All of this is very confusing. For federal elections there should be a standard you can't mess with without permission from the courts. But this should apply to every state, not just those in the south.

The GOP lost the popular vote for congress dramatically and yet because of the rigging of the districts they made sure they still have a majority in the house. This is wrong no matter who does it.

If the districts were not made up in such a partisan way, but truly fairly I would say let the electoral college vote be split, but if a state can make up it's own districts so they can't lose, then winner takes all.

You can't have it both ways. Voting must be fair to all, not just who happens to be in power in that state at the time.

Discrimination is as alive today as it ever was yesterday, 10 years ago, 50 years ago or longer. It is a part of human nature and as far as I can see, we haven't gone anywhere. I agree with Scalia as far as it is not fair that only certain states have to apply Sec 5...at this point they all should!

The whole craziness with requiring voter id is a prime example of why it is still needed. The reasoning that "..you need an id to get a library card, buy booze, open a bank account, etc. is false. Those are all "CHOICES" and thus you can live without any of those things. Voting is a RIGHT and guaranteed by our Constitution...totally NOT the same thing. If there was a lot of proof of fraud through lack of identification than I could maybe agree, but I there isn't. And dogs and dead people on the voting rolls does not translate into Votes either. The whole voter id business is just another disingenuous method to prevent certain people from voting (mainly Democrats). It is unconstitutional and frankly, un-American.

We need these rights protected. These judges do not represent majority America and maybe it is they who need to go....

We should also be encouraged that we have, waiting in the wings, a public servant as able as Hilary Clinton to receive the torch in 2016.

Ian, didn't you just tell me on another post that Hilary was not qualified to be president, which is why you elected someone without any qualifications?

So now that she has seen how NOT to preside, you think she has figured it out?

Actually repealing this law is backwards looking. Putting the burden of proof on the suppressed voter. Exactly what old pale males want. The Republicans want to go back to the 1950s in everything except taxes and repealing this will make it more plausible for them. This SCOTUS about to go down in history as the worst SCOTUS ever. The one that sold our country out for the mighty dollar. The one making it tougher for the poor to vote. Congratulations! I know I'll be teaching my grandchildren about this going forward.

Our current president is white, jjj, at least he's no more black than he is white.

How can you call him a "black" president? Half the blood in his veins is from a 'white' mama.

This totally ignores a key point. While preventing a change in voting laws based on race may be considered by some to be backward-looking, a forward-looking concern is one in which voting laws are changed based on party. In our recent presidential election, a legislator from Pennsylvania openly admitted that changes to voting laws there were expected to "give Romney the state." It may be that a law prohibiting a change in voting processes without justice department oversight could still be relevant, though for that different reason: preventing one-party legislatures from gaming the system in their party's favor.

I use dandruff shampoo. When I go to my stylist she asks, "Why do you use dandruff shampoo. You don't have dandruff." I respond, "Because I use dandruff shampoo." Same goes for these states. Why do you think they no longer have voting discrimination issues? Because of the Voting Rights Act.

Frankly, the voting rights act is outdated. We need comprehensive federal control and regulation of all aspects of elections for national offices that cover all fifty states and ensure that our electoral rights are never compromised for partisan gain. Good luck getting that through a Republican-led House or a Senate Filibuster, though.

AnaBanana-1782128

Actually repealing this law is backwards looking. Putting the burden of proof on the suppressed voter. Exactly what old pale males want.

Typically in court, the person making the claim and requesting relief for it is usually required to have some form of proof that the alleged transgression occurred.

I'm not sure what you think is going on in some states, but I haven't seen the fire truck pull up to a polling station and hose people down in Texas, or any other sort of vote stopping activity.

The whole issue I have with this act is that it is enforced only in certain states. If they choose to move enforcement to all 50 states, I will accept it even if I do not feel it is necessary. I would actually prefer that they investigate allegations that this act intended to stop rather than just apply this act as a blanket to a select few states and let the rest of it go.

No surprise that it's focused mostly on the South. After all, I know that many have the perception that we are all just a bunch of racists down here anyways. Right?

Welcome to the new "Jim Crow" America!!!!!

Most people think that this Act only applied to African-Americans. However, if anyone took the time to check, it also applied to many, many others, including Whites, who were denied the right to vote or were hassled at the Polls. What was wrong is that only the Overt States were restricted while those within the Covert stage were not.

So the anti-discrimination law discriminates against the states that used to discriminate?

How onerous are these rules they have to abide by? There never seems to be a discussion about that.

I'm still suspicious about reasons that this is now a hardship. With gerrymandering and "accidental" over zealous purging of voter rolls, forgive me if I think there are ulterior motives beyond, "it's not fair" and "it's not a problem anymore."

Not to mention how Anonymous claims to have stopped a cyber subversion of electronic voting (not that I believe it 100%, but Karl Rove's meltdown about the time it was supposed to be happening is coincidental, I'm sure :-) ). But I do have to call BS on companies that make ATM's claiming that their voting machines can't produce a written voting record.

sullyness said:

Extended hours and weekend voting for predominantly white/Republican areas in Florida and Ohio, but SHORTENED hours and elimination of weekend voting in minority areas?

I can only speak for Florida, but our early voting days were reduced STATEWIDE. Here is the information from the state:

Early voting begins 10 days before an election and ends on the 3rd day before any election in which there is a state or federal office race. Early voting may be held for a maximum of 12 hours, but no less than 6 hours, a day. The hours for each day for each early voting site during that period are set at the Supervisor’s discretion.

So all early voting no matter which area in Florida was from 10 days before to 3 days before the election. The hours could vary from 6 - 12 per day and it was up to each Supervisor of Elections. The three biggest Democratic counties in the state have supervisors of elections that are Democrats.

So explain how hours were cut for the minority hours and extended for the non-minority areas?

The other issue I have is that we had to get permission to go from 14 days (I think...it was somewhere around there) of early voting to 10 days. Yet, there are states that have NO early voting and more that have far less early voting.

If there is discrimination going on then by all means, go after it and hold people responsible. But assuming that every change is discriminatory only if you are in certain areas just doesn't seem right.

Hi JCB,

I just think that it is ironic that many people that are for making it hard to vote, are against making it hard to buy deadly weapons. If the voting rights laws fall, and the Republicans in these states have their way, It wii literally be easier to buy and carry a gun, than it is to vote. So much for patriotism. THere are countries in the world where voting is considered mandatory. Seems somewhere along the way, We have lost our way. This is just plain wrong.

I feel bad that blacks, sold other blacks from rival tribes into slavery WAY back before I was born. I feel bad the people had to suffer through the hardships they did. Its time to look past all this crap. Racism is alive, because its is pushed at the federal level. Until our Gvmnt looks past the color of the persons skin, it will always be here. NAACP, LuLac, United Negro College fund, the Black Chamber of Commerce, you can name groups ALL IN our Gvmnt that look at the color of your skin and its wrong..

None of the groups mentioned are part of the federal government, they are in fact private organizations.

Just another chapter in the ongoing right wing struggle to make this country less of a democracy.

Gee, I wonder if Obama never Won would We even be having this conversation, bet not.

This entire act is an attempt to suppress the will of these states. Removing it does not infringe on voting "rights". It makes them equal for all states and people. At this time, innocent people in these states are being discriminated against.

I don't see the Supreme Court overturning the whole law, because that would lead to civil unrest that occurred before that bill. For the sections in question, make it for all states. With regards to the gerrymandering comments, well for those states who are trying this, it is the fault of the voters if it happens. Personally, I am for one vote for one person and all votes are equal.

Q22 - that crazy district in North Carolina that snakes along the highway that you're referring to. I assume you're referring to District 12 that picks up all of the urban populations from Winston-Salem, Greensboro, and Charlotte. Question - why would the Democrats want to place all of those urban centers into one district? Wouldn't it be better for their party if those large population masses were voting in 3 different districts? They did the same thing with District 4 that picks up all of the urban populations in Raleigh, Durham, and Fayetteville. The way I see it, that was the Republican party giving away 2 districts in order to keep 6 to themselves. The Repulicans are the gerrymandering masters and that's not even debatable.

"Overshadowing Wednesday’s 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 states covered by section 5."

===========

Unless, I'm reading this wrong, it would seem like a/the next logical question would be is the "parity" that is being claimed reached because of the existence of Section 5 or reached outside of the existence of Section 5. Or said differently, if Section 5 is removed, what is the argument that "parity" will continue to exist?

You need ID to REGISTER to vote. On this topic, I have no problem with showing an ID to vote however when certain states want to implement this new policy just weeks before a presidential election so they can leave out a number of elderly from voting, I think that is a problem.

Do you know that in Australia that you are actually fined if you don't vote??

jjjj-2003719, if you think the election of President Obama proves that the Voting Rights Act is no longer needed, you might want to look at the voting map. He lost ALL of the southern states. The racism and bigotry is as strong as ever in the south and we MUST prevent the racists of the south from rigging elections. THAT'S why the voting rights act is needed.

The Justices are right, the law is very outdated as many laws on the books both on the Federal level & State level. Times do change and we don't need this law anymore then we need laws on State books that don't allow you to tie your horse up at certain places. We have moved forward, time our laws reflect our forward progress.

So JH-lotsanumbers, the toothless, senile attack dog shows up. I see you are no more accurate now than you were when you wrote on October, 19:

"I see the usual MSNBC cheerleaders here every day. They spew their lies about Romney but can't come up with anything positive about their failed candidate. I can't wait to see how you guys feel on 11/7. I've already got my tickets to head to Phoenix and watch some NASCAR and CELEBRATE the new direction in America.

President Romney, sounds great doesn't it?"

You doubled down on October 24, when you wrote:

Rasmussen - 50% Romney - 46% Obama

Electorol vote getting closer everyday for Romney. 235 Romney - 237 Obama - 66 undecided.

Wednesday November 7, 2012 will be a very good day for the USA. Goodby Obama.

You were still having trouble spelling and prognosticating when you went all in a few days later and you wrote:

This time next week we will all be very excited about the Romney /Ryan victory. It is going to be a shellacking that this country hasn't seen since Jimmy Carter.

Will you lefty liberals be able to stand it? I'll love seeing your heads explode.

LEAN FORWARD - it won't hurt so bad when you fall on your face.

Pretty nervy to put yourself forward as someone who knows what's going on with a BS track record like yours.

But this time you don't have to pretend you can look forward, you've made it clear you can't. However, you can, but you won't, look at what has happened in the recent past. Reince Priebus is on record describing how to attack voter rights. There's an attack currently being mounted in Pennsylvania. Cuccinelli is doing his part. The list goes on and on.

You can sling your BS at your fellow mushrooms and assorted fungi. That's what they live on. It doesn't work on those who know the facts. Get lost, lightweight.

If this court strikes down the VRA, they will continue to prove that they are an affront to Democracy.

The VRA should be being struck down, it should be expanded to cover all 50 states.

Voting should be compulsory with lists compiled and maintained by the IRS. Not voting should have a fee of $100, paid at tax time.

Frank - So explain how hours were cut for the minority hours and extended for the non-minority areas?

Yes, Florida was reduced overall, which seems kind of interesting after a previous presidential election where the votes were so close, and even Republican politicos know reduced turnout traditionally favors Republicans. But yeah, that's Florida.

My point was that some areas reduced voting in minority areas and not others. Ohio's a good example of this. County election boards are split: Democrat/Republican. In the fairly evenly split counties the election officials voted to extend voting hours at night, and over the weekends. In the Democratic leaning counties, the Republican members of the boards voted to NOT expand hours. That meant a tie decision, so who gets to break the tie? The Republican governor! Guess which way he decided? Wait for it, wait for it... NO EXTRA HOURS, but JUST in the split-decision counties!!! (yeahh.....). Hmmm... Democratic-leaning counties, Democratic leaning counties... Guess which ones have higher minority populations.

Robert Warner-3092405

jjjj-2003719, if you think the election of President Obama proves that the Voting Rights Act is no longer needed, you might want to look at the voting map. He lost ALL of the southern states. The racism and bigotry is as strong as ever in the south and we MUST prevent the racists of the south from rigging elections. THAT'S why the voting rights act is needed.

Your assumption is that because Obama lost every state in the south that it means the Voting Rights Act is needed? Could it possibly be that the South tends to lean Republican and are more likely to vote for a Republican Candidate?

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Obama didn't lose in the South because "we's a buncha racists". It might be more because the South with it's local politics tends to run quite a bit more red in our Rural Districts, which the South tends to have many of. In the South, as with many places, it is typical that larger population centers will lean Democratic and more rural areas will lean Republican.

As an example in Texas, our major population centers are the Dallas/Fort Worth Area (about 6 and a half million), Houston (about 5 and a half million) and then Austin (about 1 million). 12 million people in the more "liberal" area. Then take that into comparison where Texas has roughly 26 million people in it, and that counts quite a few in the major population centers still voting Republican.

Dissociate

Reinstate what the Constitution says about voting. Only landholders should be able to vote. This Constitutional law would prevent parasites from voting.

Land holders? So an American who works, supports themselves, and rents a house will not be able to vote, is that what you are saying?

Q22

Maybe if your Democrat poll workers weren't voting so many times that others would have time to vote.

Seriously, the ignorance of some of you people is really overwhelming!!

Do you have any proof of your "stupid party" comment?

Robert Warner-3092405

jjjj-2003719, if you think the election of President Obama proves that the Voting Rights Act is no longer needed, you might want to look at the voting map. He lost ALL of the southern states. The racism and bigotry is as strong as ever in the south and we MUST prevent the racists of the south from rigging elections. THAT'S why the voting rights act is needed

Exactly, very well said, and factual!!!

Hi sullyness...

I was really only speaking about Florida since I live here and heard all of the stories about us. :-)

Couldn't tell you much about Ohio.

So - we will see if a black supreme court justice (Thomas) will vote to allow the setting up of apartheid. There are politicians in the south (Alabama, LA, Mississippi, etc) already talking about bringing back civics testing as a precondition for voting. For whites - the question will be how many states are in the Union. For blacks - it will be state the purpose of the 14 paragraph of the constitution. And you bigots will call this fair - just like your parents did in the 1950's.

And if you don't think that blacks are already discriminated against - just look at the voting in Mississippi and Alabama. 80% of the population is black, 94% of blacks supported Obama, but both state voted for Romney. So how did those 26% (20% white, 6% black) carry the election?

Striking down the Voting Rights Act would be a massive step forward for the sanctity of the voting privilege

I just don't understand the cognitive dissonance and disconnect from reality it takes to make statements like this.

/shaking head

They have to overhaul it to address the thuggery of the SEIU and Black Panthers at the polls. Don't get on your dumbassed yankee high horses...there's at least as much racial discrimination in the north...if not more.

Interested observer said:

And if you don't think that blacks are already discriminated against - just look at the voting in Mississippi and Alabama. 80% of the population is black, 94% of blacks supported Obama, but both state voted for Romney. So how did those 26% (20% white, 6% black) carry the election?

According to the census, Alabama is 70.1% white and 26.5% black.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/01000.html

Also, according to the census, Mississippi is 60% white and 37.3% black

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/28000.html

Not sure where you got the 80% from.

I've lived in the north and south. IN the south, they have faced their deamons and dealt with them. Up north, you don't talk to people outside of your neighborhood. Forget white and black, you have Irish, Italian, Polish, Jamacian and any other difference you can think of. In the south, the black and white culture is near the same, up north, not even close.

It is funny how most the people disscussing this act don't even live in the areas affected.

BW-1572743

Uhhhh, Houston, we have a problem with your bend on the process, This is the entire Supreme Court making this decision. Not Roberts. Learn your Justice System before you spout crap bud.

Of course it will be the five Republicans on the court with Roberts in the lead. So there's five radical activist judges legislating from the bench to overturn the voting rights act when it should be Congress changing anything in the law that's obsolete. Happy?

David Walker - a man who knows so little about so much

You are still sounding a little troubled with the fact that the republican Congress extended the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years in 2006. You just can't address that fact. Instead you remind me of the fact that I wanted Romney to win. (Which I still feel wouldhave been better for America) What is your point? As I said before, you are a partisan hack who spews crap about the republicans wanting to suppress votes. You couldn't prove your point because it is just what I say, CRAP. Go back and read your comment 1.21 just to remind yourself how ignorant you can be. It is NOT republicans that want to repeal the Voting Rights Act, they in fact extended the Act in 2006. You remember, the same congress that you say did all the harm to the country. Are you now saying that they were wrong in their extension of the Act? Make up your little mind. Pathetic partisan hack.

And yes, little davey I was correct in my comment. You are the one who was wrong. What I wrote in October was wishful thinking on my part and what I wrote today was FACT. You should learn the difference.

Frank "Grimey" Grimes

So all early voting no matter which area in Florida was from 10 days before to 3 days before the election. The hours could vary from 6 - 12 per day and it was up to each Supervisor of Elections. The three biggest Democratic counties in the state have supervisors of elections that are Democrats.

Minorities tend to vote more on those days that were cut, partly because they can't take off the time from work to vote on election day. And blacks in Florida have traditionally voted on the Sunday before the election, which is EXACTLY why the GOP stopped early voting on that day. It doesn't have to be quite so obvious as asking black people to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar before they can vote, but it was still pretty obvious. Florida was an absolute mess, as usual, during the last election, but more so than usual and especially for minorities.

Rest assured the Supreme Court WILL rule in favor of what THIS administration wants, regardless of what's best for the people and the Nation. Always have and always will.....they have been scolded by Obama for the last time.

Colorado-Man

So I preume that you also believe that all other decisions by the Supreme Court should be overturned until Congress decides to change them? The entire purpose of the Court is to decide on the constitutionality of legislation, which is what it is now reviewing.

Oh, I see. It's only legislating from the bench when they make rulings that conservatives don't that directly affect the constitutional rights of citizens, as in Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education. But when the radical conservative court concocts absurd reasons why something is unconstitutional, it's OK with you.

He lost ALL of the southern states. The racism and bigotry is as strong as ever in the south and we MUST prevent the racists of the south from rigging elections.

By your logic then I live in an extremely racist county in Oregon since this county is overwhelmingly red and romney won in this county. You're a stereotypical lib in the fact that just because someone didn't vote for obama, they are racist and bigots.

With that logic I guess I can call all of you libs that didn't vote for romney a bunch of minority racists that hate us crackers and bigots?

Guess what, the high majority of us that didn't vote for obama this time around didn't vote for him because we despise where he's taking the country. THAT has NOTHING to do with the color of his skin. Besides, he's half white.

You racist lib.

Minorities tend to vote more on those days that were cut, partly because they can't take off the time from work to vote on election day.

Yes, because ONLY minorities work on those days! All the white people have those days off so are able to vote at will.

Holy @!$%# you libs are making a mess out of this. Talking about trying to suppress the vote. How about this. Why don't we make it so that us crackers can only vote between noon and 1 on Wed, and all the rest of the hours and days are left to the minorities since they have SUCH a difficult time getting to the polls.

The racism is rampant on these forums, and it sure as hell isn't from the right.

So there's five radical activist judges legislating from the bench to overturn the voting rights act

Bet ya didn't think there were five radical activist judges when ACA was held did ya? Hypocrite.

They should strike down section 5. It is discriminatory and discrimination is unconstitutional. Congress either needs to make it apply to all states or none. Keep in mind there is the option of making it apply to all states, then, tada, it stays Constitutional. But no, just like Citizens United, another correct ruling by the justices, Congress won't fix the problem with the law like providing an exception for MEDIA CORPORATIONS involvement in politics so that the campaign finance law doesn't violate the 1st Amendment freedom of the press, they'll just leave this section of the law dead and give people yet one more thing to b!tch about.

Woohoo. The GOP finally found a loophole to get back into power.

Go go whit, I mean GOP power!!!

(No Im not a racist that is sarcasm 101)

You are still sounding a little troubled with the fact that the republican Congress extended the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years in 2006.

I'll give credit where credit is due. When reauthorization came up in 2006, it was passed 390-33 in the house, and 98-0 in the Senate, nearly unanimously. Both parties did a good job, it was the right thing to do.

Which of course begs the question, why is it now, a mere 6-7 years later, such a nefarious affront to democracy that it must be overturned at the behest of the Republican party? It couldn't have anything to do with the demographics of who votes D vs. R in the last few elections, and the fact that the Republican Party is losing out to those demographics, could it?

Many of the republican legislators who voted FOR it in 2006 are still there, so what changed their minds?

It's not just blacks who fear Republican attempts to infringe on their voting rights. It's Asians as well. And it's no wonder that Mitt Whatzisname lost the Asian votes by a whopping 70% even though Asians as a group are generally higher income and better educated than average -- the kind of voter that Mittens supposedly should have appealed to based on his economic arguments.

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Is-Texas-Asian-American-political-voice-at-risk-4310416.php

Is Texas' Asian-American political voice at risk?

Section 5 is vital in protecting the voices of minority citizens

By Mustafa Tameez and Mee Moua

As the U.S. Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of Section 5, a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, this week in Shelby Co. v. Holder, the need to protect Asian-American voters' rights has never been greater.

We know too well that, more often than not, Asian-Americans are perceived as outsiders or foreigners. In 2009, Texas state Rep. Betty Brown suggested that Asian voters adopt names that were "easier for Americans to deal with" - and laid bare the deeper racial divides and misunderstandings that still exist in our nation. At a campaign rally during the 2004 U.S. Senate race in Virginia, incumbent George Allen repeatedly called a South Asian volunteer for his opponent a "macaca" - a racial epithet used to describe Arabs or North Africans that literally means "monkey" - and then began talking about the "war on terror."

This continuing discrimination and xenophobia is particularly disheartening, if not surprising, with the rising trajectory of Asian-American population and political power. According to Dr. Stephen Klinberg of Rice University, Houston is the nation's most diverse and fastest growing city, and immigrants have always played a vital part in the city's and state's economy, culture and development. In fact, Asian-Americans are a sizeable and rapidly increasing part of Houston's population and the fastest growing racial group in the nation. Similarly, the fastest population growth occurred in the South, where the Asian-American population increased by 69 percent.

It's precisely when groups of minorities move into or outpace general population growth in an area that we see increases in racial tension and more hostility and discrimination against the growing group. We've seen this occur time and time again against Asian-Americans, including in the voting context.

For example, in the 2004 primary elections in Bayou LaBatre, Ala., supporters of a white incumbent running against a Vietnamese-American candidate colluded to intimidate Asian-American voters at the polls. They challenged Asian-Americans at the polls, falsely accusing them of not being U.S. citizens or city residents. The losing incumbent stated, "We figured if they couldn't speak good English, they possibly weren't American citizens." After an investigation found these actions to be racially motivated, the challengers were prohibited from interfering in the general election, and the city elected its first Asian-American to the city council.

It's behind this backdrop of ongoing discrimination and increasing growth of the Asian-American population that Section 5 is needed more than ever to ensure the voting rights of Asian-Americans.

During the last legislative session in 2011, Texas' round of redistricting was no better. Redistricting is often used to carve up ethnic and minority neighborhoods and spread out voters in a way that makes it much more difficult for minority candidates from those communities to win.

Following the 2010 Census, Texas lawmakers sought to redistribute Asian-American and minority voters - who together formed a majority of one district's voters - into three surrounding districts with larger non-minority populations. In doing so, lawmakers eliminated the minority coalition district that had elected Hubert Vo as the first Vietnamese-American state representative in Texas history. Vo ended up in a district with a white incumbent state representative from the same party, making it more difficult for him to run for re-election.

Our communities and organizations spoke out against this injustice, but Texas lawmakers ignored our concerns. It was only because of Section 5 protections that Texas was forced to seek approval of its redistricting plan from a federal court in Washington, D.C. The federal court rejected Texas' redistricting plan because it disenfranchised key minority voting blocs. In effect, Section 5 stopped restrictive and discriminatory voting laws before they ever went into effect.

Asian-Americans wait expectantly for the Supreme Court to rule on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. At stake is our ability to combat real attempts at disenfranchisement and discrimination.

Tameez is president of the South Asian Chamber of Commerce, Houston, and a senior fellow at the Institute for Sustainable Peace, Houston. Moua is president and executive director of the Asian-American Justice Center, Washington, D.C.

No JH lotsanumbers - You didn't just engage in wishful thinking. The quotes are right there. You said he would win. You said it again and again and again.

As far as the extension, that is irrelevant in this debate. It wouldn't matter if the VRA had been extended by little green men. It is the constitutionality that is being questioned, not who passed the extension and not when the extension was passed.

My points are correct. The securing and protection of voting rights are as old as this country. That there are individuals and groups that are constantly trying to abridge and/or deny those rights is a matter of fact. I offered specific examples. I note you are unable to refute them. It is Republicans who are doing everything possible to change the voting landscape.

I said nothing of repeal. YOU DID. If you wish to argue, take it up with yourself. I spoke of invalidation. That is the issue. Repeal is a legislative matter. Invalidation is a court matter. If you were interested in something more than making a fool of yourself, you could go read the article and see that it is judicial review that is the topic. You petty name-calling makes you look all the more foolish.

I am amazed at the number of people that wish to claim that this is all about having to have a photo id to vote. It is way more than that. It is moving a polling station without telling the citizens...it is about not granting equal access to early voting...or not sufficient booths and voters are in line for hours. Simply put, it is about protecting the fundamental rights of individuals that would otherwise be put in jeopardy.

But I guess it is easy to diminish one's sight to match one's view.

If you're a liberal and you point your finger at conservatives and cry "racist", you're a total idiot and shouldn't be allowed to vote.

if you DON'T think racism is still a problem in this country, you should check with the African-Americans of the Teaparty......all 2 of them.

if you DON'T think racism is still a problem in this country, you should check with the African-Americans of the Teaparty......all 2 of them.

There is actually quite a few more than just two blacks in the tea party, in fact there's tea party members from all races. But.... nice way to be racist.

manin japans quote "Hi JCB,

I just think that it is ironic that many people that are for making it hard to vote, are against making it hard to buy deadly weapons. If the voting rights laws fall, and the Republicans in these states have their way, It wii literally be easier to buy and carry a gun, than it is to vote. So much for patriotism. THere are countries in the world where voting is considered mandatory. Seems somewhere along the way, We have lost our way. This is just plain wrong"

What in the hell are you talking about? I own three guns and had to not only show a photo ID, but also had to go through a complete background check, which I TOTALLY support, and then had to wait three days before I could pick up said gun on all three occasions, which I also support. And those states were Georgia and North Carolina, republican run states at the time. I am an independent who believes that a photo ID is not asking to much to vote in this country, and this BS by liberal loonies about how "hard it is" to get an ID, is just BS. If your that lazy I don't want you voting as I stated earlier in this thread. You best know what your writing about before you appear so out of touch with reality pal.

Regardless of partisan politics, has anyone noticed what is now supposedly representing us in Washington? MSM determines who is elected. And there all a bunch of boobs. I don't see how changing anything is going to change that.

Voting? It has become more like lemmings jumping off a cliff.

Houston in addition to what you listed as reasons, anther reason, that when enacted seemed an inconvenience at best, was the length of the ballot, in some areas there were 12 pages and others about 10. These were amendments to the State Constitution and mostly were on right wing ideological talking points, gratefully were almost all rejected by the voters. This caused the extremely long lines especially in counties in the southern half which tends to be heavily Democratic.....but it didn't work, many were in line for 7+ hours when many of them knew that President Obama had won, but they stayed because it was important to them. In addition, not enough funds were allocated to cover the hiring of additional workers or enough locations provided for early voting all denied by a Republican Governor and Legislature, who now that he's running for re-election has a miracle 'come to Jesus moment' and acknowledges the hours and locations need to at least return to what they were before the conservatives tried to suppress the vote.

Someone explain to me this. For those against requiring ID to vote, Are you suggesting that the mere fact the person showed up to a poll validates their right to do so?. So you don't see an issue with allowing someone to come up to a polling station and say they are someone else and vote in that person's name while never having to produce anything that proves they are J.Doe. Really. So you advocate that the right to vote calls for zero validation on the polling station and the requirement to get an ID is a hardship or an in-convienence. Do you realize how stupid that sounds. Just so you know, last time we checked, we have 10 million illegal aliens in this country. If requiring an id stops 10 million illegals from casting an illegal vote, then we should have implemented it years ago. To assume everyone in this country is eligible to vote is to be naive. Stop making excuses for the poor will you. I swear you almost prefer they remain that way so you can justify your faux concern on their behalfs. Why not advocate for free Id cards for those unable to afford it. Or better yet, cut from one of the hundreds of wasteful programs you have now to pay for it.

Another Liberal jackwad accusing people of being racist because they don't agree. As for the Liberal jackwad that commented on the tea party not having many minorities. Minorities vote democrat across the board. They collect the most entitlements so naturally they would vote that way. 90% of African Americans voted for Obama. Now, none of them would join a movement that wants to vote any Democrat out, which includes Obama, right? Race IS a factor, alright. But unfortunately for the dipsh*t liberals calling conservatives racists, it's not a racist issue. This is something the African American community needs to work out. In other words, you can't tell me that 90% of anybody is either liberal or conservative. If 90% of ANYBODY voted for Obalma, there must be more to it than politics. African Americans need to quiz them selves and ask them selves, each independently, "Am I liberal by nature, or conservative?", and then VOTE ACCORDINGLY. Quit voting for the guy just because he is Black. THAT'S RACIST.

A poll worker in Ohio admits to having voted for Obama at least six times. So it would appear our voting process is neither a hassle or limiting in any way. But of course any challenge to our current system is met with calls of racism and voter suppression from liberals. Republicans are the liberals target for insults and blame. Yet having an open, honest, and absolutely fair election in this country does require vigilance as well as change where needed. For anyone to suggest that proving who you are is voter suppression is ridiculous. In Maine you can walk into a polling place, give them your name, they ask you if you still live at, and off you go. No proof required. Yeah, no room for fraud with that system.

I hope there is no change - any infringement on my ability to vote 4 or 5 times in an election, which I currently enjoy, will not be tolerated! Nothing easier than going to my polling place and stating a new name each time with the bluehairs who provide the ballots.

Houston and GBM...

I hear what you guys are saying. But I guess what I don't understand on the topic of this article is why Florida needs to get permission to reduce the number of days of early voting when there are states with no early in person voting at all (NJ, NH, MI, MS, CT, AL, PA, RI) or states that have early in-person voting but only with a valid excuse (VA, SC, NY, MO, MN, MA, KY, DE) for why you can't vote on election day. We still have 7 days of early in-person voting and we also have vote by mail absentee voting. Seems like we are ahead of an awful lot of states.

GBM...I definitely agree with you though on the size of the ballot. That was just ludicrous.

It's about time!!! Time to dump this outdated law!!! Hooray for the SC.

honestdebate.........you misspoke:

Quote.......We should also be encouraged that we have, waiting in the wings, a public servant as able as Hilary Clinton to receive the torch in 2016.

Ian, didn't you just tell me on another post that Hilary was not qualified to be president, which is why you elected someone without any qualifications?.......EndQuote

Here is the EXACT quote you refer:

Quote.......Democrats voted for Barack Obama (in 2008) because he was deemed slightly superior to Hillary Clinton in THOSE circumstances........EndQuote.....http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/26/17105589-ky-group-rebuked-by-gop-judd-for-racially-charged-tweet?commentId=74470175#c74470175

It seems your reading comprehension is poor and/or your username is intentionally ironic.

Since voting takes place in all 50 states (and 7 territories) you either regulate it all states or no states. The idea that the goverment needs to serve as a nanny for 8 states out of 50 is ridiculous.

David Walker--I am ever more saddened each day when I read your comments. You and I disagree on much, but I have always considered you as thoughtful and erudite.

The last election cycle has done something to you--you haven't been the same since. You have become nothing more than a more well-spoken purveyor of talking points. The fact that you use better grammar and complete sentences than the average bomb-thrower used to be a bonus--now it's all you've got....

Frank "Grimey" Grimes, Springfield, USA

I hear what you guys are saying. But I guess what I don't understand on the topic of this article is why Florida needs to get permission to reduce the number of days of early voting when there are states with no early in person voting at all (NJ, NH, MI, MS, CT, AL, PA, RI)

When a certain group of people traditionally expect to vote on certain days, and those particular days are dropped, it's pretty obvious that the reason is to prevent those certain groups from voting. As for those other states, the rules should be made uniform across the country in ALL states.

I see the morons are claiming that this act was needed once but is no longer. Obviously, they have paid no attention whatsoever to the last 5, 10, 15 (pick a number) local and national elections.

They are either completely ignorant or are lying. Since they are republicans, it may be both.

mindcrime lotsanumbers:

I believe you are correct that the tone of my posts has changed since the last election. However, I do not agree that I simply parrot talking points. I voted for President Obama of course. Given the choice between someone who tries to accommodate, and a lying panderer, there was little choice.

On numerous occasions I have expressed my disappointment with the President. Apparently that has gone unnoticed.

While I am disappointed with the President's reticence on many issues and what appears to be his refusal to go after the financial services sector that still keeps this nation in a precarious economic position, I am furious with the right wing.

The right-wing lie/propaganda machine not only continues to spew falsehoods, but has actually ratcheted up the noise. Rand Paul takes his cues from disreputable sources. John McCain and Lindsey Graham hold up a nomination for no credible reason. Ted Cruz has resurrected Joe McCarthy.

John Boehner refuses to marshal his troops to produce a budget, which is his Constitutional responsibility, and then has the gall to blame the Senate and the President. Yes, he has the insufferably ignorant teabaggers with whom he must deal, but if it means reaching across the aisle to the Minority Leader and Democrats to get the nation's business done. So be it. That is leadership.

Eric Cantor openly encourages the split in the party. Crazed right-wingers threaten what's left of the moderate Republican wing.

Right here in Kansas, I watch the two Republican Senators openly insult Bob Dole and spit on the disabled.

Am I angry? You bet your ass, I'm angry. That said, I can still defend what I say, and with facts.......not talking points.

BoredofStupid

Voting is a right, gun ownership is a right, need id to buy a gun? Need id to vote.

The 2nd Amendment says it all about gun ownership.

The 15th says you can't be denied the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude, apparently it can be denied for not having an ID if the states so choose.

If they start repealing voting laws like this, it'll start a backward spiral to the 1800's, then again, maybe the republicans want that, since neither women nor minoritys agree with their biased hate-filled policys

Elections should be run by an independent agency.

No political party should be conducting an election where they have a stake in the outcome. It leads to disenfranchisement and corruption.

"Do you know what has the best, where African American turnout actually exceeds white turnout? Mississippi.”"

Something doesn't jibe there.

I thought Republicans complained that 97% of black voters would and did vote for President Obama.

If there are more African American voters than there are White voters in Mississippi, then why didn't Obama win Mississippi, and why is Mississippi a solidly "red" state?

TO: J. Clarke who wrote:

"...the Voting Rights Act applies in only 9 states and New Hampshire is not one of them, so what do you know about it?"

Clarke, you didn't read the whole article, some sections of the Voting Rights Act applies to all 50 states.

TO: ObammyDouchebag who wrote:

"David Walker...you are as uneducated as you are uninformed. Repubicans were not the ones (ahem, PresiDEBT DIPSH*T) who brought in 11 million "illeagals"..."

You must be talking about Republican Ronald Reagan, and yes it was Ronald Reagan who granted 6 million illegals amnesty, and that number turned into 12 million, which is why voting immigrants were solidly Republican for years until Democrat Bill Clinton came along, then immigrants switched to being "Democrats" and did 75% of voting Americans.

President Obama has deported more illegal aliens than any other president in history.

When Verrilli defended the section 5 of the law, Chief Justice John Roberts asked him, “Do you know which state has the worst ratio of white voter turnout to African American voter turnout?”

Verrilli said he did not, to which Roberts replied: “Massachusetts. Do you know what has the best, where African American turnout actually exceeds white turnout? Mississippi.”

Roberts then asked Verrilli which state has the greatest disparity in registration between whites and African Americans, and again Verrilli did not know.

Again Roberts answered Massachusetts. He added that in Mississippi, “the African American registration rate is higher than the white registration rate.”

Wow, just wow! The SG aguing this case doesn't even know these facts!

TO: AlexM-3929653 who wrote:

"... There is actually quite a few more than just two blacks in the tea party, in fact there's tea party members from all races. But..."

That's a lie and you know it.

American Girl-724855

"Do you know what has the best, where African American turnout actually exceeds white turnout? Mississippi.”"

------

Something doesn't jibe there.

I thought Republicans complained that 97% of black voters would and did vote for President Obama.

If there are more African American voters than there are White voters in Mississippi, then why didn't Obama win Mississippi, and why is Mississippi a solidly "red" state?

The information I found shows that Mississippi is 37% Black, and the White population is 60%.

It's difficult for me to see how there are going to be a higher black turnout than a white turnout assuming normal population followings of 40% vote. Obama got 562,949 votes and Romney got 710,746 votes. Based on 2012 census figures, Mississippi has a population of just under 3 million (2,984,926). This shows about 42.6% voted, which is just above national average.

I'm with AG here. Just doesn't compute.

This is the road to apartheid, a better idea would be to subject all 50 states to section 4 and 5, or change to the popular vote and eliminate the electoral college. One man one vote, just as we impose on other countries.

American Girl-724855

President Obama has deported more illegal aliens than any other president in history.

Not quite accurate. He deported them at a faster rate than any other President, but has not caught up to how many Bush deported yet. By the time his second term is up, he will have deported more than any President by quite a good amount.

Per averages, Obama has deported 32,886 per month, with Bush at 20,694 per month. Using that data, per Politifact, Bush has deported around 1,986,624 illegal immigrants were Obama at this time would only have 1,611,414.

This is assuming Politifacts averages are correct as of August 2012 and have continued.

That's a lie and you know it.

Oh? Have you counted them? I know I've read quite a few articles over the past few years written by black tea party members. (Hint, there's more than two black authors).

There's also been the occasional MSM article about minorities in the tea party (even on NBC once or twice).

But.... I guess that admitting that would also be admitting that you democrats haven't crushed all minorities into submission, there are still a few out there that think with their own mind. So I understand you wanting to think that I'm lying.

Antistupidity

One man one vote, just as we impose on other countries

One person , one vote, show ID, eliminate electoral college and replace for a Credit Card company there is less froud with CC companies than than DoJ. End of problem. 99 % of countries except USA ID is required.

Does Q22 even know what he or she is talking about? The avatar fits!!!

Ian Emdee

JCB-1236504......

Acquiring a library card, opening a bank account, having utilities, nor buying regulated substances (alcohol) ARE NOT RIGHTS.

Voting (for eligible citizens) IS A RIGHT. When states offer ID's, free of charge, to eligible citizens, that's when they (states) should require them. Nobody should be required to PAY to vote. That's a poll tax no matter how you want to spin it.

The fact that you, obviously, do not (care to) understand this is exactly WHY the "voting rights act" was enacted.

#1.25 - Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:59 PM EST

Hmmm...where do you stand on "gun control" laws?

Owning a firearm is a "right" too...yet you have to do a lot more in addition to showing a photo ID to purchase one. When the people on the left start showing the same concern over people's 2nd Amendment rights as they do for the right to vote, then perhaps conservatives might believe them.

Take your argument and apply it to the rest of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and see where that leads you. You might find yourself in the conservative camp after all.

Hopefully the court won't throw out the whole law.

Ron said above:

There was a need for this act at one point in time, but I think that need has passed.

Seriously?! After the shenanigans the Republicans pulled and tried to pull after the last election, you think the needs has passed? I live in Florida and if our Republican politicians could get away with it, they would block any one darker than a brown paper bag from voting. This feeling is shared by enough crazies in this Country to make the possibility of voting down this law really, really scary. I am old enough to remember voter discrimination prior to this law being enacted in 1965. Scilia called it an entitlement. Stupid, stupid man.

kimH-1330542

Seriously?! After the shenanigans the Republicans pulled and tried to pull after the last election, you think the needs has passed?

You are a big fat liar, can you give a case by Ruled the Court that can support your statement.

However voter fraud is more likely to happens.

South Florida election officials have reportedly foiled a plot to fraudulently apply on line for thousands of absentee ballots in three 2012 primaries, but the masterminds remain at large amid concern that they could be successful the next time around by making minor adjustments.

Officials in the state’s Miami-Dade region said they blocked the effort to get 2,552 absentee ballots in three August primaries because the requests rolled in just minutes apart on July 7, 2012, according to The Miami Herald, which conducted its own investigation.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/26/florida-foils-web-based-voter-fraud-plot-but-next-attempt-could-be-more-elusive/#ixzz2M99u40yZ

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 might be 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!

Wow! Tough call. (at least in having to AGAIN live the next little while in mistrustful waiting fear and trepidation of the next thing The Supreme Court is going to do to violate us, [US]). I've read the Article twice and still have to try and make heads and tails of it all (if I get the time and opportunity, not the inclination, to do so) but what immediately jumped out at me was the startling inputs from Kennedy, Scalia and Roberts who all seemed to be "speculatively" spouting in the exact same manner that they just got done shutting out and ruling that the "Challenger" to Federal Surveilance Act didn't have standing because of what they claimed he was doing, ie, using a "speculative" perspective, especially with a detrimentally compounded difference being that they're each trying to presto-change-o "harm" from known and known of to speculative! Go back and read each one's. Kagan was GREAT! It's not "stigma" if it's true and accurately used in the proper and appropriate perspective. Verrilli NAILED IT, except for unfortunately minimizing language and only calling it "mischief", instead of at the very least, "DETRIMENTALLY HARMFUL MISCHIEF". And none of this is denying any State its right to govern itself and EVERY State is a trustee of the United States by way of the 14th Amendment so these States aren't being singled out to "only them" being trustees BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH..........and INCREDIBLY, in this instance, CONGRESS IS NOT OVERREACHING ITS POWER because this definately falls under one of those times that Congress has the POWER TO "ENFORCE BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION" (as expressly written in the Constitution)

Republicon party, party of NO, party of Voter suppression laws, party of gerrymandering, party of the rich trying to buy elections, party of voter fraud.....party of.........Alabama......where it is still 1960.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling...

It appears that the minority voting rights are stronger in the States that are the subject of the law than in those States that were exempt.

So why continue punishing States that have a better record than the others?

This is just about 'control', and is clearly now a violation of States Rights.

It's time to discard this anachronism and give the (primarily) southern States the same rights as the rest of the country.

Roy Wilson...do you know if the law was responsible in those states that had no issues this past election? Given the attempts to gerrymander districts recently coupled with sudden voting law changes I'd say give it a little longer before eliminating any portions of the law.

The attacks on civil rights and Democracy have a lot to do with economics and if the current economic trends continue so will the erosion of rights and democracy.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."....Justice Louis Brandeis

Share of national wealth going to the richest 10%:

http://a.imageshack.us/img571/7532/saezfigure1.png

Frank "Grimey", not all counties in Fl come under these requirements, only five are under preclearance (Section 5), Collier, Hendry Hillsborough, Hardee, and Monroe. None of them so far, have behaved in a fair manner that would release them from preclearance and so the Dept of Justice will continue to require them to report any changes they make in their voting requirements.

This is all different from what Governor Scott and the GOP Legislature signed off on prior to the 2012 elections, in particular on the length of early voting time and the hours they could be open. I agree there should be standard requirements for voter eligibility nationwide.

There have always been efforts to prevent certain segments of the population from voting, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to prevent these efforts, but as in so many good intentions, there are always a few who will try to find the loopholes and use underhanded ways to at the very least, make it more difficult. Every citizen has the right to vote and should not need a particular form of ID in order to do so. When one registers to vote is when proof of ID should be required and with the state of Fl, there are many acceptable forms of ID allowed at the polls. But being a minority, or poor should never prevent any valid citizen from voting and this happens in most states in various ways and has got to stop. Too many died for that not to happen and we must remember this...always.

Wow. And to think I once had an ounce of respect for Tony Scalia. What a travesty the conservative wing of this court is.

Tom in NH-294381

Striking down the Voting Rights Act would be a massive step backwards for minority voters in this country! Republicans have shown an enthusiasm for doing anything to suppress the minority vote!! Since the 2000 election, Republicans have taken very serious steps in denying legitimate voters their right to vote!

Tom in the Land of OZ -

Does the word horsesh!t come to mind? You sound like some idiotic white liberal with knee pads on. You have balls to accuse Republicans of denying the legitimate voters their right to vote? Please do not confuse illegals and dead people voting with legitimate voter's category. Here is a clue if the Republicans were successful in what your delusions claimed, what color is the POTUS? Yeah, he's definitely not a snowflake, okay, half a snowflake. So, two be elected twice as the first black POTUS, certifiably ends discrimination in the United States of America. You can right that in f#$king stone, granite preferably! The black man is now "The Man" or guy in charge of the country! See how wonderful that is, now we can remove all the racial quotas in the country! Yeah, the sound great to me!

Treating some states as if they were still occupied by federal troops in this day cannot be justified. That 100% of the states of 'The South' voted for Romney is not proof of institutional racism in voting procedure, any more than that several precincts in Chicago voted unanimously for Obama. President Kennedy said in a speech in the summer of 1963, whereing he called for civil rights legislation, that we cannot have second-class citizens. Yet, if we have second class states in perpetuity, then the citizens of those states are by extension reduced to second class status. If a state provides an official state ID free of charge to any citizen of the state who does not have a driver's license already, there is no problem. Perhaps soon, the enhanced forgery-proof Social Security card that is coming will suffice for voter identification, so that no state can be accused of racism by requiring such a standardized ID card. Too bad if the political party that does everything it can to disenfranchise military voters feels they are about to be denied the right to "cheat fair and square."

I wonder if Obi Wan Obama will issue a warning to the court just before their decision is due, like he did when they were considering ObamaCare. Maybe it will go something like this; you don't know the power of the dark side of liberalism.

The SC should leave the VRA alone. To think that the states will police themselves and conduct fair election practices in all instances is gullible at best. It is the job of the federal government to act as an overseer of the states to ensure that the rights of ALL citizens are being protected. Look at the number of states today who still hold unfair laws and practices on their books (i.e. against same sex marriage, etc.) Times may change, but there is certainly no evidence to suggest that states are any less likely to discriminate against an entire group of people given the relaxation of requirements designed to prevent that from happening.

I see so much reverse racism and bigotry in these posts it is sad.. Obama has succeed in taking our nation backwards in race relations.. My brother and nephew live in a predominately Black neighborhood in Cleveland and they had to vote with absentee ballots because they feared persecution from the Black majority.. They knew better then to put a pro Romney sign in their yard as many people that did got tires slashed and windows busted and other vandalism.. I would call that vote intimidation via mob rule.. 39 states require a Valid ID but these 9 do not?? OK if the ID is too much of a burden even though they can go to their county aid office and get one for free.. Federal law in All states require employers to allow voters time off during the work day to vote.. Also the voter could get an absentee ballot and place their vote.. The Democrats are afraid of the one vote per citizen idea?? If you have nothing to hide get the damn ID.. This makes me wonder how much Social Security and welfare fraud is going on in these states..

Ron-1861300

There was a need for this act at one point in time, but I think that need has passed.

Right...Republicans aren't the least interested in suppressing the minority vote...right?

Roadrunner0

I see so much reverse racism and bigotry in these posts it is sad

Racism: Racism is usually defined as views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior or superior.

...so how would you define reverse racism? Sounds to me like reverse racism would be a good thing.

Doc,

Right...Republicans aren't the least interested in suppressing the minority vote...right?

Are they only interested in doing so in the 8 States bound by section 5? If no then why is section 5 not applied Nation wide?

It's their RIGHT, not their "privilege". Guess you missed the fact that some poor people live 20 miles away from where the "free" ID can be acquired. Are you volunteering to find them all and give them a ride? I doubt it.

I'm sure you've seen this before, but everyone in America should watch it until it's seared into their brain:

Nice generalization. Sure, if "they" have an HD TV or a Cell phone, they can afford an ID. What if "they" don't? Do you like being discussed as a "they"? They are racist idiots. Does it feel good to be a "they" now that I've grouped you in a way that's convenient to me?

In terms of the voter ID issue in the last election, I think most Americans would not have a problem requiring an ID. I certainly didn't. But I was very much against what happened in several states (such as PA) last year when a change was made right before the election. If this made a great deal of sense to require IDs, why wasn't it promoted 10 years ago?

The real answer why it wasn't promoted earlier for most of these attempts was that they wanted the change to take place to influence the outcome of the election. And shame on people who promoted this for pretending it to be otherwise. So ToxicChemist, if you really believe this is right and fair and the correct thing to do, work on it now for the election in 2016. That would give people plenty of time to prepare for it

Man, you are very short sighted. You really need to expand the thought process and stop sounding so very bigoted, because that's how you come off. Not everyone in the minority has all those things you are saying. Yes, many do. I am not in the minority and I do not own a flat screen HD t.v., nor do I have a smart phone. I have basic cable, I do not have a land line, and I don't own a laptop. There are many others in this country the same as me. If we are going to force people to get I.D, some very elderly who have never had a driver's license, even a picture I.D, then there should be provisions for the very poor in this country to be able to obtain one at a discount and in an easier fashion then some of the Republican leaders throughout this country made it, especially in this last election. There are some people who live in such rural communities that the closest DMV might be up to 50 miles away. I've read stories from people who kept track as to the expense it took in order for them to get an ID so they could vote in their state. It cost one man over $150. when all was said and done. It cost him time from work, gas, and the cost of the ID. That is essentially a poll tax being imposed on people.

Some of you people are so willing to trample on all the other rights afforded to us as citizens, but go anywhere near the 2nd amendment, and it's an all out blood bath. Gay and want to be legally married? @!$%# you. Want to vote? Jump through the hoops, or @!$%# you. Want the right to say what's right for you and your body? @!$%# you. Trample, trample, trample but dare to touch my gun.

Hey Aaronsan, "they" is a third person plural pronoun nothing more. To call me racist just goes to show just how F'ed up YOU are.

Anybody who uses the accusation of "racisim" where it is not meant if an idiot. There Aaronsan, now I have grouped you in a way that is convenient to me.

That is essentially a poll tax being imposed on people.

AlaskaGirl, so what is so different than all the other taxes being imposed by your guy? All we here is excuses, excuses, excuses as to why we can't have any order in the polls.

Toxic, it has been proven that voter ID fraud is at the most less than 1/2%, yet the Republicans have been running around yelling voter fraud as if their hair was on fire. Funnily enough in this last election, it was Republicans who were perpetrating voter fraud. Why is it that they've been going around the system and sneakily getting laws on the books that will hinder the voting process, cutting down the days and hours one can go to the polls in their area to vote? Why is it that the 102 year old lady that was at this last SoTU address was made to wait 7 hours in line so that she could vote? That is disgusting! Nobody in this country should be made to wait in line for nearly 8 hours so they can cast their vote. That is what was done in some of the poorer areas and demographically democrat areas in this country. If it wasn't for all the hard work of people making sure that our rights weren't being trampled on by the Republicans, they would, if given the chance, provided one barely functioning voting machine in those areas and limited voting time and days even more drastically then they were able to. You advocate this????!!!! If you do, then you are no better than the party of scum that is this new Republican party.

I think people of every race should have to prove they are a citizen of this country to vote. Why are people against that? I also think they need to stop letting members of the black panthers hang around voting places during elections.

Cheryl: voter intimidation is illegal whether you're a Black Panther, or a Neo-Nazi.

I'm with you, tomilvento: Not opposed to voter ID, and it makes some sense, but the only reasonable way to go about it is to work on it a year, maybe even YEARS ahead of time. Trying to force it in just months/weeks before a close election makes it pretty damn clear what you're trying to do, GOTea's.

AlaskaGirl, You bad .... Now that's telling it like it is.

Cheryl, what's wrong with black panthers hanging aroung polling stations? You do realize they have no clue who anyone voted for? When you vote, you are alone with just the machine and no one else is watching. So even at worst case you are threatened to vote a certain way, how would they know?

Alaska girl, so, getting an ID is making you jumping through hoops? My good, you must be dumb if so.

Cheryl-633120

I think people of every race should have to prove they are a citizen of this country to vote. Why are people against that? I also think they need to stop letting members of the black panthers hang around voting places during elections.

I remember that video on FOX, my favorite part was when the scary looking black guy stopped to open the door for the little old ladies.

Toxic

Those other taxes have nothing to do with voting. I think you are having a hard time understanding the issue. Its against the law to make people pay for a vote its against the constitution. Asking for an ID with out providing one for free and a easy means of obtaining one. Is paying for a vote. Its that simple

ToxicChemist,

Voting is NOT a "privelege"- it is a right.

AlaskaGirl-759554: It seems that there may be more Voter Fraud being committed than generally realized. And it is not at the Polls. Its within the use of Absentee Ballots. The use of Absentee Ballots have mushroomed across America with little or no safeguards to insure that no one other than the requester (voter) and those utilizing and returning the ballot are indeed the one and the same.

PS: Those Voter ID's do not mean an iota when Absentee Ballots are used.

SCGuardian

More republicans use Absentee Ballots

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/329794/more-republicans-democrats-requesting-absentee-ballots-four-swing-states-katrina-trink

AlaskaGirl, in my first comment I advocated that the Fed see to it that ALL public polling places should have oversight to see that none of the inconsistancies you mention (that favor either party) take place. So, no I do not advocate anything the hinders American citizens the ability to vote. But, I do believe that it is incumbant on the voters to see to it they can show the election officials that they are indeed who they claim to be.

The elderly lady should have been brought to the front of the line. It would have been the polite /proper thing to do. And if there was oversight, there wouldn't have been polling places with insufficient numbers of voting machines causing people to wait for several hours to vote. BTW, your statement in that regard is purely speculative.

No hakstarr, requiring an ID to vote is not requiring someone to pay to vote. A person in the USA in the 21st century should have an ID.

Since the state is requiring ID, when in reality we should never be forced to show anything to exercise a right from voting to the RIGHT to drive to the right to buy a firearm, but since they are requiring it, they should be providing it 100% for free. The ID should simply be a voter registration card with your picture on it. It shouldn't be a huge deal to issue it. Go to your local (where ever you go to register, in my state its the DMV) and they should take a picture of you and send it off or make it right there. IF it is sent out in a few days you either get it in the mail or you can come back to pick it up. ZERO cost except to replace it if YOU damage it or lose it or it gets stolen. New replacement cards (renewal) should happen every 4 years, again at no cost, to verify addresses. Simple, easy and no cost to anyone but the tax payers. IMO that's a fair price for fair elections and a state issued ID so you can "show your papers" during illegal searches

Toxic, what's so hard to understand about this? Requiring an ID IS requiring someone to pay to vote. The Democratic argument hasn't been "we don't want voter's to have to provide ID", it's "We don't want voters to have to provide ID UNLESS that ID is granted free of charge".

How hard is it to understand that a lot of people right above, at, or below the poverty line CANNOT afford the 20-40$ required for a Gov't ID? Do you want to feed your kids for three or four nights, or get an ID to vote? Starving Kid or Vote? You pick.

Regarding Voter Fraud, whoever said it earlier nailed it. Voter fraud does occur, but not in a significant number of situations that would be addressed by having an ID. Most of the supposed fraud occurs in Absentee balloting. "But, Ed-2990755, why are Republicans not advocating for absentee ballot reform", you ask? Well maybe it's because more absentee voters tend to vote Republican then Democrat.

Also, Toxic, your description of lower income people getting assistance is offensive. Not because it's racist, just because you're laying a blanket accusation at all people who get Gov't assistance as somehow gaming the system. In addition, Voting is NOT A PRIVILEGE (as you said in your first post), Voting is a RIGHT.

Requiring someone to PAY for an ID in order to VOTE is a POLL TAX.

It doesn't matter if it's 50 cents or 500 dollars.

In fact, in this day and age, why are Gov't ID's not issued for free, for God's Sake? Everyone wants to crack down on illegals and voter fraud, well give everyone a ID without charging them for it and all the excuses evaporate.

Funnily enough in this last election, it was Republicans who were perpetrating voter fraud.

Once again AlaskaGirl, which party had the most voter fraud and voting issues this last election? Read my response to you up above in the previous thread. Democrats had FAR more issues with perpetrating voter fraud than the republicans. Numerous occasions from throwing republicans out of the polling places, to voting multiple times, to getting more than 100% of the vote. Stop being an ignorant lib and looking stupid. Try thinking with your own mind and research @!$%# before you go spouting crap off.

The problem with these ridiculous voter ID laws is that they're completely politically charged. If Republicans really wanted to address potential voter fraud, they'd do something about absentee ballots, they'd make Gov't ID's (Even if they can only be used to vote with) free of charge.

The fact that you don't hear a peep about either of those is what makes it so bloody obvious it's politically motivated.

We ONLY want to address Voter Fraud where it will have an impact on minority and low income voters. It's just a complete coincidence that those voters happen to mainly vote Democrat, right?

Places where voter fraud is much more likely (Absentee ballots, poll workers committing fraud, etc...) aren't being addressed by Republican measures at all.

Why?

everyone wants to crack down on illegals? hmmmmmmmmm.except...... politicians who cater to their voter base.gotta keep their cush jobs and bennies a flowin with their inflated salaries for doing absolutely no work.

Hey Alex, even if what you're saying was true [citation needed] - Which of those things you listed are stopped by Voter ID?

Hey all you numnuts. Some of the states, if not all of them, that already have voter id laws and have had for years have free voter id's. No money needed. You get it when you register to vote. It's not a D.L., which states do charge for. In fact, one of the states that got its voter id law struck down this past year had the law on the books for over a year before the election and provided free voter id's. That's more than 1 year, not 6 months before the election as is commonly spouted, and free, as in the person receiving the voter id does not, in fact, have to provide money to receive it.

Hey Alex, even if what you're saying was true [citation needed] - Which of those things you listed are stopped by Voter ID?

I'm not going to go through the crap needed here in order to post links, all cases were in the MSM and can easily be googled (the voting six times was in the MSM the last few weeks in fact).

Voting six times would've been stopped. Getting over 100% of precincts would've been stopped.

Throwing the republican poll inspectors out wouldn't have been, was just another example of democrats trying to break the rules.

Well, I'm a Democrat, I live in California, and I use an absentee ballot. I do so because our county, in one of its better moves, in my opinion, eliminated or consolidated some of the voting precincts based on low population, and the difficulty in obtaining poll workers.

I live in a 'virtual' precinct. I have no polling place to which I could go, even if I wanted to. I do not regard this as a problem. I receive my ballot weeks before the election, and I receive a well-written and comprehensive voter's guide, published by the office of the California Secretary of State. I can read that over, mull my choices, listen to the debates well-informed on the points of the legislation, and ignore most of the radio and TV ads, which are at best skewed, no matter which party is offering them.

I then mark my paper ballot in the privacy of my own home, and put it into the special mailing envelope for its return. I could, at that point, put it in the mail postage-free (by the way, you cannot be required to pay to vote). But instead, I wait until election day, then deposit it in a ballot box at any precinct in my county. I usually choose the one closest to me. I can walk there, deposit the ballot in an actual ballot box (I don't want to trust my vote to the Postal Service), and walk home. There's rarely a crowd at the polling place, and there is no hassle for me. All our votes are counted (via optical scan) before the morning arrives.

I didn't have to stand in some long line for hours, in the rain or the snow, and was not hassled at any point on my route, even though I am Caucasian in a largely minority city in a largely minority county. I was treated with respect at all points in the process. An ideal voting solution, I think.

And so does the State of Oregon, in my understanding. There, all elections are conducted via mail. They report higher participation across the board since they have adopted that method. I imagine it's a real boon to people who live a long way from any polling place. Distances are vast here in the West.

In both processes, voter fraud is reduced by the fact that each registered voter gets one, and only one, ballot. If I were to lose my mail-in ballot, I could cast a provisional ballot, and the fraud, if any, would be caught in the counting process.

Here in California we have also done away with politicians drawing congressional districts. Our districts are now drawn by a panel of retired judges and ordinary citizens. It may not be perfect, but it's better than the gerrymandering we had previously, and that, in other states, results in a minority control of the House of Representatives at the federal level, (i.e., more Democrats nationwide voted for Representatives than Republicans did, but because of gerrymandering, their votes were essentially nullified.)

In theory, I have no problem requiring a proper ID to register to vote. The problem is how to issue them fairly, so that an undue burden (a legal term, by the way) does not fall on people who are in a difficult position to obtain such an ID. The mobility-challenged of all ages; the elderly, some of whom, in rural parts of the country may have been born at home, or before birth certificates were commonly issued; and children of parents who are careless, migratory, or missing, and who don't have the information necessary to obtain a birth certificate.

We have, from time to time, debated a national ID card, and the pros and cons of that argument are equally compelling. Other First-World nations have them, and it doesn't seem to have created a large problem for their citizens. Not everyone I know agrees with me. Personally, I carry a US passport as my ID, and it is unquestioned. But it also costs $100 to get one, and now, with all the fancy electronics in the card, I'm not sure they're as safe as they used to be, in the matter of ID theft.

I agree with those who say that any charge to obtain a voter ID, presumably a picture card of some kind, amounts to a poll tax. And an undue burden will fall on the disadvantaged in trying to challenge voting access under Section 5 of the VRA. It's also true that obtaining a picture ID, in some places, is a circular process, as a picture ID is required to obtain basic documents such as a birth certificate, which is usually the document required to obtain a picture ID. And no one seems to have twigged to the essential fallacy in requiring a birth certificate. The ID-issuing authority has only my word that a specific piece of paper applies to me, or to my child. And forged birth certificates can be readily obtained, although I wouldn't have a clue how to go about doing that.

I also agree with those who argue that Section 2 of that same act should apply to every state and territory where US citizens vote for president (places such as Guam, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico, for example). But it should be simplified and standardized. States' rights may have had a lot of meaning in the 18th century, but in our highly-mobile population (how many people do you know who still live where they were born? Not many of the people I know, for sure), some of the access to the basic elements of citizenship (including the purchase of a gun [yes, I'm a Democrat, but support the 2nd Amendment, so let's not go there]), could benefit from nationwide standardization.

In any case, movement toward creating new rules for access to voting, such as the requirement for any ID, but especially a picture ID, should begin well before any major election, and be fair to everyone on whom the burden of proof will fall in obtaining such an ID.

And no, I don't trust Mr. Justice Scalia and his 'originalist' interpretations of the US Constitution. As with Christians who selectively use the bible as their source for their perceptions of social issues (e.g., Leviticus may condemn a man who sleeps with another man, but it also condemns anyone who wears a garment made of two different fabrics or who works on the Sabbath; go figure), he selectively uses his 'originalist' notions only when they support his arguments, and not when they are contrary to his opinions.

Alex, funny because googling "Someone voted 6 times 2012" turned up a few cases that were done by ABSENTEE BALLOTING NOT in-person voting. The supposed "6 vote" person was a POLL WORKER.

None of this would have been stopped by Voter ID.

Excellent commentary, publia.

Ed, they grasp at whatever they can. They know what the Republican party has been doing. Deep down they are ashamed, but they will continue to lash out and fabricate out of embarrassment of a party that must "fix" the elections to better their chances because they struggle to remain relevant at whatever the cost to Americans.

Alex, funny because googling "Someone voted 6 times 2012" turned up a few cases that were done by ABSENTEE BALLOTING NOT in-person voting. The supposed "6 vote" person was a POLL WORKER.

Ah you caught me, I scan articles while waiting for projects to compile here at work, so occasionally miss key words.

None of this would have been stopped by Voter ID.

I guess that makes it ok then...

When talking about the ID as a requirement to vote, the usual liberal response is "poor people cannot afford to get an ID." (See Ed's lame ass response above) It's really funny that I proactively bring a counterpoint to that response (about poor people) into the conversation and am accused of being a racist. You libbies seem to point the "racist' moniker at anyone which whom you disagree.

....a lot of people right above, at, or below the poverty line CANNOT afford the 20-40$ required for a Gov't ID? Do you want to feed your kids for three or four nights, or get an ID to vote?

Ed, don't give me that B.S. Many people in the state I work in eat better than my family with their EBT cards. They get Housing assistance, Educational Assistance, Etc....The problem is, these people cannot prioritize their funds. You showed me exactly the same liberal drivel I anticipated hearing when I made my first comment. I was poor once. Poorer than those of who you claim to be the voice of. How about these people not HAVE kids they can't afford? They don't care about that do they? They just pop 'em out figuring someone else will pay to support them. Because just like not being able to budget their income, they can't figure out Hey, if I have another mouth to feed I'll have to bring in more money to make ends meet. When I was poor, I lived within my means.

Fact of the matter is, I really don't care what you think. Having to show your ID when you enter the polls is common sense. You had to do that to rent a movie at Blockbuster, and I'm damn sure the right to vote is more important than some video rental.

AlaskaGirl, do you mean by granting citizenship to illegal (gasp...I used that word!!) aliens and giving them handouts so they will vote democratic?

You tell'em Toxic!

I love the nonsense idea that require id to vote is a Poll tax but that is highly intellectually dishonest i you think it isn't an infringement when someone buy a gun.. I agree it should be free though.

I'm must say I'm really shocked at so many posts that state that the assault on the voting rights of millions of Americans is not happening. Perhaps these posters are not paying attention but it's more likely that their on the right wing payroll as professional trolls. Trolls or not, I do have one simple question for these people. What if your voting rights were restricted or even taken away how would you feel then?

If anybody is keeping score did you notice that the voting rights act is being challenged by just Republican controlled states?...... Gee what a surprise. It never ends with these fascist Republicans; they will not be satisfied until only those they chose are allowed to vote. Of course their hand picked right wing Supreme Court justices will do anything the Koch brothers order them to do.

Does anyone remember when David Koch had a ‘secret’ meeting at his fortified Colorado estate four years ago? It was then that the extreme right wing agenda to take over America was hatched. There were at least two Supreme Court justices at that meeting along with every governor of the states that are currently working to take away the voting rights of tens of millions of American citizens. It seems to me that a meeting like that would disturb most Americans or maybe most people just don't care about their civil rights anymore.

For more than three decades the sponsors of the Republican Party have eroded the financial buying power of most Americans, now their going after our civil rights. The arrogance of these of these right wing extremists has blinded them to the fact that they are out numbered 100 to 1 and the 100 are fed up with their B.S.

This country belongs to the American people regardless of their ethnic origins, color, religion or sex. Republicans actually believe that the United States of America belongs to them…… IT DOES NOT.

Republicans and their billionaire sponsors attempting to push their right wing agenda down our throat would be wise to remember this: When you take away everything from a person that means they have nothing left to lose. They might also be wise to remember that because of their greedy power grab the odds are very high that they could end up subject to the “Mussolini Effect”.

Big Gay Al?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gAlxfNBWvY

BigAlLasVegas.... your argument has some really good points. You may not be aware but everyone should take a look at the state of Michigan. It's governor has deemed himself the decider when a city is determined to be broke. He signed legislation that was repealed then renovated and passed again allowing him to take control over local government. If your city is declared broke he appoints a manager to take control. Local residents no longer have a voice as to who their representation is or will be. He and his members established the criteria and then take over. Michigan is the perfect example as to why voters are increasingly being marginalized for the sake of politics. Recall St. Rep. Mark Turzei of PA who announcement that voter ID laws in PA ensured Romney would be the winner as "done." If a Democrat did that all you know what would happen.

ToxicChemist#2.29...respectfully I'm thinking your comments are based on what's happening in and around where you live and limited sources. First, I beg to differ with your analogy regarding poor or fixed income segments of our society. Your argument maybe based on where you live or your experience but it's narrow. You are wrong to believe your assessment is accurate of poor or fixed income people as a whole. I know elderly people who never had a DL their entire life who live on fixed incomes. Some are in their 90's others 80's who always worked hard have retirement pensions but they did retire years ago. You should be able to verify that the cost of living has continuously increased unlike their fixed income. When you live on a fixed income established years ago based on your combined retirement earnings there is no extra cash. I know well educated college graduates, highly skilled and trained workers, some who've worked for the same company for over 30 years who suddenly were unemployed. These are people who took on debt with the belief they'd have a job for years to come able to pay it down. They are numb because they were suddenly unemployed and found them selves dependant on government assistance. These are not habitual takers nor do they have the ability to spare any amount as they are just getting by. If you doubt the posts above as well as mine then do your research. Look to accredited resources, state by state data to support your position. Why? Because I am certain you will find out just how off your vision is of how difficult it is to require all voters to pay for a voter ID. I know many who fall into both these categories and they are not free loaders. I know many who are in their late 50's, 60's and older who are now in dire trouble. My parents, uncles, aunts etc. all worked until they could retire and then some and saved for retirement. Today, those who are nearing retirement are unable to because they have lost their major souce of income their job for others their entire retirement. Failure to support your argument means your comment is mere conjecture not relevant in any arena.

I cannot believe that so many think this act is no longer necessary. They are simply blind to the real purpose of the protection it provides. Frankly, if this Act gets struck down, it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for another Republican!!! This is a blatant attempt to keep lower income residents in the South from exercising their right to vote for someone who represents the common man, and not the oligarchs that support the legislation that pads the pockets of the wealthy! Tell me, folks, do you think it will stop there? Who will be next to be prevented from voting? Catholics, Jews, athiests, Christian Scientists, Muslims?? None of these fit the profile of acceptable voters for radical Southerners. Wake up people, for God's sake!!!

I know well educated college graduates, highly skilled and trained workers, some who've worked for the same company for over 30 years who suddenly were unemployed.

Mary, I was that person a few years ago.

How about the government issue FREE voter ID's for those who cannot afford to pay for them? But don't give them the money to buy them, give them a voucher so the money cannot be used for anything else.

In the state I work in there are stories on the local news of store owners seeing DOZENS of people buying items with EBT cards that have balances of THOUSANDS of dollars on them.

.....and before you accuse me of "not knowing what being poor is like", I can tell you there were YEARS that mac 'n cheese for 25 cents was my dinner.

I'm thinking your comments are based on what's happening in and around where you live and limited sources.

Mary, you would be wrong to think that:

"In Massachusetts, EBT cards are used to gamble, join health clubs, travel out of state, and get tattoos; to buy jewelry, guns, pornography, makeup, and tickets to movies and sporting events."

www.salemnews.com/opinion/x1746085520/Anderson.../print

bostonherald.com/news.../you_can't_'scrub'_ebt_mess_dirty_rag

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2975476/posts

Here's a state-by-state listing of some EBT fraud stories:

Alabama: Not fraudulent, but are EBT cards becoming a status symbol? In Alabama, a place called the "Rose Supper Club" gives you $5 off the cover price if you show your EBT card. It's a promotion called "Food Stamp Fridays."

Arizona: A 15-month investigation found roughly $700-K in EBT fraud. 18 indictments.

California: $69 million in EBT funds withdrawn outside the state's borders in recent years, including almost $12 million withdrawn in Las Vegas.

Colorado: EBT cards used at strip clubs, casinos. Denver Post editorializes that attempts to crack down on fraud might not be worth it.

Connecticut: 27 state workers fired, 10 others retire after investigation finds massive insider fraud by government bureaucrats.

Florida: Investigators find that sales of EBT cards at less than full value results in a $2-million swindle.

Georgia: Man pleads guilty to EBT card scam valued at $4.6 million, believed to be largest food stamp fraud ever in the state.

Illinois: Sting on "LINK" cards believed to have generated $40,000 monthly revenue for one of the families accused of participating in the alleged fraud ring.

Indiana: State worker accused of issuing EBT cards to fake recipients. Also, police arrest five in EBT scam believed to have netted $100-K.

Iowa: Grocer, a former City Council member, convicted of witness tampering during food stamp investigation and trial. In a separate story, Iowa inmates found to have been illegally receiving food stamp benefits while incarcerated.

Kansas: Authorities believe as many as 7,000 fraudulent users of EBT cards are costing the state $22-million.

Louisiana: Eight arrested in food stamp fraud. In late 2011, the state said it had 474 active investigations into possible EBT fraud/abuse.

Maine: "Tip of the iceberg" investigation nets five indictments.

Maryland: Believed to be No. 2 in the nation in EBT card fraud, with one in four card applications "showing evidence of fraud."

Massachusetts: Stores accused of buying EBT cards at discounted prices, and hooking up EBT card users with crack cocaine dealers.

Missouri: Welfare cards being spent in such distant places as Florida and Hawaii.

New Hampshire: Report says 10 percent of all registered food stamp recipients live out of state.

Ohio: Audit finds 33,000 replacement EBT cards ordered in one year. "[M]ore than 1,500 people in Hamilton County have ordered 10 replacement cards or more since 2006."

Texas: State faced $4 million in federal fines for errors in issuing food stamps.

Washington: Store owner sentenced to 21 months in prison: $170,000 in her bank account on the day of the raid.

Wisconsin: Nine county workers suspected in multi-year fraud that scammed $300-K or more.

Mary, if you want to pay for the voting ID's of these people, go right ahead. But don't call me heartless because I feel these people cannot prioritize their budgets (even when the money is just given to them). These people will never find the money to purchase an ID to vote and YOU and those who share your viewpoint in this matter are their ENABLERS.