E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIf Wednesday’s argument before the Supreme Court is any indication, a majority of the justices seemed inclined to strike down or curtail key sections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Even if the court does move in that direction, election officials in some states will have more leeway to change some procedures, but voters in 2014 won’t suddenly wake up in 1964.
Hearing a challenge brought by Shelby County, Ala., several justices voiced skepticism about the formula the law uses to decide which states and other jurisdictions are required to get permission, or “preclearance,” from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington for any change in voting procedures that they seek to make.
In 2006 Congress reauthorized Section 5 of the law for another 25 years. The current formula uses election data from 1972 and earlier to determine which places section 5 applies to. Critics of the law say the formula is archaic and ought to be scrapped.
Currently nine states, mostly in the South, as well as 54 counties in New York, California, Florida, North Carolina and South Dakota and 12 townships in Michigan and New Hampshire, are covered by section 5.
What effect would a ruling which struck down or curbed section 5 have on elections in the United States?
Would parts of the country now covered by section 5 revert to the days of poll taxes, literacy tests, murders of voter registration workers, racial gerrymandering of districts, and other devices to negate the power of African-American, Latino and other minority voters?
The short answer is no, and that’s because a separate section of the Voting Rights Act, section 2 – which is a permanent part of the statute and need not be periodically renewed, as section 5 must be – bans voting procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified by the law, which includes not only Spanish, but Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean and several Native American and Alaska Native language groups.
In recent years, the Justice Department, under both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations, has brought section 2 voting discrimination cases against jurisdictions in Massachusetts, Montana, Illinois, California, South Carolina, and several other states.
For example, in 2009 the Justice Department took action against Salem County, New Jersey and the borough of Penns Grove, N.J. for allegedly discriminating against Puerto Rican voters.
The Department charged that local election officials had never translated the ballot into Spanish in any election held in Penns Grove, and thus “numerous voters of Puerto Rican descent who cannot understand the ballot in English have been unable to fully exercise their voting rights.”
Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
With images of murdered Mississippi civil rights worker Medgar Evers, demonstrators rally in front of the U.S. Supreme Court February 27, 2013 in Washington, DC.
These kinds of enforcement actions will continue under section 2 no matter what the high court decides on section 5.
But the Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued Wednesday that getting rid of section 5 – and its requirement that covered jurisdictions get pre-approval of their voting procedures – will make it more costly and time consuming for voters to challenge allegedly discriminatory practices. He said section 5 has a deterrent effect – blocking discriminatory practices before they’re ever implemented.
He said polling place changes are the most frequent type of election procedure submitted to the Justice Department under Section 5. “Changes in the polling places at the last minute before an election can be a source of great mischief,” he told the justices.
He contended that “there is no way in the world you could use Section 2 to effectively police that kind of mischief.” Given the cost of litigation, he said, “The cost-benefit ratio is… going to tilt strongly against bringing these suits.”
Michael Pitts, an expert on the Voting Rights Act who is a professor at Indiana University School of Law and who worked on voting rights cases when he served as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, said, “There is certainly a possibility of more last-minute mischief with polling places if Section 5 were struck down.”
He said Section 5 enforcement actions “are rather simple. To attempt to get the same results using other provisions of the Voting Rights Act, such as Section 2, will be much harder.”
The law that requires states with a history of discrimination to get federal approval before changing how they conduct elections has been used to block strict voter ID laws. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether or not the law is outdated, and the conservative justices seem to agree that times have changed. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
Responding to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s suggestion during Wednesday’s argument that some Justice Department attorneys who now are working on section 5 could shifted to section 2 enforcement, Pitts said, “The problem with Section 2 lawsuits is that at the very least, DOJ has to find out about the problem, then they have to conduct an extensive investigation before filing a lawsuit, and then they have to spend lots of time and resources to win the case. Section 2 cases are not easy to win.”
University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock, an expert on the Voting Rights Act and Southern politics, said elimination of section 5 would “probably not” make a difference in voter registration or voting in places that are now covered by section 5.
He said in section 5 covered jurisdictions, black registration and turnout “is pretty much at the same level” as registration and turnout among white voters. He added, “Hispanic registration and participation rates are lower but that’s true whether you’re looking at section 5 states or looking at states which are not subject to section 5.”
Bullock said that when it comes to drawing new district line for state legislatures and for House seats that due to section 2, “there would still very much be a protection in place against actions which were found to be discriminatory even if section 5 were to be struck down.”
Bullock said one major change that came about as a result of section 2 was the elimination of at-large districts for school boards, county councils, etc. and the move to single-member districts. At-large districts had been used to dilute the power of minority voters.
If the court eliminates section 5, “Would they (local officials) go back to at-large elections?” He thinks not, because “politicians tend to like the system under which they have succeeded, and they think there’s less uncertainty in a system which they’ve already worked successfully. County council or school board members elected under a single-member district system would be reluctant to go back to at-large elections even if that was what was traditionally done until, say 20, years ago.”
Bullock said if section 5 is struck down he does expect some of the now-covered states would move to enact voter identification laws which the Justice Department has so far blocked from enacting.
One unknown is how Congress would react if the high court does strike down section 5. Would it devise an updated formula, perhaps based on 2012 data, for that tried to target jurisdictions with large disparities of minority and white voter turnout? Would it use some other metric? It’s too soon to know, but it’s worth recalling that in 2006 Congress chose to avoid the difficulty of writing a new coverage formula – one reason the Shelby County case reached the high court.
This story was originally published on Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:35 PM EST
Leave a Comment:
You mean this is another example of Democrat over-reaction???
Like sequestration, the sky will not fall if this happens.
I can tell you that Florida hasn't changed at all since 1964.
Same GOP monkey-business goes on around elections and polls.
Reducing early voting to only a few days which resulted in massive lines at polling places.
People waiting over 12 hours in the broiling sun. Many hospitalized.
Changing polling places after directions were already printed.
Mailing out forms saying Democratic voters needed to vote on the date after election day.
SCOTUS needs to keep hands off.
If the law needs adjusted then it is Congress's responsibility to adjust it. Not SCOTUS.
.
Everyone deserves civil rights
Nobody, the Supreme Court included, should take them away, as the Court did in Plessy and Dred Scott. I wonder if the Court will do it again..it's wrong to take civil rights away.
Request-To-Repeal-The-Voting-Rights-Act-ignores-racial-disparities
Written by Nathan James
Ask yourselves: Is racism over?
{portion of article}
Let's look to some statistics to answer this question. Today, African Americans and Hispanic Americans are three times as likely as Caucasian Americans to live in poverty. They are at higher risk to suffer from involuntary psychiatric treatment. They face higher infant mortality rates. They are disproportionately affected by economic downturns. African Americans are underrepresented in their respective state legislatures in 43 of the 50 states.
Yet many Alabamians seem to echo Justice Antonin Scalia, who believes that these signs of racial inequality are trifles compared to the nightmare of "racial entitlement."
Consider this: Shelby County owes the construction of much its infrastructure, ranging from industrial buildings to roads, to an all-black prison labor force that operated in the area until the 1950s. Less than a lifetime ago, privileged whites in Shelby were literally enjoying the fruits of free coerced labor from black American citizens. Now some of these same individuals who benefited from de facto slavery are alive today, arguing in the face of all statistical evidence that racial harmony has been achieved and that one of the most basic protections against institutionalized discrimination should be struck down.
All Americans, including and especially Alabamians must understand this: Section 5 confers no special treatment on minority groups. It simply ensures that their basic constitutional rights are treated with respect. It is no more an "entitlement" than granting a man police protection after he has been repeatedly targeted by criminals.
The eyes of the nation are at this moment on Alabamians. Shelby County's request to repeal Section 5 of the voting rights not only threatens racial equality, it shows an alarming lack of compassion for the hardships that many racial minorities face.
That said, Alabamians who value equality have a job to do. Use your votes, your voices and your right to assemble; show the rest of the nation that Alabama cares.
I was actually shocked to read an accurate and sane analysis on this site in regards to Section 5 and how it is simply a bad and unjust law. Was expecting the usual race baiting this site is known for.
Many of the counties/areas covered in Section 5 have BETTER MINORITY REGISTRATION RATES than areas not covered, because they purposefully use stale election data. How can a state/county get removed from Section 5 if they don't update the data found in the equation. Only a liberal could justify that.
Perhaps less "minorities" would live in poverty if they stopped voting in people who give them "free stuff" & learned some self respect & actually learned to take care of themselves. It's not a lack of compassion on our part - it's an "entitlement" mentality on theirs. Racism seems to have become more profound under this administration. Republicans aren't causing these "hardships" you speak of. Broken families, lack of morals/values/self respect & having children they can't afford that causes these hardships. We all have the same opportunities. Maybe some have better options then others, but everyone has the opportunity to a free edcaution & it's up to each individual to make their own path. Instead of chasing the college education, many young "minorities" chase the free stuff.
Jesse, did you not see what happened to voters and the absolute lack of respect they were shown in the last election? Haven't you read that more states are trying to find ways to suppress votes going forward?
The reason Sec. 5 is in effect in Alabama is because they haven't shown they can be trusted. This is why it keeps getting reauthorized.
Teenab. Sure.
And all the white people in America, who never had to face discrimination - are so moral, so honest. No divorces. No drinking. No drugs. No one in debt. No one cheats in college. No one drops out of college. They all pay their taxes.
No white people kill with guns.
Wall Street and insurance companies and lawyers, etc. So honest.
Particularly the white politicians in all the states trying to find more ways to exploit voters. Minority voters.
Q22, it's an OPINION written by an NBC National Affairs journalist; it's HIS view but that does not mean it is right. No doubt there will be opposing views written in the days to come. 15,000 pages of evidence in 2006, that voting discrimination was still occurring in the states under the Act tells me where there's smoke, there's fire.
Hi y'all!
Just a friendly reminder that Feisty, Beverley, David Walker and Pigotry are all the same posters. They all post from the same IP address.
Yes, I agree. It's very sad. But give them a break. They are liberals. LMFAO!!
What is Roberts Court up to now, fixing the GOP Maps ???
Racism in the US. You mean when blacks burn down Korean business. Burn and loot the local stores that have food, clothing, wine, beer, whiskey, furniture and etc. That provided services and even jobs. I live in a town that has always been integrated. It is not my fault that many blacks do not marry, have illegitimate children. Do not complete school. Not all but many do. Many times my black friends have been told quit acting white. My Foreman long time ago was black. He told me when he went to school. He was accused of being an Oreo. So he started to receive bad grades. He told me that he was tired of blacks saying help me bro. Then they would not do the work. So he had to fire most of them.
Q22, one has nothing to do with the other. Typical false comparrison.
Anyway, right wing supposed defenders of freedom, constitution, bill of rights and liberty are always the ones fiddeling with districting and implementing policies that surpress votes. If your not trying to steal elections and want to be fair, why do you care about lifting the the voters right act?
If any other nation the USA cared or had interest in, had an election and outcome like the Bush V Gore fiasco, we here would call them all sorts of banana republic names.
Bibol, you have no black friends, especially with those bigoted comments. Quit lying
You guys aren't fooling anyone but fools.
You know , if a citizen is confused about where to vote or can't read the ballot, I'm not sure if I trust their ability to make their own decision as to what what issues will be best represented by which representatives. I don't usually lean to percentages, I guess it's like 3% non-English speaking in this country so to label ballots only written in English as discriminatory is a reach. It would theoretically only accuse the percentage of the 3% that actually intended to vote. Requiring ID to vote is supposed to discriminate against latinos as well. At some point there has to be an understanding that to play an active contributing part in communities you need identification. Even if only for prescriptions or Government aid, Bank accounts. What percentage of voters in this country wouldn't need to use some form of ID to function in their respective lives. It seems more probable that there could be an attempt prevent illegal immigrants from a vote in American jurisdictions, which thinking is also considered discriminatory. At some point we, as American citizens in our districts, or states should be able to define an eligible voter without asking for permission.
@ 1.9
Say it isn't so!!
LMAO
United States 1776 said:
Ummm...in 1964 there was no early voting. (I wasn't alive back then, but I'm pretty sure I'm right). Early voting didn't start down here in Florida until 2004 or soon after I believe. So in 1964 you had to vote on election day and now you have election day plus 8 more days plus absentee voting by mail. Call me crazy but I think it's a tad easier to vote now. The main problem I had with voting down here this year was the length of the ballot with those ridiculously long amendments.
If you need anymore proof that racism is still alive and well and thus Section 5 is necessary --- just look at this comments section. So much blatant racism toward Blacks in this comments section rooted in baseless stereotypes and ignorance.
Not only should Section 5 stay, it should be applied across the board.
Pigotry Comment
"Everyone deserves civil rights"
"Nobody, the Supreme Court included, should take them away, as the Court did in Plessy and Dred Scott. I wonder if the Court will do it again..it's wrong to take civil rights away."
#1.2 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 2:32 PM EST
I wish you felt that way about all Civil Rights. But I guess Some don't count like the Second one. That is the problem with Liberials they want to pick and choose which laws and rights to enforce. You talk about discrinination, but you want to keep a law that does just that, as it pertains to only a few states. Thus denying the other states voter of "Eutal protection under the Law". The same is true for the so called "Hate Crimes" Like to kill a stanger is better or worse if they are a different race or gender, etc. How stupid is that, The person is dead, it doesn't matter to them of the person didn't like thier race or gender, they are dead, because of a murder. Have the punishment fit the crime. The court does make some wrong decesions, like Roe V. Wade. or even the Obamacare verdict. (where they changed to penilty to a tax).
Pat Boston.............you obviously blame white people for everything. Only white folks can be bigots right?
Teenab
Typically right wing bigot, keep on disrepecting minorities you little coward. People like you is why Democrats will continue to win national elections. Free Stuff = Delusional right wing dribble...
Q22
"You mean this is another example of Democrat over-reaction???
Like sequestration, the sky will not fall if this happens."
No, Homer... If you read the article and have a penchant for retention it clearly states that any change will only make muddy water out of prior clarity and probably cause racists to take a foot-hold somewhere other than in each other's back-sides, as they are mostly relegated to now. The reason for the rules as they are hasn't gone away, as evidenced by the closet-queen racists prancing around in their feather boas as of late...
Siobhan27
Baseless stereotypes my ass. You must walk around with blinders on. or you live in Montana!
Lil Michelle
"@ 1.9
Say it isn't so!!
LMAO"
Okay... "It isn't so"... There now, it's a win-win for 16.0 (IQ)... She just laughed part of her A$$ off AND got told the truth (again) all in the same day!! She'll believe ANYTHING!
I agree the Voting Rights Act has made black racism rampant, particularly in the White House and am further aware that any recognition by the black community that they actually have superior rights to the rest of us might force them to have to compete on an equal and not preferential basis. The black community never ceases to amaze me when they complain about their percentage of this and that being too small, while ignoring that the percentage of blacks working at Government jobs is more than twice their percentage of the population.
Pat Boston: "And all the white people in America, who never had to face discrimination."
Talk about an over-generalization. I'm white, I've been subjected to discrimination many times, so what the hell is your point? Biden, Kerry, Clinton, Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, and many other wonderful liberal politicians are white and rich. They're also people who work very closely and comfortably with big corporations. If you and so many other liberals would think for yourselves for a second, you'd see that the people you berate and vilify sound very much like the people you extol and support. How do white politicians exploit voters? From what I've seen, there are many minority voters exploiting the system by voting multiple times. Read a book, develop an original thought, and take a good look at those moral, wonder people you separate from the biased, white, rich villains. You'll find they're not very different from one another.
Instead of striking down Section 5 it should be expanded to cover the entire country!!! That would stop the election law roulette game that the repukes are playing in in every repuke controlled state...
Hey Ruken, when are you going to stop with everyone that is NOT Left of Che a Racist? The closet racists are the Liberal Left.
Well you always have your tried and true method of a Lenin belief
'A lie told often enough becomes truth'
Carry on Ruken aka Chick Binder
@ Chick Binder
u infatuated with me or something?
more infatuated with the avatar and white pointy hats. Sure the heck aint interested in the truth, common meme with the liberal left.
[The closet racists are the Liberal Left.]
Poor little stumpy, can't seem to understand or comprehend that the bigot here is himself. But I'm sure that Lil Mishie with the 162 IQ can set him straight...right Commodus?
How's that limp wrist coming along...you know...the one you NEED that useless gun you ordered to strenghten? Don't spend too much of that "infrastructure" money on @!$%# that you won't be able to own legally. It won't be long now before you have another useless pile of @!$%# on your hands.
How's the "ifrastructure" looking today? Your boss on your ass yet for stealing time? Oh, but if only Mixed Bag or Spanky were here...they'd set you straight. Stealing from the 1%...you've become quite the freeloader.
I'm sure that "Chick Binder" is a politically correct name, for sure....
maybe she/he hopes to move out of the parents basement someday!
Lil Michelle
"@ Chick Binder
u infatuated with me or something?"
It's the 16.0 IQ your sporting that I find attractive... By the way, did you know that I'm a French Model?
Oh, and Sneezer... Your new Avatar is quite manly... In a racist screaming chimp-like way of course. As usual... How are those hair-plugs doing? Do you still look like a living doll?
BTW... I'm not liberal, I'm ubiquitous... And I'm not left, I'm ahead.
Some of the Section 5 states (Texas is a prime example) have trouble getting their redistricting maps approved. They have to agree to non-discriminatory interim maps in court. If you get rid of Section 5, these maps go into effect until a court throws them out.
If you can't get valid maps through the legislature now, why would anybody think that you could get valid maps if Section 5 was eliminated.
So many folks don't want those people voting. They feel that many are not Real Americans with good old fashion American values. So, Minorities, Muslims, Gays, Intellectuals and anyone who does not fit the bill needs to have their vote screened.
Heck, the way it going, is you can buy a gun easier and faster than you can vote in some areas.
Well, as long as you have the same values and vote the right way. Wink, Wink!
no you're a liberal. My avatar is manly? I figured it represented some Free Speech. speaking of chimps i see one of your own to 'get your back'. But ubiquitous? more like an eunuch. As for looking like a living doll, those are you fantasies and it might be wise to keep them to yourself..although on the subject of gay rights, you may be ok.. Like Poseur Walker today, shoulda brought B game to the table..
Oh well, ive become accustomed to the sub par performance from you libs. Please stop coming unarmed to the battle of wits.
there is nothing correct about Ruken
Geezer Thatpostus-
Carry on Ruken aka Chick Binder"
Oh looky!!! Geezer Thatpostus STILL thinks I'm Ruken!!! Proof positive that racists never accept that they're wrong... Gotta start feelin sorry for the schlub at some point i guess... Not now of course, but at some point (maybe). I kinda like the way these two "Power Rangers" attempt to unite though. That's cute. If they become one we'll have to call them... "Lil Ceasar"!! (ladies first) Kick his ass Sea Bass!!! ( I hope that dumb & dumber reference doesn't go over their heads)
Geezer Thatpostus-
"Oh well, ive become accustomed to the sub par performance from you libs. Please stop coming unarmed to the battle of wits."
Oh please tell me when this "battle of Wits" of yours commences and I'll gladly play a part!!! Is it one of those French things where you'll be in drag? How scintillating! Is there a specific signal as to when it starts? Because I haven't seen any sign of it yet from you! Are you going to throw a gauntlet or just pull that handkerchief from your sleeve and let it fall daintily?
You may want to arrange for a second... To load your otherwise empty weapon for you.
trust me, you already do, its called punching bag
its your fantasy hombre not mine.
if thats how you roll, we can use hankerchiefs. then a pillow fight too...followed up with a purse slapping contest.
oh yeah, because the 'volley' you just gave was harsh. Next time at least use cotton balls instead of the bubble mix...
hold on to that pointy hat of yours.
You have some serious sexuality issues. I would see your doctor. Low T or whatever they call it but I assure you a doc can prescribe the right meds...see a shrink while you're at it. You're sexual sadism and self loathing will only continue to fester. Next thing you know 'Femme Portfolio' will go all Wild Bill on us. It puts the lotion on the skin right? ;o)
[I kinda like the way these two "Power Rangers" attempt to unite though. ]
Two idiots sharing one brain. caesar doesn;t know it yet, but when he finally gets into Lil Michelle's pants, there is a surprise waiting for him. Who knows, he's a closet dweller, he just may like it.
First of all, I've never really understand why owning a gun amounts to a "civil right." Owning a machine designed for killing (for all you car-comparing commies out there) conflicts with the right to life and liberty, since a gun will eventually terminate someone's civil rights. And by the way, regulating something is not taking it away from you. The law regulates where and when you can smoke a cigarette, but that doesn't mean there's a cop in every restaurant waiting to take your lighter away.
First of all, I'll admit that liberals do get a bit carried away on picking and choosing; we are imperfect, as are you. And yes, all people and states deserve equal protection under the law. However, the states currently listed under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act lost their ability to use the "equal protection" clause when they denied black voters equal protection under their laws. I know, I know, times have changed, but history repeats itself over and over again. Who's to say that these states (a few of them conspicuously changing their voting laws BEFORE the 2012 election) won't fiddle around with laws again? Of course they won't force poll taxes or literacy tests, but they might rip off non-English translations (which I think is jingoistic, because America doesn't have nor need an official language) or change voting hours in certain precincts. I may be a lefty, but even I think that some laws need to stay put. Hell, I'd put the entire nation under Section 5 if I had the chance, considering that I don't really trust the states to manage elections and voter registration (see Florida 2000 for a reference).
Well, while I do puzzle the need for labeling something a hate crime (mainly because I don't think it will make any physical difference about the person being dead), hate crimes are still occurring. Hate crimes in and of themselves are not necessarily designed to exact justice upon the hater; I personally think they serve a purpose by reminding the new generations of the importance of impartiality and the need for tolerance of different race. I don't care if you buy the over-hyped bull@!$%# about "American Exceptionalism": we have the same damn problems with race, gender, and economic status that just about every nation in the history of mankind has faced.
I'm not even going to touch that (being as I ought to respect your opinion); however, I am going to point out that the court declared the penalty under Obamacare as a tax by justifying it under the tax clause; I think it was a tax and don't give a damn.
i didnt forget you either...you want a pillow fight too..how cute...
Interesting you decide to show up later in the day..i know, overseeing a huge project and coralling those phd's and all...must be hard work...
But nobody plays with Monkey...im sure the man in the yellow hat will be along shortly
Heck of a job, Reichwing, Party of No.
Civil rights are our God-given rights, the government (Supreme Court included) has no business in deciding whether to keep these rights or take them away.
I am a 52 year old black guy college educated, ex-military veteran and it saddens me when I read some of these post. I always hear about all the free stuff minorities receive, and I wonder what exactly are those things, because I have never received anything free. I grew up middle class, not rich but comfortable, never received any food stamps, welfare,etc. I work in Social services and believe me the common theme that I see about folks who receive benefits is that they are in poverty, black , white, hispanic, asian, they are poor. There is no free stuff line for blacks, really amazing how easily people can be manipulated. While we still continue to argue about black, white, and stupid racial differences, the real moochers are the corporations that have bought our politicians, created tax loopholes, and depressed wages while reaping record profits. They are raping ALL of us while we dither over the same racial B.S., over and over. Human are a strange race!!
[i didnt forget you either...]
Funny how you didn't have the balls to put me on "ignore"...why is that? You're a coward, that's why. I knew you didn't have what it takes.
[Interesting you decide to show up later in the day..i know, overseeing a huge project and coralling those phd's and all...must be hard work...]
Reading comprehension not your strong suit, huh. You have the attention span of a rock.
Yep, Voter I.D. is CONSTITUTIONAL.
No more illegal Aliens (Immigrants) voting.
Seriously, Scalia should be impeached! It is being proven he is nothing more than a "talking head" for the political right, especially Limbaugh and Hannity. I hope Justice Sotomayor takes this up and tears him a new @!$%#, because I know the idiot Thomas won't.
To his "Perpetuation Of Racial Entitlement," I say the Voting Rights Act was enacted to stop the perpetuation of racial entitlement – for whites.
chrisporter:: RIGHT ON! There was no free stuff for little old ladies either, even tho senior citizens-- or if there was I didn't find anything like that. I can tell people this-- it doesn't pay to reach the age of 78 and not be rich, regardless of ethnicity.
NBC news is a joke. It's the media arm of the Obama administration
That said, Alabamians who value equality have a job to do. Use your votes, your voices and your right to assemble; show the rest of the nation that Alabama cares.
Equality like affirmative action? Equality like allowing lower test scores (or requiring higher in the case of asians) depending on your race (FL)? Equality like winning a case because your race can't read well enough to take an open book test to be a fire fighter (NY)? Equality like race quotas? You mean equality like the MSM pretty much only reporting white on black (or hispanic on black (FL)) crime? You mean equality like the liberal party supporting using eugenics to control minority population with the approval of the minority population (planned parenthood)?
Sorry, but I'm about fed up with the race wars in this country. I'm starting to think that there will never be equality down the middle. It will always be the minorities claiming racism and having more rights that other races. I've always looked at everyone as bleeding red, we're all equal. But I really don't see that coming from the people, mostly the minorities.
I have never owned a slave, I've never used a slang term towards another race, I've never shoved another race off land they lived on. So stop @!$%#ing making me responsible for that because of my race.
Everyday I put out the thought that Justice Scalia and Thomas should die quietly in their sleep ..... soon!
They both should at least be impeached.
Where in the constitution does it say the Supreme Court can make law?
The majority on this Court has become a REPUBLICAN majority. For them it's partisan. No future Court needs to treat these decisions as anything but provisional.
Like Obama care-I couldn't agree more.
God what mindless drivel you offer. The 4 justices who vote in lockstep are always the liberal 4 who offer some of the worst legal analysis ever proffered. Even Scalia has joined the "liberal" block in 5-4 decisions, because he relies on actual legal justification and not politics like the 4 liberals who vote in lockstep.
Stop your ignorant talking points.
If thatwere the case Roe v. Wade would have been gone long ago, but its just a lie, because at the end of the day honest people never vote Democrat.
The Court is brought and paid for by the Republicans and Big Business
They want to suppress the vote, rig the election in favor of the Republicans
The Repbublicans cannot win without cheating and rigging the elections
They are not for fair and open elections
The Republicans proved that in the last two elections by trying to suppress the vote if not for the law and section 5 they would have tried .
Down with the Republicasns vote them all out
You really have no idea... if the court were Republican, then why did it rule in favor of ObamaCare?
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THIS LAW, PLEASE READ IT - it's not that hard . . .
2 key points the Justices seem to be forgetting . . .
jurisdictions under Sec 5 (pre-clearance) can EARN their way out - 200 jurisdictions already have. They just have to show a history, over a few elections cycles, of no longer being discriminatory. (This jurisdiction in AL applied ~ 2 years ago to 'bail out,' but they still had too much history of blatant discrimination.)
.
Jurisdictions can be ADDED - if a fed court finds the kind of discrimination Sec 5 was designed to eliminate, the discriminatory jurisdictions can just be added - the law provides for that.
.
There is NO EXCUSE FOR REPEALING THIS LAW EXCEPT PARTISAN ONES - ReThuglicans just don't like it.
.
What Scalia said about voting being "RACIAL ENTITLEMENT" was disgusting. It's a RIGHT, not an entitlement.
.
Roberts spent much of his time under the Reagan admin doing his best, under Reagan's direction, trying to gut The Voting Riights Act.
WE STILL NEED THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT!
.
FORWARD! :-)
Right...and people weren't bragging on twitter and facebook about voting SEVERAL times for Owe'bama in key swing states like Ohio. Yeah, it's all the Republicans...give me a break.
You had your chance BOZO when the Dems had both the house and the senate! What did they do? Obamacare. Eat your gruel and shut-up!
@ Lee-2380617
Really Lee like the PA distrct outside if Philadelphia where 100% of the vote went to Obammanation? with even more votes cast then were registered voters in the district. Black Panther pole workers and the like. You really need to get you head out of your ass so you can see and smell to BS. Not to even mention the good old Cooke County constituents where the dead constantly vote. You'll never consider points such as these valid as you're a single minded and dimensional type. Just keep cashing those checks until theres no mo money left. America aint it grand
It certainly had no trouble sucking KOch on Wall Street with Citizens United...yep, conservative justices bought and paid for by Wall Street and the Kochsuckers
Ok, one more time for the idiot Cybercraig.....the DEMS NEVER HAD A FILLIBUSTER PROOF MAJORITY AT THE HEIGHT OF THEIR POWER in early 2009. . THE REPUBLICANS THREATENED FILLIBUSTER ON EVRYTHING, REQUIRING 60 VOTES.
DEMS NEVER HAD 60 VOTES IN THE SENATE. AND the ACA only passed whern REPUBLICANS JOINED IN VOTING YES
Ge it, Craig? So you can stop that boorish bull@!$%#e about Dems being able to push through anything they wanted. You are lying.
Exactly! Why in 2006, under George W. Bush, was it renewed for another 25 years by both houses of congress if it wasn't necessary? Oh, and btw, the vote in the Senate was 98-0 in favor. So now Chief Justice Scalia decides it's not needed anymore? No favoritism on his part is there.
The Democrats had a filibuster proof majority, despite the lie, until Scott Brown won and was seated. Ignorance is why Progressive politics exists.
We should separate the court justices... not allow them to speak or even be around each other..... when they rule, just hold up their sealed vote & have it read by the bailiff....
Chief Justices of the SCOTUS should have term limits and be held accountable for their actions, period. This lifelong appointment is for the birds. And I mean that from both perspectives. It would be nice if they were truly neutral, but that's just not the case. Scalia is one of the most partisan CJ's I can remember.
Why don't they stop bullchitting and bring back the "grandfather clause" and the "poll tax"!! They way, they can deter free voting and go back to the old ways..
Clarence Thomas is a disgrace, not only to blacks and minorities, but to all men!!
The attempt from “The people’s United case” before the Supreme court to create unlimited campaign spending - Failed. Obama was reelected.
The attempts by Red States to use the Courts to suppress votes - Failed. Obama was reelected.
The attempt by Republicans to use the Supreme Court to block Obamacare - Failed. It wasn’t Obama’s waterloo. It didn’t break him.
Now. An attempt by Red States to kill the voter Rights Act before the Republican Supreme Court to prevent another minority from becoming President.
After Republicans fail for the 4th time, will they just shut the h e l l up?
It will surely by strike 3 for the Republican Supreme court if they strike it down.
Firstly, the Citizens United case was ENTIRELY the doing of the Supreme Court. The conservatives on the SCOTUS heard the case first, but decided they didn't just want to rule on the particulars; they ordered the lawyers for the plaintiffs to re-argue the case in much broader terms, then delivered their pre-made ruling on the new grounds with a giant @!$%#ing broad brush. THAT is legislating from the bench.
Secondly, this ruling could undermine the whole thing. Or they could order Congress to come up with a new formula for determining at-risk sections. Of course, the whole point of Section 5 is that it applied before elections, not after. So, instead of having to wait 2 years for the courts to take the case (with federal backlog, sometimes it's a crapshoot), then another year to get through the trial and verdict, then go through the rigamarole of determining which laws passed in that time would be invalid based on the results and which elected officials decided the vote on what, and all the other legal nightmares, wasted court time, and injustice heaped upon people by taxation without representation, the courts would determine beforehand whether an election process was legal or not, then force the election to be held to certain standards.
The problem with Section 2, as stated in the article, is enforcement. How many people, especially in poorer districts, are going to have the money and time available to correct problems that have already occurred? How many laws will be passed by illegal legislature members, and how will they be dealt with when the election results are overturned eventually?
Frankly, I'd like to see a Section 5 that applied to the whole damned country. Racial gerrymandering is STILL a problem in Texas, as proven in the last election. Political gerrymandering is horrendous, and the Repubs, since they controlled most of the legislatures in the last census, are the ones benefitting most from it now. We see it in places like Michigan which, by the way, is about to drop a revamp of the electoral college in its state. They are going to make it so that each congressional district gets one vote, and the two senatorial electoral votes go to the statewide winner. Under this formula, Mitt Romney would have won 9 of the electoral votes, giving Barack Obama only 5, even though Obama carried the state by OVER HALF A MILLION voters. That's right, those half-million extra votes for Obama would mean @!$%#, because the Repubs have stuffed all the Dems into a few large districts, then spread out the other districts over smaller populations with slight Repub edges in each one.
I'd like to see some protection against this @!$%#, but sadly, it isn't so. The committees that create and approve new congressional districts during census years frequently are highly partisan, and often ignore the guidelines the government has set up regarding minimizing township splitting, geographical isolation, and future growth forecasts. They have no shame. I saw a video of one guy trying for at least half an hour to put his proposal for the new districts forward, arguing that it split fewer townships than any other, and had a projected growth forecast that would keep the divergence in populations between districts to a minimum. Some other lady suggested her map, which had higher divergence and split twice as many townships, and her reasoning was "those people just seem like they go together." The guy spent ten minutes repeatedly asking the woman to justify and qualify her statement, and she refused. He then spent another ten minutes asking the entire committee why her proposal seemed more worthy when his fit the numbers much better, and their response was "it's her proposal, we should vote on it now." Her proposal was accepted, and everyone went to lunch.
If that's the standard for democracy, maybe we should rethink communism. We're pretty much at the oligarchy stage, anyway.
Wow, you guys LOVED the SCOTUS when they ruled in favor of Obamacare! You loved the SCOTUS when they ruled for abortion rights in RvW. You only like them when they agree with you - how convenient. How about we honor the Constitution and accept that how the SCOTUS rules is the law of the land and conforms to the Constitution?
The Voting Acts Right conforms to the Constitution. Oh that doesn't matter to you. It gives too many people the right to vote against Republicans........especially minorities.
do you mean the same constitution & bill of rights that the democrats are stomping all over as we speak?!?! so it's good when it's in favor of YOUR way of thinking but bad when it's in favor of any other way of thinking?! the left sure want it both ways
No, you just can't keep from taking it both ways... Please elaborate on the exact part of the bill of rights currently being "stomped all over" by your Fox-assigned arch enemies...
jwilson1234
Man, are you in the dark. The Supreme court has no business making law for the land. It's not their function. In this case, Scalia has the balls to say the the 98 to zero extention of the law by the senate was not valid because they had no choice. Get the dumb sucker out of the court.
"The Supreme court has no business making law for the land."
You are correct is is not their job to make laws but it is their job to decide if a law as passed by the legislature is Constitutional. Supreme Court Judges are appointed for life.
There are reasons why Federal laws trump State laws. So that racist states can't trample on people's rights.
People fought and died for the right to vote. Voting is a right not a privilege. Surly the Supreme court understands this.
But then again, it's a Republican court and Republicans see nothing but their own agendas.
See what happens when a black man, who happens to be a Democrat, is elected President.....twice? All of a sudden just civil rights laws that existed for decades need to be changed......by a Republican Supreme Court.
Larry
Try reading the article.I thought the nc was for North Carolina,but it must stand for no clue.
Seems to me that FEDERAL elections such as voting for President should be decided by the Feds not by states.
LARRY
You mean 1/2 black man .
History has a way of repeating itself, especially when a society remains half-ignorant. So i hope it won't be too long before the rag-tag remnants of todays republican party find themselves corraled and dealt with by fire hoses, dogs, billy-clubs and tear gas...
It was once good enough for one minority group that was "trying to act all uppity"... Don't see why it couldn't come full-circle...
Where is anyone trying to repeal the voting rights act?
Repeal is one thing, altering is another. Alterations make things fit better, the question is to fit who?
If Republican supreme court knocks this down, this will be strike 3.
This is the most partisan Supreme Court in History......and the worst.
Yet they gave you you're blessed Obama care, you have liberal women, liberal men and a minority of conservative justices, who you gonna throw out at your whim???
This is Chief Justice Robert's Court.
He'd better be beyond partisan politics and uphold the Voting Rights Act to save his legacy and the Supreme Court's reputation.
Their is not much confidence in this Supreme court to make the right rulings. America deserves better.
In my opinion John Lewis, D-GA, would know more about voter's rights suppression than nearly ANY of the Supreme Court Justices - he marched, was beaten and has sproken year after year. If the SC justices didn't pay attention to the 2012 election and the ways in which the Republicants tried to "fix" election outcomes, then they simply are out of touch with what goes on in the real world (outside their marble pillars!)
If section five is repealed it just gives republicans more opportunities to cheat. The plan to win by HINDERING the opportunity to vote was spoken loud and clear in Pennsylvania last summer.
VOTER ID WHICH WILL ALLOW GOVERNOR ROMNEY TO WIN THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA- DONE.
If any of you want change, begin writing any representative or senator, state or federal and bitch, I sure do and I have to say, I get an answering E mail. If I get a "form" answer, I write again and again until a real person answers me. I keep writing Boehner's office and I have a feeling someone keeps deleting the messages. I have yet to hear from the Speakers office. Perhaps because I say things he does not want to hear, like how he sucks at being speaker. Peace out all.
Democrats are the Party of vote fraud and voter registration fraud.. but hey what color is the sky on your planet?
No, he does not respond to idiots who sit on their sanctimonious asses and think they have a clue as to what the law is all about! Crawl back under your keyboard or go play in traffic. No one gives a flying f*&^ about your uninformed opinion!!
USAF Retired:: And no one gives a flip about YOUR uninformed opinion either. So YOU crawl back under your keyboard or go play in traffic. Better yet, crawl back under the rock from which you came.
Show photo id. Don't have any? Can't vote. LOL
Ya, hahahaha - very funny. I guess you aren't one of they many people in this country who don't drive, live far from cities where they could get a photo ID card and you could care less about fairness. Jokes on you stupid.
leftsux, If my Mother were alive today she would have a problem. She was born in Pa. in 1920. The city hall of Beaver Falls burned down in 1933. IF for any reason she had to try to get a copy of her ORIGINAL birth certificate, which is a requirement in some locations, she could not get a photo ID and lose her right to vote. So tell me why that would be funny. I think every American should be required to register to vote upon reaching their 18th birthday. Problem solved.
left-wing nutjobs are always looking for the exception and not the rule. it is a conveniant, self-serving stance
Yes a photo ID. As long as it doesn't become law at the 11th hour before an election. That's the kind of shenanigans the GOP wants to get away with.
If anyone is looking to see what PIGOTRY looks like in real life click on my profile and watch the video I found of her.
Pig = garbage liberal
No thanks.
you whites should be worried about the reversal of civil rights act, when your the minority you will be begging for rights and liberties.
That's ok. You blacks will kill yourselves off before that happens.
Double OUCH!
ANd baby don't you know that is your true feeling. Regardless of the past, we are supposed to be by now equal and all together and all that, yet, the ones crying the most would be the brutal of the bunch should their sordid wish come true.
Bobby
Actually i'm looking forward to being supported with the handouts instead of the one paying for them!!!!
But oh sh_t !! Who will be paying for them then?? blacks?? Doubt it.
Look, black protesters brought signs with MEDGAR EVERS written on them. That's why everybody is just sick and tired of giving blacks a free ride.
Medgar Evers was murdered because he fought for the voting rights of blacks. Shame on you for making such an asinine comment.
I disagree with this FR analysis or opinion is more likely the case. For one thing, as late as 2008, Shelby County Alabama was caught trying to suppress the votes of minorities, putting up barriers. In 2006, when Congress re-authorized the Voting Rights Act, there were 15,000 pages of evidence that voting discrimination was still occurring in the states which are still covered by the law. 15,000 pages is a lot of proof.
To claim that removing the Voting Rights Act will not send elections back to pre-1965 ignores the realities of what we watched taking place in 2012, not just in the southern states under the jurisdiction of the Act, but in northern states as well. We saw what GOP governors and legislatures were doing to restrict voting of certain demographic groups and minorities, reduce voting hours, target only specific areas to reduce voting hours, 8-hour waits to vote in some places. If anything, the Voting Rights Act, Section 5, should be expanded to all 50 states until such time as conservatives stop playing games with the Constitutional right of every US citizen to vote.
Why do they keep saying A. Kennedy is a swing vote? He never sides with the liberal justices. and why don't they just require ALL STATES to be covered under section 5? Problem solved. To say times have changed and it's outdated/obsolete provision is not a justifiable reason in my mind. The only reason times changed is because Federal law forced it to change. Nothing should ever restrict the equality of opportunity, and eliminating this Federal requirement opens the door to that possibility. Just make all states do it.
what a poor understanding of the way our forefathers saw things
Mac
How did ObamaCare get passed then?
That's my point. Roberts is the swing vote. FOLWNJ, how are the forefathers relevant to this issue?
If section 5 were applied Nation wide within a decade 90% would be demanding it's repeal.
You want to repeal your voter ID then you would need preclearance from the DOJ. What do you think would happen if the Attorney General was appointed by a Republican president? Want to move a polling location just ask the DOJ for preclearance. Want to change voting districts just beg the DOJ for preclearance. That is the problem with section 5 of the VRA. It is more dependent on the vagaries of who happens to be the Attorney General at the time. Also under section 5 there is a de jure presumptions of guilt and the burden of proof is on the State requesting preclearance. If section 5 was Nation wide it would be a knife that cuts both ways and I doubt that it would sever anybody well.
So throw out the baby with the bathwater? What's wrong with pre-clearance requirements? Changing modern election laws should be cumbersome & slow. There'e a million other complaints I have about bureaucratic foot dragging than election law changes.
Actually, Jongone, Section 5 gives jurisdictions two options -- DOJ or the District Court (with appeal to the Supreme Court). If DOJ is being so unreasonable in preclearance denials where is the data showing the District Court overriding the DOJ in a large percent of cases. Additionally, most of the decisions on preclearance are made by career professionals in the Civil Rights Division. While the AG may set some issues of concern, the AG does not personally review every preclearance request.
Why should it be slower, by Federal law, for some than others? Why should some States have to prove that they are innocent to the current Attorney General or District Court (thanks Tmess) and in other States the Attorney General must prove they are guilty (under section 2 of the CRA)? Why is the burden of proof greater for some States than it is for others? How long should those States citizens be punished for the sins of their fathers? Does that sound fair to you?
They are being punished for their continuing sins and failure to repent. Coverage is defined by Section 4 which also includes a provision ending coverage upon the State demonstrating that it has stopped discriminating. So they are being punished for their continued sins, not for past sins. The covered jurisdictions have incredibly bad records when they are taken to court under Section 2 which is one of the reasons why Congress, including the Representatives of the covered states, overwhelmingly voted to extend Section 4 and Section 5.
I had to chuckle at the lead photo 'Protect my vote" surely and correct, I just don't want to protect your VoteS.
There should be voter ID laws in place. This protects voters rights in that it keeps everyone honest. People who aren't out to break the law by voter fraud have nothing to fear, its the crooked polititions who will have to worry.
That must mean the democrats a very worried.
What will the left do if they can't vote 6 times each.
There is no widespread fraud, numerous studies have shown this, This a solution looking for a problem.
So as long as the fraud is not "widespread" the fraud that does occur is OK?
The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.
"We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters," Stevens said.
Stevens said the partisan divide in Indiana, as well as elsewhere, was noteworthy. But he said that preventing fraud and inspiring voter confidence were legitimate goals of the law, regardless of who backed or opposed it.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24351798/ns/politics/t/supreme-court-upholds-voter-id-law/#.UTACRjDLE71
VOICEAMERICA, your posts are just plain stupid! You're on IGNORE!!!
One person / one vote---how about those apples. It is not the voters but the vote counters who determine elections. I am sick of the word racism-it is too open for interpertation. The least little excuse to hang the guilt trip "racism" out to dry. When everything is racism, nothing is racism. There are too many worn out media buzz words.
No citizen of this country should be unable to speak English. It should be a requirement to attain citizenship and get the right to vote in the first place. How are you studying for the citizenship test? Is it translated into all other languages? This is crazy! When you emigrate to a country and want a chance at citizenship, one of the first things you must do is learn the language. You should be able to understand what you are voting for and have id to show at the polling place. If you aren't doing anything wrong, what are you worried about? Nobody sees who you vote for.
Can we speak ebonics?
Really? We are discriminating agains the Mexicans and Latinos because the ballots are not printed in Spanish? Holy sh(*! Get real people! This is the United States of America and our NATIVE Language is English. If I were to move to a European Country that did not spek English and became a citizen and wanted to vote; you bet your ass that te ballot would NOT be in English and it would be up to ME to translate it! Why are we so ashamed of being an American? It used to be a source of pride to say you were an American.
When people talk about controlling the illegal entry across our borders and use the word "Immigrant" the hair on the peft winger's and hippie's neck stands up and they scream that our nation was founded on the backs of Immigrants and we are not being fair to the Mexicans and Latino's that are here. The lefties say that these people are just like the Immigrants that came through Ellis ISland and help form this nation. They are correct for the most part, however; they quickly forget that these Immigrants from the past had to learn English and American Customs so they could pass the citizenship test and communicate and do business. Once they became citizens and strated exercising their "RIGHT" to vote they did not whine and cry and file lawsuits saying they are not being treated fairly becasue the ballots were not in their native language. Instead they adapted to the ways of the country in which they lived in!
I agree that being able to read, write and speak English should be a requirement for citizenship. It was good enough for many of ancestors and they were PROUD to learn to read, write and speak English. I am not making a case that they give up their Native Language but instead adapt and learn ours. If the Hispanics are screaming Racism because we don't print our ballots in Spanish, why are the Germans that have immigrated iinto my home state of South Carolina because of the BMW plant and it's supporting agencies making an effort to learn our language so they can communicate in our native tongue? They are not running to the courts whining that the Ballots are not in German!
One last thing, the Justice Department sued the state of South Carolina for passing a Voter ID Law that requires everyone who wants to vote to show a State or Federal Picture ID along with their Voter Registration Card. However, the administrations efforts failed! The law went through the courts and as high as the US Supreme Court who declined to take the case on clearing the path for all elections from January 2013 forward to abide by this law. NO ID NO VOTE. Oh and before you start the babble about being unfair because some people live far away from a town or cour house and can't get to town to get their ID because their buggy has a flat or because they don't drive; the Governor provided state transportation to pick up these people to take them to get their ID's and also helped cut red tape for those who were not born in a hospital and were born on a farm through a mid wife so they could get a state certified birth certificate so they could get the ID to Vote.
Voter fraud is rearing it's ugly head as the country gets more and more divided so to protect the sanctity of the vote it has become necessary to insure that only the people who are legally able to vote are voting.
USAF
Leave it to an airman to come up with the best damn post on the blog!!!!!!!!!!!
Hit the nail on the head.
@USAF retired
Since voter fraud is "rearing it's ugly head as the country gets more and more divided" I'm sure you'll have no problem sharing some links to actual cases of in person voter fraud in the last election.
As rampant as you're implying the problem is this should be a voluminous list.
USAF Retired:: OK flyboy, so the governor of a certain state provided state transportation? That was ONE state-- what about all the other states. And I bet he would give up trying to do that in a state the size of Texas or Alaska. South Carolina is a small state, in case you don't know it.
my goodness! what is the Left scaring themselves about now?
Wonder how it would turn out if every white person pulled the race card every time someone breaths get the Hell over not 1 single black person in this country lives in slavery. You Blacks have had a pretty damn good life with your free loading.
Amen !
First they bring the blacks to America in the form of slavery because they are too lazy to work the land theirselves.
Then they complain about the blacks having rights.
Now they complain about blacks being free loaders.
You people caused your downfall by bringing them to America as Slaves and are now jealous because you want to be like they are which in your viewpoint is lazy and receiving free checks.
The loop is complete whitey. You can only blame yourself for the problem as your laziness has carried through to those who you brought over as slaves.
Your now slaves to your own destiny that you created for yourself.
dwighthuth
I imagine the only ones laughing their ass off are the brothers that rounded up all the other brothers to sell to us!!
@DavetheWave1234 You and your kind are why you have and will continue to lose elections. There are millions of poor whites on welfare and food stamps, but yet the whole white race is not portrayed as freeloaders. I don't understand people who base their whole existence on their racial makeup, totally stupid. There are poor people of all races who receive aid, aid is based on need not race. I grew up in South Carolina when they were just integrating the schools, so this is not some ancient history for some of us, you have no clue what people went through just to vote. You make think your remarks are witty, but they just show your ignorance and bias. Pointing out discrimination is not playing some race card it is reality for some people. The demographics are changing in this country, like it or not, and you will soon be in the minority, thankfully you won't be treated like the minorities of the past.