• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

After SCOTUS decision, Holder trying to reinstate Voting Rights Act pre-clearance

glenn1 said:
I guess that Obama and Holder can't take a hint. Just because you don't agree with Voter ID laws, that doesn't mean you can reimpose the same VRA pre-clearance provisions that the SCOTUS just struck down. Especially since the same SCOTUS ruled Voter ID laws constitutional by a 6-3 margin not long ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...6740b2-f49b-11e2-a2f1-a7acf9bd5d3a_story.html
Click to expand...

1. IIRC they didn't strike down prelcearence but the mechanism of who has to get prelcearence. Instead of Texas automatically having to get prelcearence under the voting rights act, it seems the DOJ is asking a court to decide on if preclearence is warranted. SCOTUS did NOT decide on this.

2. They did not rule on the constitutionality of all voter ID acts. It's possible some do not conform to SCOTUS' opinion and the only way to determine that is through litigation.

3. When are republicans going to stop passing uncsontituitional laws in re: abortion? It's the same type of attempt to end run the issue. When are they going to get a hint?
 
Last edited:
I continue to wait for Republicans to offer evidence of the huge epidemic of voter-registration fraud that has driven such dramatic changes in voter registration laws in Republican-controlled states.
 
shira said:
I continue to wait for Republicans to offer evidence of the huge epidemic of voter-registration fraud that has driven such dramatic changes in voter registration laws in Republican-controlled states.
Click to expand...

Like this one?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...088616498b4_blog.html?hpid=z4&wpisrc=nl_pmpol

If the SCOTUS had intended that other parts of the VRA be struck down, they would have done so.

With that, it's perfectly reasonable & legal to challenge state measures after the fact rather than through pre-clearance, no matter how much conservative state govts wish it weren't so.
 
Jhhnn said:
Like this one?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...088616498b4_blog.html?hpid=z4&wpisrc=nl_pmpol

If the SCOTUS had intended that other parts of the VRA be struck down, they would have done so.

With that, it's perfectly reasonable & legal to challenge state measures after the fact rather than through pre-clearance, no matter how much conservative state govts wish it weren't so.
Click to expand...

Actually I hope DOJ takes the Texas Voter ID to the SCOTUS under one of the other sections of VRA. Based upon the 6-3 Indiana ruling, the reaffimation of the Voter ID law under stare decisis should be a slam dunk. And perhaps the abuse of the other VRA sections in pursuit of a purely political objective like limiting Voter ID (which again has already been decided by the SCOTUS) may give Roberts and Co ample reason to toss the rest of the VRA.
 
shira said:
I continue to wait for Republicans to offer evidence of the huge epidemic of voter-registration fraud that has driven such dramatic changes in voter registration laws in Republican-controlled states.
Click to expand...

We might get that evidence when we get the Democrat evidence that requiring ID (free and readily available ID at that) suppresses legitimate votes.

Probably best not to hold our breath.
 
xBiffx said:
We might get that evidence when we get the Democrat evidence that requiring ID (free and readily available ID at that) suppresses legitimate votes.

Probably best not to hold our breath.
Click to expand...

But, but its not free because in order to get the free and readily available ID they have to have proof of their identity like a birth certificate.

Clearly law abiding citizens are able to get by in everyday life with zero proof of their identity. Its not like they are required for things like holding a job.
 
nehalem256 said:
But, but its not free because in order to get the free and readily available ID they have to have proof of their identity like a birth certificate.

Clearly law abiding citizens are able to get by in everyday life with zero proof of their identity. Its not like they are required for things like holding a job.
Click to expand...

And requiring someone to pay for a background check and firearms ID card before exercising their 2nd amendment right to own a firearm is OK, but requiring someone to get a free voter ID card before voting is a poll tax. Because they might have to pay for gas to drive to the place where the Voter ID is issued, or something like that.
 
glenn1 said:
And requiring someone to pay for a background check and firearms ID card before exercising their 2nd amendment right to own a firearm is OK, but requiring someone to get a free voter ID card before voting is a poll tax. Because they might have to pay for gas to drive to the place where the Voter ID is issued, or something like that.
Click to expand...

I have to pay for gas to drive to the voting booth. Poll tax!

Nevermind, I can ride my bike. But I had to pay for the bike. Poll tax!

Wait, I could have stolen the bike. Excellent!
 
xBiffx said:
I have to pay for gas to drive to the voting booth. Poll tax!

Nevermind, I can ride my bike. But I had to pay for the bike. Poll tax!

Wait, I could have stolen the bike. Excellent!
Click to expand...

Not to mention you have to wear clothes to the polls.

Clearly anti-nudity laws are a poll tax :colbert:
 
glenn1 said:
I guess that Obama and Holder can't take a hint. Just because you don't agree with Voter ID laws, that doesn't mean you can reimpose the same VRA pre-clearance provisions that the SCOTUS just struck down. Especially since the same SCOTUS ruled Voter ID laws constitutional by a 6-3 margin not long ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...6740b2-f49b-11e2-a2f1-a7acf9bd5d3a_story.html
Click to expand...

From what I recall, the court didn't strike down pre-clearance so much as require that pre-clearance be predicated on existing conditions, not 40 year old conditions.
 
Atreus21 said:
From what I recall, the court didn't strike down pre-clearance so much as require that pre-clearance be predicated on existing conditions, not 40 year old conditions.
Click to expand...

True, but this then requires Congress to pass a bill amending VRA to supply a new formula for determining which states need pre-clearance. In other words, the current Congress has to agree or there is no pre-clearance.
 
shira said:
I continue to wait for Republicans to offer evidence of the huge epidemic of voter-registration fraud that has driven such dramatic changes in voter registration laws in Republican-controlled states.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of evidence along with convictions of voter fraud, since when does a crime have to reach a "huge epidemic" before you pass laws against it?
 
glenn1 said:
Yes, I'm sure it's taken just as seriously as Chicago does enfranchising and ensuring their dead citizens vote.
Click to expand...

More so. Chicago is just a decades old political machine, running like a clock.

In Texas, we are looking at a minority majority in my lifetime. Its like an hourglass. That scares the crap out of straight ticket Republican voters, and white parents who don't teach their kids Spanish.
 
poofyhairguy said:
Texas will fight this to the top. Disenfranchising the growing Mexican minority is serious business in this state.
Click to expand...

Disenfranchising them by requiring them to get same ID to vote as they need to legally work?

Now I wonder what kind of growing Mexican minority might not have that ID?:hmm:
 
There shouldn't be gerrymandering because America should have one unified, non-partisan voting organization agency that sets districts and voting policy. Failing that, each state should have that model, with the emphasis on 'non-partisan.' Politicians deciding who gets to vote is the ultimate conflict of interest, which is as true when it benefits guys I like as those I hate. Some states (including, recently, California) already have this in place, but it needs to be a lot more widespread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top