GOP to the nation, "Racism is over"

[nehalem256]

We also don't have laws regulating when it's ok for private citizens to use their giant robots to fight Godzilla. Because those things don't exist. Laws get enacted to address a situation. There is no groups trying to remove the voting rights of whites, so there are no laws trying to protect those rights.

The GOP is doing everything it can to target the voting rights of minorities because it knows minorities overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Are they doing it for racist reasons, maybe or maybe not. But intentionally attempting to disenfranchise a specific group to illegally win an election is wrong regardless of if the intent is racist or not.

There is no group trying to remove the voting rights of minorities.

In fact in reference to the 9 hour lines in florida

She also blames voters, saying some took as long as 40 minutes to complete the ballot before feeding it into a scanner. "The reason we had long lines ... was the length of the ballot and how long it took each person to fill out the ballot," she says.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/11/07/florida-voting-problems/1690549/

Apparently Democratic voters are just too stupid to fill ballots out as Republicans.

And in fact the other examples of Ohio and Pennsylvania do in fact remove the voting rights of whites. White people can be without photo id. White people can be unable to show up the polls on election day.

 

[werepossum]

Racism by individuals will never be over, but racism as an open and significant part of our society is certainly dead. That said, I think the same voting methods, equipment and practices should be uniform state-wide. And I think voter ID should be an absolute requirement.

 

[Thebobo]

There is no group trying to remove the voting rights of minorities.

🙄

 

[Ausm]

There is no group trying to remove the voting rights of minorities.

In fact in reference to the 9 hour lines in florida

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/11/07/florida-voting-problems/1690549/

Apparently Democratic voters are just too stupid to fill ballots out as Republicans.

And in fact the other examples of Ohio and Pennsylvania do in fact remove the voting rights of whites. White people can be without photo id. White people can be unable to show up the polls on election day.

Maybe not remove but possibly prohibit them from voting? Well anyho it didn't work for you guys.

Observe a Rightist coming out of the closet....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8

 

[OverVolt]

Well that was easy.

 

[Incorruptible]

It's not as long as all groups have equal access to said id. Republicans enacting these laws already know the disproportionate effect.

This is the same argument used to justify poll taxes.

Why to you refuse to acknowledge Mike Turzi admitting they passed voter id laws just to allow Mitt Romney to win in PA?

How is asking people for ID racist, Whats wrong with you?

How do they not get a drivers license or whatever id

 

[Oldgamer]

Special rules are in place to restrict local voting practices unless they are approved by the federal government. I hear that includes changes to polling places. I'm curious as to what purpose they claim to be fighting Section 5.

About Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act

The lawyers who are fighting to get rid of and overturn Section 5, are doing so, so that voting laws can be left entirely up to the states. Because of Section 5 of the voters rights act, Texas and others could not implement the voter ID laws, among other things they were trying to do.

It is absurd that a Supreme Court Justice thinks, that "oh we don't need this anymore, all is well and racism is over". It is also absurd for so many on the Republican side to think, "well we elected a black president, so that shows racism is over in this country".

Jeesh, look at the obstructionism, and all the outlandish behavior by our elected officials since the day Obama took office. Most of this is flat out racism, and it went from subtle to full on.

As long as there are human beings, there will always be racism. People tend to focus on each others differences and not their commonalities. Racism sadly is something that will never go away. Even if we were all one color, one race, it would still exist. We would find something different in others to discriminate against.

These laws need to remain in place. I am just appalled that the SC sitting justices are even considering taking us back to the pre-civil rights voter era.

Voting is a right, it is not an "entitlement". Seems the Justices, like Scalia have bought into their own rhetoric racist talking points.

 

[Oldgamer]

How is asking people for ID racist, Whats wrong with you?

How do they not get a drivers license or whatever id

It is another tool with which to bar people from voting. It is in essence a "poll tax" because those who are poor, who don't drive don't have drivers licenses or ID. They would have to go to great lengths and cost to them to obtain an ID.

Most elderly don't even have their birth certificates, so they would have to purchase a certified copy, that is roughly 25.00 bucks. Then they have to pay for transportation to get to the DL office and then pay a fee to for the ID.

Some other states it is a little more complicated.

The fact that there is "0" voter fraud in this country, and it isn't a problem in itself demonstrates that this is being used to discriminate against people, who are primarily minorities.

 

[nehalem256]

It is another tool with which to bar people from voting. It is in essence a "poll tax" because those who are poor, who don't drive don't have drivers licenses or ID. They would have to go to great lengths and cost to them to obtain an ID.

Most elderly don't even have their birth certificates, so they would have to purchase a certified copy, that is roughly 25.00 bucks. Then they have to pay for transportation to get to the DL office and then pay a fee to for the ID.

Some other states it is a little more complicated.

The fact that there is "0" voter fraud in this country, and it isn't a problem in itself demonstrates that this is being used to discriminate against people, who are primarily minorities.

Looks to me like it discriminates against poor people and old people.

Racism not found.

 

[PokerGuy]

It is another tool with which to bar people from voting. It is in essence a "poll tax" because those who are poor, who don't drive don't have drivers licenses or ID. They would have to go to great lengths and cost to them to obtain an ID.

BS. In many places they can even get one for free. But even free is apparently too expensive. What baloney.

The fact that there is "0" voter fraud in this country, and it isn't a problem in itself demonstrates that this is being used to discriminate against people

Wrong, just a couple of days ago I saw the story of an election station worker no less who had voted multiple times because "she wanted to make sure her vote for Obama would count!". How do you know if voter fraud exists if there's no mechanism to detect it?

 

[thraashman]

There is no group trying to remove the voting rights of minorities.

Well now you're just being willfully ignorant or intentionally dishonest. So which are you, stupid or a liar? Or a stupid liar?

 

[nehalem256]

Well now you're just being willfully ignorant or intentionally dishonest. So which are you, stupid or a liar? Or a stupid liar?

I'm sorry is elderly a dog-whistle for black now? 🙄

 

[PokerGuy]

These laws need to remain in place.

Yes, facts be damned! We should stick to some setup created to address a perceived issue 60+ years ago, regardless of whether the issue still exists or not. We should ignore the fact that only some places are covered by restrictions and others (where there there are even more problems) are not covered. That people are subject to different burdens of proof in getting problems fixed with fair voting simply based on some subjective criteria created 60 years ago. Yep, sounds logical.....

 

[CitizenKain]

The Republican Party won't be happy until only white male land owners are allowed to vote. Although by now they would amend it also say Protestant and not gay as well.

 

[nehalem256]

The Republican Party won't be happy until only white male land owners are allowed to vote. Although by now they would amend it also say Protestant and not gay as well.

The Republicans are not half as obsessed with the race/gender/homosexuality of those voting for them as Democrats are.

 

[xj0hnx]

It is absurd that a Supreme Court Justice thinks, that "oh we don't need this anymore, all is well and racism is over". It is also absurd for so many on the Republican side to think, "well we elected a black president, so that shows racism is over in this country".

Racism at the individual level will never disappear, but institutional racism has all but disappeared, except when if suits the progressives, and they can play their card and call whatever they think will be politically expedient "racism", whether it is or not.

I'm sorry is elderly a dog-whistle for black now? 🙄

Everything not democrat is their dog-whistle for "minority", "black", or "brown", take as needed for pain.

 

[Oldgamer]

Yes, facts be damned! We should stick to some setup created to address a perceived issue 60+ years ago, regardless of whether the issue still exists or not. We should ignore the fact that only some places are covered by restrictions and others (where there there are even more problems) are not covered. That people are subject to different burdens of proof in getting problems fixed with fair voting simply based on some subjective criteria created 60 years ago. Yep, sounds logical.....

Sounds like your living with your head in the sand. There is a reason that the voters rights act was implemented, and states will go back to the nonsense of barring people from voting (primarily aimed at minorities), especially those in the republican states.

Maybe you ought to watch LBJ's speech as a little reminder of why we have the voters rights act in place.

Yes, some of this absurd behavior is already happening and being blocked because we have the voters rights act in place, thank god.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNjlwwf2K9g

But if the SC overturns or gets rid of it or modifies section 5, we will go right back to states implementing all sorts of absurd things to disenfranchise and discourage voters.

 

[nehalem256]

Sounds like your living with your head in the sand. There is a reason that the voters rights act was implemented, and states will go back to the nonsense of barring people from voting (primarily aimed at minorities), especially those in the republican states.

Is that why the things you mentioned were aimed at elderly and poor people?

Maybe you ought to watch LBJ's speech as a little reminder of why we have the voters rights act in place.

Because a speech from 1960s is releavant to today. :hmm:

Yes, some of this absurd behavior is already happening and being blocked because we have the voters rights act in place, thank god.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNjlwwf2K9g

But if the SC overturns or gets rid of it or modifies section 5, we will go right back to states implementing all sorts of absurd things to disenfranchise and discourage voters.

They are already free to do so. It will simply make it so people of all states and races are treated equally.

 

[Paul98]

Trying to limit voting for groups of people who mainly vote democrat isn't racism. It's the racism and the policies that support the racism that cause these groups to vote mainly democrat. So then they try to limit these people from voting, if they were voting mainly for republicans they sure wouldn't be trying to stop them from voting.

 

[Oldgamer]

Nehalem256,

Here is what will happen if the SC gets rid of the voters rights act, or ammend section 5. We will see many states start implementing ID laws, competency tests to determine if a person is smart enough to vote, and all the other things that wonderful video I just linked will come right back out from under the rug.

So you think this is ok? It's ok to let these states implement such laws that will bar people from voting? Do you think its ok to disefranchise voters, and you know they will target the poor, elderly and minorities. So this is ok with you?

Also, what is with you focusing on me saying poor and elderly? You do realize that majority of minorities have poor and elderly, do you not?

 

[Oldgamer]

This right here is a huge issue, and if they overturn this portion then if will affect more than just minorities it will affect everyone.

-------------------

Section 5—Pre-clearance

Section 5 of the Act requires that the United States Department of Justice, through an administrative procedure, or a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, through a declaratory judgment action "preclear" any attempt to change “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting..." in any "covered jurisdiction."

The Supreme Court gave a broad interpretation to the words "any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting" in Allen v. State Board of Election, 393 U.S. 544 (1969).

A covered jurisdiction that seeks to obtain Section 5 Pre-clearance, either from the United States Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, must demonstrate that a proposed voting change does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of discriminating based on race or color.

In some cases, they must also show that the proposed change does not have the purpose or effect of discriminating against a "language minority group." Membership in a language minority group includes "persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage." The burden of proof under current Section 5 jurisprudence is on the covered jurisdiction to establish that the proposed change does not have a retrogressive purpose.

Covered jurisdictions may not implement voting changes without federal pre-clearance. The Justice Department has 60 days to respond to a request for a voting change. If the Justice Department or federal court rejects a request for Pre-clearance, the jurisdiction may continue the prior voting practice or may adopt a substitute and seek Pre-clearance for it. If the jurisdiction implements a voting change before the Justice Department denies Pre-clearance in contravention of the Act, the jurisdiction must return to the pre-existing practice or enact a different change.

 

[nehalem256]

Nehalem256,

Here is what will happen if the SC gets rid of the voters rights act, or ammend section 5. We will see many states start implementing ID laws, competency tests to determine if a person is smart enough to vote, and all the other things that wonderful video I just linked will come right back out from under the rug.

Many states already implement ID laws. See the OP as an example.

You have no evidence that competency tests will be used.

So you think this is ok? It's ok to let these states implement such laws that will bar people from voting? Do you think its ok to disefranchise voters, and you know they will target the poor, elderly and minorities. So this is ok with you?

Also, what is with you focusing on me saying poor and elderly? You do realize that majority of minorities have poor and elderly, do you not?

A majority of the elderly are not minorities. You do realize that most minorities are young, which is why the percentage of minorities is increasing.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This right here is a huge issue, and if they overturn this portion then if will affect more than just minorities it will affect everyone.

-------------------

Section 5—Pre-clearance

Section 5 of the Act requires that the United States Department of Justice, through an administrative procedure, or a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, through a declaratory judgment action "preclear" any attempt to change “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting..." in any "covered jurisdiction."

The Supreme Court gave a broad interpretation to the words "any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting" in Allen v. State Board of Election, 393 U.S. 544 (1969).

A covered jurisdiction that seeks to obtain Section 5 Pre-clearance, either from the United States Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, must demonstrate that a proposed voting change does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of discriminating based on race or color.

In some cases, they must also show that the proposed change does not have the purpose or effect of discriminating against a "language minority group." Membership in a language minority group includes "persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage." The burden of proof under current Section 5 jurisprudence is on the covered jurisdiction to establish that the proposed change does not have a retrogressive purpose.

Covered jurisdictions may not implement voting changes without federal pre-clearance. The Justice Department has 60 days to respond to a request for a voting change. If the Justice Department or federal court rejects a request for Pre-clearance, the jurisdiction may continue the prior voting practice or may adopt a substitute and seek Pre-clearance for it. If the jurisdiction implements a voting change before the Justice Department denies Pre-clearance in contravention of the Act, the jurisdiction must return to the pre-existing practice or enact a different change.

One could retitle this thread. "Dems consider 5 states too racist to ever trust". How about "Democrats still angry at 5 states and with to punish them forever for something that happened 50 years past."

Why do Democrats hate those people so much that they are willing to do this forever?

 

[Ausm]

The Republicans are not half as obsessed with the race/gender/homosexuality of those voting for them as Democrats are.

The fact is no one in their right mind of Color or LGBT orientation would ever want to vote for a Republican....it looks like most of these people are finally realizing this. 😉

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The fact is no one in their right mind of Color or LGBT orientation would ever want to vote for a Republican....it looks like most of these people are finally realizing this. 😉

Why do you hate the people in those 5 states?