Section 4 of voting rights act struck down

[werepossum]

I bet there is one. Run by Dems, oversight by trusted union police, etc. It's Chicago dude, you know they've got their fixes covered up good...

LOL Yeah, there's definitely a local one. It produced Barack Obama, after all. If you can't beat 'em, open their divorce records.

 

[chucky2]

Here's what I don't understand about people going to vote:

How is it that people who are voting for the Leadership of our country cannot somehow figure out to register in enough time to vote, remember to update their address if/when they move, and have years to figure out how to get to their voting location but somehow can't get that accomplished? And, this isn't a miniscule handful of people, this is people in enough numbers that we actually need laws on this sh1t.

Is it me or should adults like, you know, already be able to handle stuff like this if they expect to vote?

 

[werepossum]

Lol, what does voter fraud have to do with the VRA?

Wow. Just - wow.

 

[chucky2]

LOL Yeah, there's definitely a local one. It produced Barack Obama, after all. If you can't beat 'em, open their divorce records.

:biggrin:

 

[ivwshane]

Wow. Just - wow.

Yes I'm amazed at how often you deflect. Does the VRA deal with voter fraud? Yes or no?

 

[Riparian]

Your argument appears to that although separate but equal is bad for people, it's perfectly okay for states. Seems to me that states/districts repeatedly violating voting laws can be repeatedly sanctioned under the same laws that apply equally to everyone. That IS how other laws work, no?

The closest legal analogy I can think of is putting someone on parole after they've committed a crime. While not a perfect analogy since those in control of a jurisdiction change over time, those same jurisdictions were offered a chance to get out of the voting equivalent of parole. While the base law applies to everyone, those who have broken the rule once are now examined more carefully.

Yes I'm amazed at how often you deflect. Does the VRA deal with voter fraud? Yes or no?

To be fair to werepossum, the VRA is connected to voter fraud in that many jurisdictions are challenging pre-clearance of voter id laws (which has the proposed intent of curbing voter fraud) that those jurisdictions argue are not in violation of the VRA but that are being dismissed by the DOJ due to prior bad behavior.

 

[ivwshane]

The closest legal analogy I can think of is putting someone on parole after they've committed a crime. While not a perfect analogy since those in control of a jurisdiction change over time, those same jurisdictions were offered a chance to get out of the voting equivalent of parole. While the base law applies to everyone, those who have broken the rule once are now examined more carefully.



To be fair to werepossum, the VRA is connected to voter fraud in that many jurisdictions are challenging pre-clearance of voter id laws (which has the proposed intent of curbing voter fraud) that those jurisdictions argue are not in violation of the VRA but that are being dismissed by the DOJ due to prior bad behavior.

Your response makes sense in that aspect but his post didn't say that nor did it imply it. In fact he further clarified what he meant by crying about other issues and not about not being able to correct/address those issues. The only way he could have meant what you thought he did is if laws in Chicago were being passed that allowed voter fraud and aren't being looked at by the oversight of the VRA.

 

[Riparian]

Your response makes sense in that aspect but his post didn't say that nor did it imply it. In fact he further clarified what he meant by crying about other issues and not about not being able to correct/address those issues. The only way he could have meant what you thought he did is if laws in Chicago were being passed that allowed voter fraud and aren't being looked at by the oversight of the VRA.

I guess I gave him the benefit of the doubt since he had addressed one of my previous statements by discussing voter id laws being enacted in TX (his post is #130).

Anyways, they are legitimately connected in some form.

 

[ivwshane]

I guess I gave him the benefit of the doubt since he had addressed one of my previous statements by discussing voter id laws being enacted in TX (his post is #130).

Anyways, they are legitimately connected in some form.

I agree. If there is voter fraud and a city/state/etc want to address that issue it must be done in a way that doesn't violate the VRA.

However, if there is a voter fraud issue happening (I'm calling BS on his claim) and the city/state/etc are choosing not to address it and therefor no new voting laws are being passed then the VRA is not involved and has nothing to do with it in regards to fixing the issue.

 

[fskimospy]

Not to that degree. For instance, Chicago is notorious for voter fraud. Where is the federal oversight committee for Chicago?

EDIT: To piggyback on TechboyJK's thread, where is the federal oversight committee for the Chicago school system? Or for Detroit's?

This is a non-sequitur. The VRA has to do with racial discrimination, not voter fraud prosecution.

If you think that certain areas have other vote related problems that you believe deserve additional federal scrutiny I encourage you to lobby your representative to do that. The VRA has literally zero to do with federal policing of voter fraud, however.

 

[werepossum]

The closest legal analogy I can think of is putting someone on parole after they've committed a crime. While not a perfect analogy since those in control of a jurisdiction change over time, those same jurisdictions were offered a chance to get out of the voting equivalent of parole. While the base law applies to everyone, those who have broken the rule once are now examined more carefully.

To be fair to werepossum, the VRA is connected to voter fraud in that many jurisdictions are challenging pre-clearance of voter id laws (which has the proposed intent of curbing voter fraud) that those jurisdictions argue are not in violation of the VRA but that are being dismissed by the DOJ due to prior bad behavior.

But in this case the probation lasts forever unless you can prove your innocence. Meanwhile, voters who weren't even old enough to vote when this was passed are now retired. Surely the districts, states and cities have been punished enough and can now live under the same rules as everyone else. And if not, Congress can revisit the rules in accordance with SCOTUS' decision.

Your response makes sense in that aspect but his post didn't say that nor did it imply it. In fact he further clarified what he meant by crying about other issues and not about not being able to correct/address those issues. The only way he could have meant what you thought he did is if laws in Chicago were being passed that allowed voter fraud and aren't being looked at by the oversight of the VRA.

The original intent of the practices which caused the VRA to be created were strictly intended to give an electoral result different from the will of the people. The practices now adjudicated under the VRA are intended to give an electoral result different from the will of the people. Whether the issue is disenfranchising legal voters or enfranchising illegal voters, it is voter fraud. Your argument is akin to arguing that traffic laws to establish driving privileges are somehow decoupled from traffic laws to establish driving behavioral standards when the two are merely different aspects of solving the same problem.

 

[ivwshane]

But in this case the probation lasts forever unless you can prove your innocence. Meanwhile, voters who weren't even old enough to vote when this was passed are now retired. Surely the districts, states and cities have been punished enough and can now live under the same rules as everyone else. And if not, Congress can revisit the rules in accordance with SCOTUS' decision.


The original intent of the practices which caused the VRA to be created were strictly intended to give an electoral result different from the will of the people. The practices now adjudicated under the VRA are intended to give an electoral result different from the will of the people. Whether the issue is disenfranchising legal voters or enfranchising illegal voters, it is voter fraud. Your argument is akin to arguing that traffic laws to establish driving privileges are somehow decoupled from traffic laws to establish driving behavioral standards when the two are merely different aspects of solving the same problem.

God you are so full of shit!

Lol please explain how the VRA goes against the will of the people by ensuring people can vote and aren't descriminated against.

 

[werepossum]

This is a non-sequitur. The VRA has to do with racial discrimination, not voter fraud prosecution.

If you think that certain areas have other vote related problems that you believe deserve additional federal scrutiny I encourage you to lobby your representative to do that. The VRA has literally zero to do with federal policing of voter fraud, however.

Section 2 quite clearly addresses ALL discriminatory voting practices, not merely those based on racial factors.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The closest legal analogy I can think of is putting someone on parole after they've committed a crime. While not a perfect analogy since those in control of a jurisdiction change over time, those same jurisdictions were offered a chance to get out of the voting equivalent of parole. While the base law applies to everyone, those who have broken the rule once are now examined more carefully.



To be fair to werepossum, the VRA is connected to voter fraud in that many jurisdictions are challenging pre-clearance of voter id laws (which has the proposed intent of curbing voter fraud) that those jurisdictions argue are not in violation of the VRA but that are being dismissed by the DOJ due to prior bad behavior.

What specific criteria must be met to become like other states? I choose the word "specific" carefully. Is the standard perfection? If other states have a similar rate of infractions are they automatically added? Precisely what objective measure get off the "naughty list"? For how ling?

 

[werepossum]

Just for a little perspective here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act

In 2006, the United States Commission on Civil Rights reviewed the Justice Department Preclearance record and found that the percentage of DOJ objections to submitted changes has declined markedly throughout the 40-year period of the Act: from 5.5 percent in the first period to 1.2 percent in the second, and to 0.6 percent in the third. Over the 10 years prior to the review, the overall objection rate was so low as to be practically negligible, at less than 0.1 percent. The Commission's two Democratic members dissented from the report, charging that the Commission had "abandon[ed] the field of battle."

When the objection rate of pre-submitted changes has fallen to "less than 0.1 percent" for more than a decade, it's difficult to believe that objection to SCOTUS' decision is based on any principle other than maintaining political advantage or simply punishing for the sake of punishment. If one feels that the South deserves to be a permanent underclass, whether because we are inherently evil or inherently ignorant, then clearly Shelby County v. Holder is a blow to your world view. Otherwise - not so much.

Citations in the wiki.

 

[Riparian]

What specific criteria must be met to become like other states? I choose the word "specific" carefully. Is the standard perfection? If other states have a similar rate of infractions are they automatically added? Precisely what objective measure get off the "naughty list"? For how ling?

There is no perfect standard in the legal world but you can set up rules to help with the determination. With regards to what objective measures there are, I've listed in a previous post the criteria that needs to be met in order to be removed from the list. Is it a perfect list? I highly doubt it. But to live by your standard would mean to have no laws ever or highly unstable laws.

But in this case the probation lasts forever unless you can prove your innocence. Meanwhile, voters who weren't even old enough to vote when this was passed are now retired. Surely the districts, states and cities have been punished enough and can now live under the same rules as everyone else. And if not, Congress can revisit the rules in accordance with SCOTUS' decision.

The rules to get bailed out of section 5 pre-clearance requires essentially good behavior for 10 years. If you can't behave properly for 10 years, which seems like a reasonable amount of time to not try and disenfranchise people, then you remain in probation.

Just for a little perspective here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act

When the objection rate of pre-submitted changes has fallen to "less than 0.1 percent" for more than a decade, it's difficult to believe that objection to SCOTUS' decision is based on any principle other than maintaining political advantage or simply punishing for the sake of punishment. If one feels that the South deserves to be a permanent underclass, whether because we are inherently evil or inherently ignorant, then clearly Shelby County v. Holder is a blow to your world view. Otherwise - not so much.

Citations in the wiki.

This goes back to the catch-22 that Ginsburg was talking about. Do you remove a law because it was an effective law?

 

[fskimospy]

Section 2 quite clearly addresses ALL discriminatory voting practices, not merely those based on racial factors.

You are going to need to help me out here. Are you claiming that voter fraud is a discriminatory voting practice?

If so, can you provide me with a single legal precedent to back up this somewhat novel definition?

 

[werepossum]

There is no perfect standard in the legal world but you can set up rules to help with the determination. With regards to what objective measures there are, I've listed in a previous post the criteria that needs to be met in order to be removed from the list. Is it a perfect list? I highly doubt it. But to live by your standard would mean to have no laws ever or highly unstable laws.

The rules to get bailed out of section 5 pre-clearance requires essentially good behavior for 10 years. If you can't behave properly for 10 years, which seems like a reasonable amount of time to not try and disenfranchise people, then you remain in probation.

This goes back to the catch-22 that Ginsburg was talking about. Do you remove a law because it was an effective law?

A law, no. An onerous and special set of legal hurdles, yes.

Less than one in a thousand proposed changes had objections. Obviously the "battleground" is intended to last forever.

You are going to need to help me out here. Are you claiming that voter fraud is a discriminatory voting practice?

If so, can you provide me with a single legal precedent to back up this somewhat novel definition?

Actually I was claiming that discriminatory voting practices are voter fraud. Sorry, I thought that was self-evident or I would have explained myself. All frogs are amphibians; not all amphibians are frogs. Ergo producing an amphiuma does not mean that all frogs are not amphibians.

The purpose of discriminatory voting practices was to obtain a fraudulent electoral result. Were you somehow under the impression that this was discrimination just for shits and giggles?

 

[lopri]

So many people are presenting their normative judgement on "what the law should be" instead of "what the law is." Understandable, but completely misses the point of this case. Or perhaps they are actually right if your view of rule of law is metaphysically different from that of prevailing one (at least on surface) As Justice Stevens once famous spoke in his Bush v. Gore dissent:

The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land

The Roberts' court and its activism is shameful. Warren court was at least honest in its approach. The way John Roberts go about changing the nation's laws is worse because in many ways it's very dishonest and furtive.

 

[Paul98]

Lets go back to 2012, if this ruling had been in place during the 2012 election what would have been different. We saw lots of different practices to try and limit the voting numbers, especially among minority voters. Were things were struck down would they not be if this ruling had come before 2012?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Riparian I've gone back over your posts and I see the criteria you posted and I appreciate it. The answer I found is that once on the list it's effectively impossible to get off it. Well it's an answer at least.

 

[lopri]

A law, no. An onerous and special set of legal hurdles, yes.

But the Constitution explicitly vests that power in the Congress. Why are so many people, who ordinarily get worked up when they perceive Constitutional violation, ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution's text? I will quote it again one last time.

Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.​

Even the reactionary 5 on the court can't deny Congress this power. They go about it saying that the methods Congress chose to effectuate this Constitutional command "worked too well" so it's now "outdated."

But then obvious question is: How does the court know that? Does the court have such capacity and competence to make that call? The answer is no. And in any case, that judgment is Congress's to make per the Constitution.

Edit: And I also note (again) how little Roberts has to say about the 13th, 14th, and the 15th amendment of the U.S. Constitution in his opinion striking down Voting Rights Act. It seems as if the conservatives on the court wish those amendments didn't exist.

 

[werepossum]

But the Constitution explicitly vests that power in the Congress. Why are so many people, who ordinarily get worked up when they perceive Constitutional violation, ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution's text? I will quote it again one last time.

Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution


Even the reactionary 5 on the court can't deny Congress this power. They go about it saying that the methods Congress chose to effectuate this Constitutional command "worked too well" so it's now "outdated."

But obvious question is: How does the court know that? Does the court have such capacity and competence to make that call? The answer is no. And in any case, that judgment is Congress's to make.

Dude, seriously? Are you under the delusion that this is the first time SCOTUS has interfered with Congress' authority? SCOTUS is charged with oversight of Congress in two ways, interpretation of laws and Constitutionality. In this case SCOTUS did NOT find that Congress lacked the power to enforce the Amendment, it found that Congress lacked the authority to establish criteria and then ignore progress made, effectively locking states into perpetual second class status. Less than one proposed change in a thousand raised objection for a decade, yet you would continue this onerous burden in perpetuity simply to hold an edge in political power.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

But the Constitution explicitly vests that power in the Congress. Why are so many people, who ordinarily get worked up when they perceive Constitutional violation, ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution's text? I will quote it again one last time.

Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution


Even the reactionary 5 on the court can't deny Congress this power. They go about it saying that the methods Congress chose to effectuate this Constitutional command "worked too well" so it's now "outdated."

But then obvious question is: How does the court know that? Does the court have such capacity and competence to make that call? The answer is no. And in any case, that judgment is Congress's to make per the Constitution.

Edit: And I also note (again) how little Roberts has to say about the 13th, 14th, and the 15th amendment of the U.S. Constitution in his opinion striking down Voting Rights Act. It seems as if the conservatives on the court wish those amendments didn't exist.

Well we'll have to strike down and put DOMA back since the SCOTUS isn't allowed to rule on legislation.

 

[Riparian]

Riparian I've gone back over your posts and I see the criteria you posted and I appreciate it. The answer I found is that once on the list it's effectively impossible to get off it. Well it's an answer at least.

No problem. It's definitely not designed to be easy to get off the list, however, if you're looking for a list of jurisdictions that have successfully been bailed out, it was on the bottom of the link I provided that listed the conditions for bail out. I will link it here again:

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/misc/sec_4.php#bailout

From that list, there have been 31 bail outs since 2006.