Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Supreme Court Holds That Section 4 Of The Voting Rights Act is Unconstitutional


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 Purple Flames

Purple Flames

    MC Sucka DJ

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 25 June 2013 - 09:39 PM

http://tpmdc.talking...-act-ruling.php

 

And Texas wastes no time exploiting this decision:

 

http://tpmdc.talking...ing.php?ref=fpb



#2 kill3r7

kill3r7

    MiNd ThE GaP

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:47 PM

http://tpmdc.talking...-act-ruling.php

 

And Texas wastes no time exploiting this decision:

 

http://tpmdc.talking...ing.php?ref=fpb

Time for congress to get off their butts and come up with a new formula. Although, I'm not holding my breath. It's up to the people to make their voices heard. If folks are truly upset then they need to let their congressman know.


Xecutioner
CML

#3 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:22 AM

The NAACP denounced the decision as “an act of extraordinary judicial overreach.”


Hm.

Someone needs to contact The NAACP and explain to them how the Supreme Court is the solitary decider when it comes to determining if a law is constitutional or not.  And that whomever authorized the NAACP to release this statement is stupid for even questioning the idea that the Supreme Court might rule badly regarding a law.  I think we have a few folks on this board who are experts on the subject... anyone want to volunteer?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#4 usickenme

usickenme

    I'm the a-hole

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:27 AM

Actually the NAACP is correct, basically the Supreme Court said -"the data you used when reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act in 2006 was wrong so we are going to go ahead and nullify, that part. But we are totally cool with a new formula if you every get your shit together....who are we kidding. We know you won't.  Plus we have a black President and some black mayor so it's all good now anyway"

 

So it didn't rule "the law" unconstitutional per se except the formula. 

 

 

Furthermore the basis of the decision was that (as Roberts said) "our country has changed". Not shit sherlock. The law allows for this change by allowing states and counties who have demonstrated 10 years of non-discrimination in their voting laws to be exempt.  Which has happend in several Mass, Maine, CT and NH. All for simply not being racists assholes....something large part of the rest of the covered jurisdictions couldn't even do.



#5 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:40 AM

The law (in this case, Section Four) was the formula.

 

And the Supreme Court is the final say and ruling masters in all things Constitutional.  You must be new around here.


"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#6 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 June 2013 - 11:19 AM

Your sarcasm is not lost on everyone, Bob. Dems and Repubs will cry "overreach" any time the SCOTUS rules against their position. Some right winger was saying that we are the only civilized country WITHOUT ID required for voting. I'll have to look into that. If its true, it will be fun to compare it to the fact that lefty's like to point out about us as the only civilized country WITHOUT socialized healthcare.



#7 kill3r7

kill3r7

    MiNd ThE GaP

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 June 2013 - 11:46 AM

Your sarcasm is not lost on everyone, Bob. Dems and Repubs will cry "overreach" any time the SCOTUS rules against their position. Some right winger was saying that we are the only civilized country WITHOUT ID required for voting. I'll have to look into that. If its true, it will be fun to compare it to the fact that lefty's like to point out about us as the only civilized country WITHOUT socialized healthcare.


I believe most countries supply their citizens with some form of ID. We do not. The burden of obtaining such an ID (although fairly low) could prevent/deter one from voting.
Xecutioner
CML

#8 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 26 June 2013 - 11:51 AM



I believe most countries supply their citizens with some form of ID. We do not. The burden of obtaining such an ID (although fairly low) could prevent/deter one from voting.

Likewise, it could prevent/deter one from obtaining a firearm - which is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.  Meanwhile, there is no right to vote.  So, if requiring an ID to vote is such a horrible thing, it seems that requiring an ID for someone to purchase a firearm would be worse...


"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#9 kill3r7

kill3r7

    MiNd ThE GaP

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 June 2013 - 12:10 PM

Likewise, it could prevent/deter one from obtaining a firearm - which is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Meanwhile, there is no right to vote. So, if requiring an ID to vote is such a horrible thing, it seems that requiring an ID for someone to purchase a firearm would be worse...


Not really analogous since buying a gun already involves an outlay of money on the part of a purchaser. Voting, though not a protected right, up until yesterday required no additional expense other then time and the cost to get to the voting booth.

Also the 15th amendment mentions that the right to vote shall not be denied on account of race.

In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the Court decided the 600,000 or so (mostly black) residents of Washington D.C. have no legal recourse for their complete lack of voting representation in Congress (they have one “representative” in the House who can speak, but cannot vote). The Court affirmed the district court’s interpretation that our Constitution “does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” And it’s state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is “qualified.”


Xecutioner
CML

#10 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 26 June 2013 - 12:25 PM

Not really analogous since buying a gun already involves an outlay of money on the part of a purchaser. Voting, though not a protected right, up until yesterday required no additional expense other then time and the cost to get to the voting booth.

So, because there's a potential expense involved (not necessarily, as I could inherit a firearm or have one given as a present), you're saying it's okay for the government to require additional money and inconvenience on my right to own a firearm, but it's not okay regarding my non-right to vote?

(Mind you, I have no issue with an individual state or federal requirement to produce an ID in order to purchase or own a firearm. But then, I have no issue with an individual state or federal requirement to produce an ID in order to vote either.)

And it’s state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is “qualified.”

Isn't that what these individual states are doing - adding the qualifier that you have to produce a government-issued photo ID in order to vote?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#11 usickenme

usickenme

    I'm the a-hole

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 June 2013 - 01:49 PM

Likewise, it could prevent/deter one from obtaining a firearm - which is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.  Meanwhile, there is no right to vote.  So, if requiring an ID to vote is such a horrible thing, it seems that requiring an ID for someone to purchase a firearm would be worse...

 

Can you show me where in the constitution "obtaining" firearm is a guaranteed right?  Not possessing and using but getting one



#12 kill3r7

kill3r7

    MiNd ThE GaP

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 June 2013 - 02:31 PM


So, because there's a potential expense involved (not necessarily, as I could inherit a firearm or have one given as a present), you're saying it's okay for the government to require additional money and inconvenience on my right to own a firearm, but it's not okay regarding my non-right to vote?

(Mind you, I have no issue with an individual state or federal requirement to produce an ID in order to purchase or own a firearm. But then, I have no issue with an individual state or federal requirement to produce an ID in order to vote either.)

Isn't that what these individual states are doing - adding the qualifier that you have to produce a government-issued photo ID in order to vote?

First, the government is not infringing on your right to bear arms by requiring an ID. You can still own all the guns you want. The ID is merely used to establish that you are old enough and for background searches. As a registered voter there is no need for this since you have already established that you are a qualified person.
 
My point is that if a state wants to use voter ID then maybe they should consider supplying their citizens with IDs. This would solve your issue as well.
 
On the second point, IMO voting requirements should be the same across all states. That said, as of yesterday, states are within their rights to define a "qualified" citizen any way they want as long as they don't violate the Constitution.  Ultimately congress has the final say on the matter. They'll need to come up with a new formula. 
Xecutioner
CML

#13 speedracer

speedracer

    Get off my lawn

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:08 PM

Your sarcasm is not lost on everyone, Bob. Dems and Repubs will cry "overreach" any time the SCOTUS rules against their position. Some right winger was saying that we are the only civilized country WITHOUT ID required for voting. I'll have to look into that. If its true, it will be fun to compare it to the fact that lefty's like to point out about us as the only civilized country WITHOUT socialized healthcare.

 

The devil's in the details. Here in Texas, our Voter ID law that was struck down less than a year ago did not accept Student IDs or Social Security cards. Expired gun permits from other states were an acceptable ID though.

 

I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with that. 


Posted Image

#14 detectiveconan16

detectiveconan16

    Look at that deal. It's so great!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 June 2013 - 11:49 PM

I don't have any hope that Congress will pass a new law to support the Civil Rights Act, especially when they waste taxpayer's time voting for duck stamps and repealing Obamacare. They just voted down the Farm Bill because it deals with helping poor people finding ways to pay for food, especially children.

 

In states, there's a crapton of stupid laws about "voter ID", and highly restrictive registration laws. In Florida you have only 48 hours to hand in your form.  Try helping people register to vote and then send that in within days, much less weeks. Besides, remember all that crap during the past few Presidential elections? Literacy tests? Did you pay your debts? Yeah, those are important factors in letting you express your Constitution given right.


Batsugunner.png


#15 Dr Mario Kart

Dr Mario Kart

    SD/2D Defense Force

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 June 2013 - 09:18 AM

Too bad Congress cant pass the exact same map just to troll the Roberts Court.  That they dont like the map is not a Constitutional argument.  

 

I could go for pre-clearance everywhere though.  Republicans have to be stopped wherever they are, not just in those districts and states.



#16 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 27 June 2013 - 01:45 PM

Can you show me where in the constitution "obtaining" firearm is a guaranteed right? Not possessing and using but getting one


How does one go about possessing and using a firearm without first obtaining it?

First, the government is not infringing on your right to bear arms by requiring an ID. You can still own all the guns you want. The ID is merely used to establish that you are old enough and for background searches. As a registered voter there is no need for this since you have already established that you are a qualified person.


But that's it - they're changing the requirements so that in order to be a "qualified person", you have to present your photo ID at the time of voting.

Just like in my state, when I go to buy a firearm, I have to present my photo ID at time of purchase (actually, I have to show it when applying for the background check, then again when picking up the firearm 24 hours later).

My point is that if a state wants to use voter ID then maybe they should consider supplying their citizens with IDs.


Many of the various Voter ID laws that have gone through typically include previsions to supply a state ID card if those people meet certain requirements (w/r/t income and such). The argument against that is simply requiring them to go out of their way to the ID is an undue burden and disenfranchises voters.

The devil's in the details. Here in Texas, our Voter ID law that was struck down less than a year ago did not accept Student IDs or Social Security cards. Expired gun permits from other states were an acceptable ID though.

I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with that.


I don't know why any law would be written to accept an expired ID. I've always been taught (which, granted, I'm in a totally different line of work) that an expired ID is not a valid ID.

As for Social Security cards... why would they be accepted? Those aren't, in any way, a photo ID... unless they've revamped them since I got mine.

Besides, remember all that crap during the past few Presidential elections? Literacy tests? Did you pay your debts? Yeah, those are important factors in letting you express your Constitution given right.


While I agree with your premise, again, it's important to understand that there is no Constitutional right to vote. Even the Supreme Court says so... and they're the sole deciders in what's Constitutional and what's not.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#17 speedracer

speedracer

    Get off my lawn

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 June 2013 - 02:07 PM

I don't know why any law would be written to accept an expired ID. I've always been taught (which, granted, I'm in a totally different line of work) that an expired ID is not a valid ID.

As for Social Security cards... why would they be accepted? Those aren't, in any way, a photo ID... unless they've revamped them since I got mine.

 

Well, it doesn't take much stretching to understand why Texas would allow out of state expired gun permits as ID. Freedom of course.

 

Voter ID =! photo ID. A photo ID is not even required for a passport. 


Posted Image

#18 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 27 June 2013 - 02:47 PM

Voter ID =! photo ID. A photo ID is not even required for a passport.


True - I just don't see the point in a Voter ID law that doesn't require a government issued Photo ID. Anything less and the law might as well not exist.

You don't need a photo ID for a passport because it takes weeks to get the passport as they (ideally) verify the information provided. When voting, they don't. They look at the ID, do a quick comparison between the person standing in front of them, the photo on the ID and the registration information. I'm curious, since you brought up the passport thing - what would your thoughts be on taking the same type of requirements that one needs to obtain a passport and transferring those requirements into a "Voter Registration Card" that, like one's passport, includes a photo?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#19 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 June 2013 - 05:03 PM

Too bad Congress cant pass the exact same map just to troll the Roberts Court.  That they dont like the map is not a Constitutional argument.  

 

I could go for pre-clearance everywhere though.  Republicans have to be stopped wherever they are, not just in those districts and states.

Yeah cause Democrats do such a fine job of running this country.



#20 usickenme

usickenme

    I'm the a-hole

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 June 2013 - 02:53 AM

How does one go about possessing and using a firearm without first obtaining it?

 

 

Couldn't find anything. Huh.  There no right to obtain a gun without infringement. 



#21 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 June 2013 - 03:01 AM

HEehehehhhehehhehe....I wonder who would win elections if we went with a "you only vote this year if you paid federal income taxes this year" policy?



#22 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 28 June 2013 - 04:05 AM

Couldn't find anything. Huh.  There no right to obtain a gun without infringement.

Perhaps you missed the part where said that I didn't have an issue with a law requiring a photo ID to purchase a firearm.

W/R/T your point, though, there's absolutly no "right to vote".
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#23 speedracer

speedracer

    Get off my lawn

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 June 2013 - 12:37 PM

True - I just don't see the point in a Voter ID law that doesn't require a government issued Photo ID. Anything less and the law might as well not exist.

You don't need a photo ID for a passport because it takes weeks to get the passport as they (ideally) verify the information provided. When voting, they don't. They look at the ID, do a quick comparison between the person standing in front of them, the photo on the ID and the registration information. I'm curious, since you brought up the passport thing - what would your thoughts be on taking the same type of requirements that one needs to obtain a passport and transferring those requirements into a "Voter Registration Card" that, like one's passport, includes a photo?

 

I have mixed feelings. I understand Republicans wanting to have a reasonable way to verify the authenticity of a vote. That seems fair. At the same time, I think voting is so important that we should go Australia's route and fine people that don't. Ergo, I love same day registrations and get out the vote and shit like that. I'm not in love with the idea of a national ID card. Something about it gets under the skin of my libertarian side, though I can't rationally explain why. 


Posted Image

#24 irideabike

irideabike

Posted 28 June 2013 - 04:02 PM

I don't get the opposition to a national ID card.  I was born an American citizen, and will die an American citizen.  I pay taxes, have a driver's license that I carry and have no qualms about being asked to present ID in order to cast my vote.  If I have to show my ID to buy an IPA tonight I don't mind doing it at the polling station. 


There are no shortcuts. No do-overs. What happened, happened. Trust me. I know. All of this matters.

Madden 13 SB Champ in the CAG gentleman's league.


#25 detectiveconan16

detectiveconan16

    Look at that deal. It's so great!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 June 2013 - 10:58 AM

I guess it's the idea of state's rights or something, even though all those politicians are practically in bed with each other and with the "job makers."

I think there has to be an easier and less hassle-free way to get a photo id, especially when the best two forms: passport and license (driver or non-drivers) are both full of pain, requiring people to wait hours to wade through some bureaucracy that causes a lot more stress.  Even if there is a easy way to provide every voting citizen a photo id, I somehow feel that politicians and party bosses are going to try to find some way of disenfranchising voters by placing even more burdensome rules on the American Citizen, especially when a party wants to manipulate elections through various means, by tax-free campaign financing, gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, "citizen tests," etc.

It is ridiculous that it is easier to get a gun in many states than it is to walk into a polling place and take up to half an hour to do your duty as an American citizen. 

 

Congress really needs to get off its butt and fix the Civil Rights Act, because the GOP themselves said it, they're running out of angry white males. Making it harder for non-angry white males to vote is going to backfire on them sooner than they might think.


Batsugunner.png


#26 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 29 June 2013 - 01:28 PM

If you really feel that the voting/politicial system is *that* far gone, do you seriously think that getting a few more people to cast votes for one of the two fixed candidates is really going to make a difference?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#27 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 June 2013 - 02:27 PM

It's amazing to see that people who think that the gov't has the right, and should, force people to buy insurance, don't agree with the gov't forcing people to have a photo ID to partake in what could be argued as the greatest responsibility a citizen might have. What's wrong with a little effort? Do we truly want people who are foiled by the DMV's basic forms to vote? ;-)

#28 MSI Magus

MSI Magus

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 July 2013 - 01:32 PM

It's amazing to see that people who think that the gov't has the right, and should, force people to buy insurance, don't agree with the gov't forcing people to have a photo ID to partake in what could be argued as the greatest responsibility a citizen might have. What's wrong with a little effort? Do we truly want people who are foiled by the DMV's basic forms to vote? ;-)

 

Lets do it! I believe in government and I am ok with them requiring voter IDs. But lets either come up with voter IDs that are unique from others and free for all people, or make state ids free or something else to stop the poorest from society who would be forced to pay a tax just to vote. Lets also spend some money to make sure there are people who can help with rides and other things that are often needed to obtain said ID.

 

See that is the problem. To you you think "psssssh its just a photo id" but to a lot of people its an extra expense and requires several steps that are difficult for them. If Republicans are serious about photo ID and caring about the vote they should compromise with liberals to pass it in a way that does not defranchise voters. But again people arnt actually concerned with fraud, they just dont want certain people voting. The same way you guys are pro life till someone is actually born.


When the rest of the world is crazy it just does not pay to be sane! - Captain Lerner
Government is the enemy, until you need a friend - Bill Cohen
Tea baggers keep saying they want their country back, well I say I want mine forward - Bill Maher
Id rather be hated for what I am then loved for what I am not - The Miz

#29 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:46 PM

I'm pro life. I guess I'm crazy for expecting people to have enough self control, responsibility, and common sense to A)abstain from sex or use a condom, B)take care of their own children that they brought into this world without expecting money from strangers, and C)not decide the point that a life is a human just because it suits their selfish needs. Here's an idea I've been forming over the past few days:

 

We have a law, basically a piece of paper, that says an unborn child is not a human and thus has no rights.

We HAD a law, basically a piece of paper, that said a black person was not a human and thus had no rights. Many people were/are fine with both of these examples, but some saw this as wrong and forced change. The gov't had to be dragged kicking and screaming to recognize this. Compromise after compromise perpetuated slavery. I hear this "pro life until birth" from the left all the time. "Who will take care of these children?" Would your response in the 1800's have been "who will take care of these newly freed people?" Lincoln realized that such a huge shift would create burdens for the US for years to come, but doing the moral and just thing supersedes hardship. Rationalizing the murder of an unborn child by saying they'll starve is like rationalizing the legalization of slavery by saying a group is better off as slaves. Let your moral compass be your guide. Does slavery "feel" right? Does aborting a living being that is/will become a human and reacts to painful stimuli "feel" right? I abhor gov't in most cases, but the one thing it SHOULD do is protect from murder those that can not defend themselves. Please spare me any racial comments such as "you compared blacks to children because you view them as such." I compared an oppressed group to another oppressed group. I'm interested to hear your take on this. Let's be civil and non insulting. Thanks.



#30 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 01 July 2013 - 05:35 PM

See that is the problem. To you you think "psssssh its just a photo id" but to a lot of people its an extra expense and requires several steps that are difficult for them.


So... if getting a photo ID is such a horribly impossible task for some of society's most venerable members, why are we trying to create laws that will make it so that these poorest, weakest members of society *also* won't be able to exercise their Second Amendment, Constitutionally Guaranteed rights?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."