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

Purple Flames said:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-ruling.php

And Texas wastes no time exploiting this decision:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/texas-advances-voter-id-law-after-supreme-court-ruling.php?ref=fpb
Click to expand...
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.

 


The NAACP denounced the decision as “an act of extraordinary judicial overreach.”
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 
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.

 
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.
 
kill3r7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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...

 
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.”

 
kill3r7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.)

kill3r7 said:
And it’s state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is “qualified.”
Click to expand...
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?
 
UncleBob said:
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...
Click to expand...
Can you show me where in the constitution "obtaining" firearm is a guaranteed right? Not possessing and using but getting one

 
[quote name="UncleBob" post="10859485" timestamp="1372249505"]

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?[/quote]
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. 
 
Last edited by a moderator:
egofed said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 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.

 
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.

 
usickenme said:
Can you show me where in the constitution "obtaining" firearm is a guaranteed right? Not possessing and using but getting one
Click to expand...
How does one go about possessing and using a firearm without first obtaining it?

kill3r7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.

speedracer said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

detectiveconan16 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
UncleBob said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
speedracer said:
Voter ID =! photo ID. A photo ID is not even required for a passport.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Dr Mario Kart said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah cause Democrats do such a fine job of running this country.

 
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?

 
usickenme said:
Couldn't find anything. Huh. There no right to obtain a gun without infringement.
Click to expand...
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".
 
UncleBob said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.

 
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. 

 
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?
 
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? ;-)
 
egofed said:
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? ;-)
Click to expand...
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.

 
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.

 
MSI Magus said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
UncleBob said:
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?
Click to expand...
Good point, Bob. Equal application of policy is all we should truly expect from gov't. Either we allow restrictions on rights or not.

 
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:
Click to expand...
I never can tell if conservatives are trolls or real people. I mean I used to assume all of you were trolls...now though the party is just so crazy you cant tell anymore. Ill assume your a real person for a moment though........

You have proven on both issues why you are a conservative. Because you cant see outside your own world view. Your world works that way so everyone elses must too! You and Bob cant see where voter ID could be difficult for someone nor can you understand a poor 17 year old with shit parents(or hell even a poor 25 year old with shit parents)looking at their life and deciding they dont want the same pain for the child forming in them. You cant understand that level of pain and misery and even if you can you are tough enough to suck it up and deal with it, so gosh darn it so should they! I wont pretend I fully understand their pain, but I am at least not the person to play god and sit in judgement of them. I am instead a person who looks sadly at their situation and would like to do things to change it, not just demmand they follow my personal moral code or else(as you clearly would). What they do is wrong, but society forcing them into that position is equally wrong. I accept both and my blame in both. You, choose to live in an egofed bubble.

Parents abused you and left you with psychological issues? Suck it up!

Grew up in an area where the school system failed you? This is America thats your own fault!

Baby coming, no daddy in sight and your Christian mom and dad disowned you? Should have kept some asprin between those legs hussy!
80 years old and living on goverment assitance after a life of hard labor! To bad granny you can find the time, money and physical abilty to get a voter id.

You should be proud of yourself man! This place(and people)never change. *waves*

 
Last edited by a moderator:
speedracer said:
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.
Click to expand...
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but it makes perfect sense. School IDs are not government regulated (especially if it's a private school) and Social Security cards have no photo, so they're pretty piss poor at actually identifying someone.

As for the expired gun permits, I have no idea why they would accept those. Gun permits sure, as they're government regulated, but why they would be willing to take expired ones is beyond me.

 
MSI Magus said:
You and Bob cant see where voter ID could be difficult for someone nor can you understand a poor 17 year old with shit parents(or hell even a poor 25 year old with shit parents)looking at their life and deciding they dont want the same pain for the child forming in them.
Click to expand...
I don't know why you'd lump me in to that last half, as I've *NEVER* held that viewpoint that you're trying to attach to me.

And I understand that there are some cases where someone might have trouble obtaining an ID - but those same cases apply no matter if the person wants to vote or wants to own a firearm.
 
Access_Denied said:
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but it makes perfect sense. School IDs are not government regulated (especially if it's a private school) and Social Security cards have no photo, so they're pretty piss poor at actually identifying someone.

As for the expired gun permits, I have no idea why they would accept those. Gun permits sure, as they're government regulated, but why they would be willing to take expired ones is beyond me.
Click to expand...
I was being sarcastic about why Texas would accept expired gun permits. We all know exactly why they would. Because we're Texas and guns are basically Jesus so who cares if it's expired?

There's this built in, absolute truth on the right right now that there is literally zero to stop voter fraud built into the system. That's crazy. There's quite a bit built into it. But even then, the most obvious and easy route to voter fraud is absentee ballots (since that not only doesn't require any ID, but who the effing hell knows at all where it came from?).

Can someone who pretends to care about this issue explain to me why Republicans NEVER EVER EVER go after this obvious low hanging fruit and make it much more difficult or outright ban it altogether? One of the biggest memes is dead people voting. OMG CHICAGO POLITICS DEAD PEOPLE etc. Dead people don't show up at the polls. They mail in ballots.

You know, I just tried to answer my own question. I read a debate on US News with three people arguing that vote fraud is a problem. Each one of them singled out absentee ballots. Then I went to the Republican National Lawyers Association's fraud "heat map" website to read about all their fraud instances. Guess what virtually every single one is? Absentee ballot fraud.

Editor's note: The "other" frauds were almost exclusively politicians faking signatures to get them on the ballots. So certainly not the type of fraud that we're all imagining when we're talking about voter fraud.

Just when it didn't seem possible that North Carolina's election laws could get more restrictive, the Republican majority has come up with a massive bill that would make it even harder for people to vote. Using the excuse that they are trying to combat voter fraud, the Republicans want to perpetrate an even greater fraud on North Carolina voters under the guise of restoring 'confidence in government.'
Click to expand...
That's from the dumb liberals at the Libertarian Party about the bill going through in NC right now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
speedracer said:
Republicans pretty damned regularly pass rules to suppress Libertarian candidates from appearing on the ballot. I wonder why they do that.
Click to expand...
Because libertarians are isolationists. We want to make 'merica more vulnerable to terrorists, big corporations to control the government and poor people to stay poor. Just ask any liberal here, they know.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top