SCOTUS to review Voting Rights Act

[Kulindahr]

Racists in the South have hated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 since it was first debated in Congress, and have done everything possible to thwart it, first as Democrats and then as Republicans. Now they have their chance to throw off its civilizing influence so they can put the squeeze on liberty again:

The Supreme Court will consider eliminating the government's most potent weapon against racial discrimination at polling places since the 1960s. . . . .
With a look at affirmative action in higher education already on the agenda, the court is putting a spotlight on race by re-examining the ongoing necessity of laws and programs aimed at giving racial minorities access to major areas of American life from which they once were systematically excluded.
. . . .
In an order Friday, the justices agreed to hear a constitutional challenge to the part of the landmark Voting Rights Act that requires all or parts of 16 states with a history of discrimination in voting to get federal approval before making any changes in the way they hold elections.

In a year when Republicans across the nation were slammed by more than one court for engaging in activities meant to discourage voting, it's amazing that they'd even consider a challenge to this law. It's set to expire in 2031 anyway, and by the evidence it may be needed that long.

On the other hand, given the shenanigans in states not covered by the Act, we can hope that the Court will be wise and extend it to cover the entire nation -- thus resolving one possible constitutional challenge.


read more:
http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-look-voting-rights-law-201947650.html

 

[JayHawk]

I think it is time to replace the Voting rights act with a new act that applies to all. Demands a specific amount of voting opportunity for a specific population number and that election commissions be officiated by non or bi partisan committee or panels. Enough is enough of these shenanigans and Florida should be embarrassed as a State. The entire leadership of that state should resign in disgrace over the conduct of their election

 

[TX-Beau]

Don't bet on it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lou-dubose/texas-redistricting-gerrymandering_b_1223195.html

Here's your catalyst.

 

[Stardreamer]

Honestly why haven't we turned redistricting over to computers using criteria to make as close to square or circular districts as possible based solely on population and not any other factors?

 

[TX-Beau]

Honestly you don't need a computer to do that - if you don't know why we don't do it that way, you haven't been paying attention.

 

[JB3]

Racists in the South have hated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 since it was first debated in Congress, and have done everything possible to thwart it, first as Democrats and then as Republicans. Now they have their chance to throw off its civilizing influence so they can put the squeeze on liberty again:



In a year when Republicans across the nation were slammed by more than one court for engaging in activities meant to discourage voting, it's amazing that they'd even consider a challenge to this law. It's set to expire in 2031 anyway, and by the evidence it may be needed that long.

On the other hand, given the shenanigans in states not covered by the Act, we can hope that the Court will be wise and extend it to cover the entire nation -- thus resolving one possible constitutional challenge.


read more:
http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-look-voting-rights-law-201947650.html

The court is considering challenges to the law because vast portions of it are no longer relevant. If they rule in favor of the states (which looks likely) they will most likely instruct congress to update the law to be relevant.

 

[maxpowr9]

Voter ID laws will fail at the Supreme Court too. If all US citizens were issued Government IDs for free, IDs could be allowed to vote but since the states charge money for them, they are an indirect poll tax. Reckon you could go further and get into loopholes such as states will issue one free license per expiry period (for MA that would be every 5 years) and then charge heavily for duplicates, but since you got that one freebie, it's legal.

 

[Stardreamer]

Honestly you don't need a computer to do that - if you don't know why we don't do it that way, you haven't been paying attention.

And that has worked so well has it not?

 

[TX-Beau]

And that has worked so well has it not?

???

You seem to think that changing who (or actually what in this case) is actually (in the sense of printers or draftsmen) drawing a map is going to change something.

THAT HAS NEVER BEEN THE ISSUE AND IT WILL NEVER BE A SOLUTION!

 

[Kulindahr]

The court is considering challenges to the law because vast portions of it are no longer relevant. If they rule in favor of the states (which looks likely) they will most likely instruct congress to update the law to be relevant.

And this Congress won't do anything worthwhile.

???

You seem to think that changing who (or actually what in this case) is actually (in the sense of printers or draftsmen) drawing a map is going to change something.

THAT HAS NEVER BEEN THE ISSUE AND IT WILL NEVER BE A SOLUTION!

Yes it's been the issue -- the party in power always draws the maps in their favor, regardless of any semblance of common sense.

The task should be given to mathematicians who value elegance in solutions over any political position, to find the solution that keeps the length of boundaries to a minimum while equalizing the populations within those boundaries.

 

[frankfrank]

Voter ID laws will fail at the Supreme Court too. If all US citizens were issued Government IDs for free, IDs could be allowed to vote but since the states charge money for them, they are an indirect poll tax. Reckon you could go further and get into loopholes such as states will issue one free license per expiry period (for MA that would be every 5 years) and then charge heavily for duplicates, but since you got that one freebie, it's legal.

What's wrong with the idea of the federal government establishing a network of National I. D. Bureaus (or some such), where all people could go to get a free National ID with photo? Furthermore, the ID would have an indication that the person is in the Social Security system, with a government-issued number. (I assume that undocumented/"illegal" aliens do NOT have Social Security Numbers, right?) That, and the age, and an indication that the person has a Social Security #, would be considered valid ID to vote, in all states. These photo ID's would be issued entirely free of charge.

I am not pulling this model out of a vacuum - there is a precedent for such a thing. Think back about forty years to the Selective Service (military "draft") system, where all males were required to register upon reaching 18 years of age, and all males were given "draft cards" entirely free of charge.

Furthermore, just as males were REQUIRED to carry their draft cards on their persons at all times (until they aged out of being eligible to be drafted, upon reaching 45 years), the National ID card could be required to be carried at all times as well.

 

[JayHawk]

A federal ID would die on the mere utterance of the words. Too much big brother stuff no matter how much sense it makes.

Also men after passing their 18th birthday are still required to register with the Selective Service. It is not currently used to draft but that is the purpose and why it is illegal not to register.

Finally, I have to see about four different concordant documents to verify identity because getting a Social Security number is the easiest thing since sliced pie.

Just saying...

 

[opinterph]

… all males were given "draft cards" entirely free of charge.

That’s almost humorous.

… just as males were REQUIRED to carry their draft cards on their persons at all times (until they aged out of being eligible to be drafted, upon reaching 45 years), the National ID card could be required to be carried at all times as well.

Why not just embed RFID chips in everyone. It’d be much simpler.

US Selective Service System
Draft Cards

Selective Service Regulations required each registrant to have his card in his possession at all times. This requirement was removed from the regulations in late 1974, shortly before registration was suspended, and it has not been reinstituted.

 

[JayHawk]

Quite important to note however:

Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service. It's important to know that even though he is registered, a man will not automatically be inducted into the military. In a crisis requiring a draft, men would be called in sequence determined by random lottery number and year of birth. Then, they would be examined for mental, physical and moral fitness by the military before being deferred or exempted from military service or inducted into the Armed Forces.

 

[TX-Beau]

...Yes it's been the issue -- the party in power always draws the maps in their favor, regardless of any semblance of common sense...

OK.

Yeah that's exactly what I said.

 

[White Eagle]

Quite important to note however:

So having flat feet would be an exemption?

 

[Kulindahr]

So require everyone to register with the "Elective Service" when they graduate from high school.

 

[Jack Springer]

Don't bet on it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lou-dubose/texas-redistricting-gerrymandering_b_1223195.html

Here's your catalyst.

Democrats do the same thing in California -- they rule and don't govern.

They have made it so hard that republicans don't even feel welcome to run for office in many parts of the state.

Not much difference between Texas and California -- just difference in parties -- and that makes a huge difference in how they are treated.

 

[Jack Springer]

Why not just embed RFID chips in everyone. It’d be much simpler.

That comes right after weed becomes legal. March 2013?

 

[Rolyo85]

Aw poor Jack. Are you against weed too, boo boo?