Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so are the feds excluded from intervening until a new basis is drafted by Congress? What would keep the House from scrapping the idea altogether and giving the states free reign? It just seems to me a lot of election oversight by the federal government was done away with (although I do understand and agree with the reasoning).
Nothing stops them from scrapping it, as you termed it. However, you do realize this election oversight was only for a few states, right? Based on 40 year old criteria at that.
so are the feds excluded from intervening until a new basis is drafted by Congress? What would keep the House from scrapping the idea altogether and giving the states free reign? It just seems to me a lot of election oversight by the federal government was done away with (although I do understand and agree with the reasoning).
Maybe. It's not the courts place to rule based upon Congressional competency though.
It's not their place to rule that it's O.K. for the government to over reach simply because they are not competent enough to get it right.
So the courts ruled that they have to get it right or not at all. This really would not be something that difficult to get right if not requiring a bunch of morons to do it.
Good decision. The old maps are out of date and are punishing the wrong people. The hotbeds of racism and voter suppression have moved to the northeast and midwest over the last few decades.
The Congress approved the extension of the legislation ... because few wanted to vote against it out of fear they'd be labeled unfairly. The Court's decision was very predictable. I believe the federal government has ample opportunity to bring legal action against a unit of local government, if abuse occurs. Let's see what happens at these local levels. Let them demonstrate they can be trusted.
The irony here is that GWB was elected because of abuse at the local level.
Maybe. It's not the courts place to rule based upon Congressional competency though.
It's not their place to rule that it's O.K. for the government to over reach simply because they are not competent enough to get it right.
So the courts ruled that they have to get it right or not at all. This really would not be something that difficult to get right if not requiring a bunch of morons to do it.
Good decision. The old maps are out of date and are punishing the wrong people. The hotbeds of racism and voter suppression have moved to the northeast and midwest over the last few decades.
The irony here is that GWB was elected because of abuse at the local level.
I don't disagree with you ... about the bad behavior by election officials in the state of Florida, but, where I live, Chicago, almost 200,000 ballots were spoiled in that election for various reasons ... most of them cast in favor of Al Gore, if I'm recalling correctly. We have inconsistent and flawed election procedures in this country. George W. Bush served two terms as U.S. President. The first: he was selected by the U.S. Supreme Court. The second: he was elected.
so are the feds excluded from intervening until a new basis is drafted by Congress? What would keep the House from scrapping the idea altogether and giving the states free reign? It just seems to me a lot of election oversight by the federal government was done away with (although I do understand and agree with the reasoning).
No, the rest of the act stands as it should. The only thing tossed was the requirements placed on 9 states and numerous counties and cities to get fed approval before doing so much as moving a polling place.
I don't disagree with you ... about the bad behavior by election officials in the state of Florida, but, where I live, Chicago, almost 200,000 ballots were spoiled in that election for various reasons ... most of them cast in favor of Al Gore, if I'm recalling correctly. We have inconsistent and flawed election procedures in this country. George W. Bush served two terms as U.S. President. The first: he was selected by the U.S. Supreme Court. The second: he was elected.
Lived in Chicago for 6 years, now Florida.
Guess I'll hit Detroit next for the corruption hat trick.
No, the rest of the act stands as it should. The only thing tossed was the requirements placed on 9 states and numerous counties and cities to get fed approval before doing so much as moving a polling place.
Except that now Congress must make new criteria to utilize Section 5. So, if Congress never makes new criteria, it's a moot law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
