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.
The 2012 election, in which the first partially black man ever to be elected POTUS was re-elected by a decent margin proves that some states discriminate against who exactly?
Given the outlandish effort many states underwent to block minority votes, the answer appears to be "minority voters".
ETA: can't wait until 2014, when republicans are once again amazed that the people they heap scorn upon for no god reason, overwhelmingly vote against them.
Given the outlandish effort many states underwent to block minority votes, the answer appears to be "minority voters".
ETA: can't wait until 2014, when republicans are once again amazed that the people they heap scorn upon for no god reason, overwhelmingly vote against them.
When and where were minority voters blocked from voting?
The Voting Rights Act is still in place and fully functional. The Court struck down Section 4 (pre-clearance for some ) and essentially made Section 5 (which only applied to Section 4 under present Law) null until/unless Congress passes new requirements for Section 5.
We should be clear that the VRA still gives us the option to challenge changes to election legislation in any jurisdiction just as we have had before; however, the jurisdictions previously covered in Section 4, which were required to get approval from the DOJ for any changes, no longer have to get approval or "pre-clearance." We can still challenge the changes, but the burden is on the challenger to prove it's a violation of the VRA, instead of on the jurisdiction to prove it's not a violation of the VRA.
This is a ruling against the over-reach of Eric Holder and his Civil Rights division. It was expected.
"We" huh? Who is "we" and "us" if you're not presuming black people to be disadvantaged by this ruling?? You're already repositioning for some sort of reaction to this ruling.
Lol the liberals on twitter are going crazy. Melissa Perry says she doesn't have her citizenship anymore. All the Court said was Congress needs to update its methods. If Congress can't or won't that's their problem not the Courts.
Good. Black people are more than equal in America these days. In fact, SCOTUS just gave them the green light to have more rights than white people just yesterday in its ruling on Affirmative Action.
Affirmative action in college admissions was affirmed. The restrictions placed by SCOTUS do not unravel the systemic preference given to minorities over whites in the name of diversity.
Affirmative action in college admissions was affirmed. The restrictions placed by SCOTUS do not unravel the systemic preference given to minorities over whites in the name of diversity.
The issue pre-dates Mr. Holder's tenure as Attorney General.
Yes, it does pre-date Holder, but the Congress and the Obama Administration had warning that this would be a likely ruling if it came before the Supreme Court again. They ignored that.
Holder has made a practice of ignoring issues in non pre-clearance States and suing pre-clearance jurisdiction "just because he can". Voter I.D. is a great example of that. Voter lines and polling areas is another great example of Holder's blinders. Re-districting is a mess. Texas has a voting district that extends from San Antonio to El Paso ...... both of which are majority Hispanic. It's insane.
Congress and the administration could have avoided this litigation by updating the coverage formula or strengthening existing election laws that apply to the entire nation. Their failure to acknowledge the remarkable racial progress made by the deep South and elsewhere by modernizing the statute means that the Supreme Court may well strike down these sections of the law, as it should.
Sections 4 & 5 were always on shaky Constitutional grounds, that's exactly why they had a 5 year expiration date - which has now been extended to 2033 and made even more draconian. They just couldn't stop, they insisted that Jim Crow was alive and well in certain States, counties and cities - even though the evidence proved otherwise.
That is classic over-reach. Sometimes that over-reach means you are headed for a great fall.
It was a given that "heads would explode" - on the Up Side, those heads are firmly in the sand and won't make much of a mess at all.
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.
