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.
Martin Luther King may have been a republican, but Martin Luther King Junior has no political affiliation and worked with both parties, but mostly with 2 Democratic Presidents and Democratic congresses.
If they were all interpreting that set of rules the same way, then no, it wouldnt be a bad thing, but the fact remains that they dont.
Are you seriously arguing that racism doesnt still exist, and you admit yourself that the freaking congress will not act on this. You are making the perfect argument for why it shouldnt have been struck down.
I think some people are making this out to be a more sweeping decision than it is. In general, all this ruling does is to end the nine states' "preclearance" before writing voter laws. These nine, as well as the other 41 states, will still be under US Civil Rights Acts laws and federal voter laws, and the US Constitution.
OTOH, it's supremely ironic that the Supreme Court decided today, that areas with long-proven records of heavy racial discrimination in the past, can now start setting their own voting standards without Federal permission (at least until new standards are decided)....
....while just a short time ago the same Supreme Court decided that Arizona, an area with NO proven record of discrimination, cannot require its voters to prove citizenship even when their law requires citizenship to vote.
It's not "ironic" at all.
Justice Scalia issued the opinion for the court in Arizona vs Inter Tribal Council was about a Voter Registration form (used by all States and written by Congress) that Arizona wanted to change. SCOTUS said you can't do that, but you can sue the US Government to allow you to have your own form and require proof of citizenship.
On the particular point at issue in this case — Arizona’s requirement of proof of citizenship before one may register to vote or actually vote — the Scalia opinion said that a state was free to ask the federal government for permission to add that requirement. And, Scalia said, if that doesn’t work — either because the federal agency that would deal with such a request is either not functioning or says no — then a state would be free to go to court and make an argument that it has a constitutional right to insist on proof of citizenship as an absolute qualification for voting, in all elections.
The opinion seemed to leave little doubt that, if Arizona or another state went to court to try to establish such a constitutional power, it might well get a very sympathetic hearing, because that part of the Scalia opinion laid a very heavy stress on the power of states under the Constitution to decide who gets to vote. Indeed, that part of the opinion said that the Constitution simply does not give Congress the power to decide who can qualify, but only how federal elections are run procedurally.
That's exactly what will happen in the future. A CongressCritter will present a bill or a State will sue to require proof of citizenship (as opposed to the current method of a check box on the form) before voting in elections in the USA. It's not unreasonable to ask for proof of citizenship - non citizens have no business or right to vote in elections in the USA.
Both cases were about Constitutional rights/powers of the States and Federal Government.
Aren't you confusing the presidential election with congressional?
Quote:
It can be a bit difficult to tally up the popular vote in House elections because you have to go ballot by ballot, and many incumbents run unopposed. But The Washington Post’s Dan Keating did the work and found that Democrats got 54,301,095 votes while Republicans got 53,822,442. That’s a close election — 48.8%-48.5% –but it’s still a popular vote win for the Democrats. Those precise numbers might change a bit as the count finalizes, but the tally isn’t likely to flip.
I think some people are making this out to be a more sweeping decision than it is. These nine, as well as the other 41 states, will still be under US Civil Rights Acts laws and federal voter laws, and the US Constitution.
Yep, this was not a great victory or epic defeat for any side.
This was a political hot potato that the SCOTUS threw back to the feds, states and political groups.
They still let Congress retain over all authority, its just forces Congress to upgrade its game for the 21st century.
So the onus is now on Congress to get its act together on ensuring voter protections.
It's not "ironic" at all.
Justice Scalia issued the opinion for the court in Arizona vs Inter Tribal Council was about a Voter Registration form (used by all States and written by Congress) that Arizona wanted to change. SCOTUS said you can't do that, but you can sue the US Government to allow you to have your own form and require proof of citizenship.
That's exactly what will happen in the future. A CongressCritter will present a bill or a State will sue to require proof of citizenship (as opposed to the current method of a check box on the form) before voting in elections in the USA. It's not unreasonable to ask for proof of citizenship - non citizens have no business or right to vote in elections in the USA.
Both cases were about Constitutional rights/powers of the States and Federal Government.
That is wrong. The ruling only applied to the federal form. AZ already has it own form and it requires proof of citizenship to register. 90% of registrations in AZ use the local form. There is no need to ask the Feds, the form and its requirement are legal according to the ruling. The thing everyone seems to leave out on the Fed form too is that it is the Motor Voter Form. It us generally used when you get a driver's license. In AZ you have to PROVE your legal status which generally means citizenship to get the DL, so registering without proof with the Motor Voter Form is something of a moot point. In any case, if you move to AZ and go to the court house to register, you will be required to prove you are a citizen. If you register when you get your DL, you will have to prove your citizenship (legal status) to get the DL before you register to vote. Get it? The decision was a non-issue, but the righties in this state it was an affront to states rights and they will waste millions pursuing it nonetheless.
I think some people are making this out to be a more sweeping decision than it is. In general, all this ruling does is to end the nine states' "preclearance" before writing voter laws. These nine, as well as the other 41 states, will still be under US Civil Rights Acts laws and federal voter laws, and the US Constitution.
It actually is a "sweeping decision" because of the way that pre-clearance works. Using pre-clearnance, the DOJ gets to be the "decider" about any and everything to do with an election .... any election, including a water district election. The DOJ premise is always that the "change" is discrimination and the State, County, City, Water District, School Board - must prove that it's not discrimination.
Billions of dollars have been spent in lawsuits against the DOJ based on section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. Cases or even DOJ decisions can take many years for those who choose to fight the "decider".
The United States Supreme Court upholds the Voting Rights Act, but strikes down the extra power of the DOJ over a few States, counties and cities. Congress has the option of passing DOJ pre-clearance for all of the USA ...... I'm betting they don't do that. Going forward - the DOJ will have to prove discrimination, instead of the States trying to prove non-discrimination. Innocent until proven guilty with equal laws for all. It's 2013, we have a Black President that was just re-elected to a second term, we had more participation by black voters than we did by white voters on a percentage basis - we've come a long way baby. It's not 1965, we can't pretend any more that it is 1965.
I have no doubt that the DOJ (and most citizens) will keep a close eye on the issues - it shouldn't be a problem (but some lawyers may be looking for work).
Today the Supreme Court struck the heart out of the Voting Rights Act. The only voting right that this Supreme Court recognizes it the right of big corporations to vote with their money. The Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act that singles out certain areas that have a history of discrimination. Getting rid of Section 4 is like denying that history. Yes, they passed a law against voter discrimination and concentrated on areas where that happened. Hello! If you pass a law against speeding, you should probably concentrate enforcement on the areas with roads. The history of racial discrimination in the South was one of the main reasons that we needed the Voting Rights Act. Singling out the areas where the problems were the worst was common sense. Today the Supreme Court ruled that common sense no longer applies.
The Court said that Congress can impose new oversight on areas that are at risk, based on new data. But John Roberts knows full well that Congress can't do anything. Congress is frozen by extremist members from totally gerrymandered districts. Today's Congress is not the solution to voter discrimination-today's Congress is the result of voter discrimination. There are still provisions in the Voting Rights Act that can be used to safeguard voting rights. Conservatives are taking away voting rights the same way they're taking away reproductive rights-gradually. This is not the end of voting rights, but if we don't fight back, it's the beginning of the end.
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.
