The Supreme Court Is On The Verge Of Killing The Voting Rights Act

We should talk about the Rays. Probably much more agreement there.

Glasnow looked great last night.

 

They're tanking to avoid going through Houston. Makes sense given the matchups but so hard to watch. I decided not to get playoff tickets. I'm hoping they'll be a home game to watch

 

I actually like our chances with Cleveland, but even they are a tough out. A Rocking Trop for that first series would have been really nice to see.

 

My response was that I didn't know Roberts authored the opinion, so I don't know how you could respond I "still don't". BTW, I went and read the opinion and agree with it. It addressed an issue completely different from today's case.

 

I still will never understand how anyone can argue in an intellectually honest way that black peoples’ right to vote is being suppressed or denied. It is simply a low bar to obtain sufficient identification, vote via early voting (including in Southern states), or obtain an absentee ballot, and then verify online if you’re ballot was received.

The non-stop drumbeat about voter suppression is simply tripe.

 

That’s not what this case is about. It’s about redistricting so that minority voters have little chance to elect someone that represents THEM.

Under the current map there is one district that would more than likely have a black member of Congress. That’s 14% of districts while the population of Alabama is more than 25% black, 55% in the Black Belt. They’re asking for another district for representation.

If Alabama had their way they would eventually cut out all minority majority districts.

 

Here's a little lesson for your about one state, Alabama.

Most of the poorest citizens of Alabama live in housing projects. They have state IDs issued by the projects but not DLs. Of course, the project IDs won't allow them to vote, only DLs do. Or gaming and fishing licenses.

The state also closed every DL office within 50 miles of the projects to make it even harder to get a DL if a person without a car was inclined to do so.

Voter Suppression 101.

 

Valid ID at the Polls
A voter can use any of the following forms of photo ID at the polls starting June 3, 2014:

• Valid Driver's License (not expired or has been expired less than 60 days)
• Alabama Law Enforcement Agency Digital Driver's License
• Valid Non-driver ID (not expired or has been expired less than 60 days)
• Alabama Law Enforcement Agency Digital Non-driver ID
• Valid Alabama Photo Voter ID
• Valid State Issued ID (Alabama or any other state)
  • Valid AL Department of Corrections Release- Temporary ID (Photo Required)
  • Valid AL Movement/Booking Sheet from Prison/Jail System (Photo Required)
  • Valid Pistol Permit (Photo Required)
• Valid Federal Issued ID
• Valid US Passport
• Valid Employee ID from Federal Government, State of Alabama, County Government, Municipality, Board, Authority, or other entity of this state
• Valid student or employee ID from a college or university in the State of Alabama (including postgraduate technical or professional schools)
• Valid Military ID
• Valid Tribal ID

Photo Voter ID | Alabama Secretary of State

 

Not a different issue at all. The issue is Congress right to constitutionally legislate voting rights to redress racial disparities. Roberts says Congress’ rights are limited by state power. The plain language of clause 2 of the 15th Amendment, passed in 1870, says Congress has all power. Roberts says no, based on 1789.

 

C&P

My favorite example of the Roberts Court great deference to Congress is Shelby County v. Holder, which invalidated preclearance and pretty much signaled that all voter suppression was licit. Roberts said it was necessary to overrule Congress because Congress' power to legislate state voting practices was inconsistent with the federal-state allocation of powers set forth in 1789, when the Constitution was ratified. Some relevant passages to get the flavor

The Constitution and laws of the United States are “the
supreme Law of the Land.” U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2.
State legislation may not contravene federal law. The
Federal Government does not, however, have a general
right to review and veto state enactments before they go
into effect. A proposal to grant such authority to “nega-
tive” state laws was considered at the Constitutional
Convention, but rejected in favor of allowing state laws to
take effect, subject to later challenge under the Supremacy
Clause.

Such a formula is an initial prerequisite to a determination that exceptional conditions still exist justifying such an “extraordinary departure from the traditional course of relations between the States and the Federal Government.”

Pretty much accurate recitation of federal-state powers under the original text and the Bill of Rights. But we passed the 15th Amendment in 1870, 81 years later. It reordered those relationships through its concluding clauses, which is the same provision in 5 other amendments

Section 1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


Section 2

The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


So according to Roberts, Congress' power to legislate on Voting Rights is limited by the understanding of federalism from 1789, despite an explicit contrary amendment in 1870.

Now in fairness to Roberts, he's not alone. Pretty much since the post war amendments were passed, we have been largely ignoring them as too radical passed by the Radical Republicans. The VRA is more the exception of a limited time we took voting equality seriously.

But man does it evidence a Court with zero respect for Congress or the text of the Constitution as amended

 

There will always be issues balancing fairness and practicality.

But when it comes to this issue, I think fairness is most important, so your idea is far from a bad one.

 

I tend to agree but I’d need to see how that would look before just defaulting district lines to an algo. I’m not sure geographic and population vagaries should be the end-all be-all factors when talking about representation. Hopefully it would come up with a fairer outcome - it would certainly eliminate some of the ridiculous gerrymandered districts like Florida’s Fifth.

 

This is about the silliest response possible. Congress put this section of the Voting Rights Act in place because racist governments, particularly in the Jim Crow South, were drawing maps in a way to prevent Black people from having representation. The Voting Rights Act ensures that when states draw maps, they cannot do so in a way that diminishes minority representation. If that's "racism," you must be a big fan of the White Citizens' Councils.

 

If you're too lazy to do a minimal amount of research, be quiet.

 

I don’t understand the purpose of this post. It adds nothing to the debate and is just a meaningless pot shot that at some level states the obvious.

 

"Them"
So is this about representation or skin tone? Can a non-minority not represent a minority's interests respectfully and competently?

I'm with Oklahoma, all districts should be divided up by a computer algorithm regardless of population make up.

 

This is how state legislatures actually act in the real world, in redistricting and in all access to the franchise decisions

North Carolina lawmakers overhauled the state’s election law soon after the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which freed certain states with a history of discrimination from a Voting Rights Act requirement that they receive federal approval before changing voting rules. North Carolina was one of the states.

The panel seemed to say it found the equivalent of a smoking gun. “Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices,” Motz wrote. “Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”



In Wisconsin, a federal judge previously ruled that voters who lack the specific kind of identification the state requires be allowed to vote in November by signing an affidavit as to their identity. In a separate lawsuit, groups asked Peterson to rule on other aspects of the law.

He struck part of the law restricting hours for in-person voting before the election, saying it intentionally discriminates. “The legislature’s immediate goal was to achieve a partisan objective, but the means of achieving that objective was to suppress the reliably Democratic vote of Milwaukee’s African Americans,” Peterson concluded.

In Texas, the entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that Texas’s strict voter-ID law discriminates against minority voters, and it ordered a lower court to come up with a fix for the law in time for the November elections.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...0b5844-4f72-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html

 

You would do well to read some history, particularly about the original purpose of the 14th amendment. As far as the algorithm, you do realize it would depend on how the the algorithm is set up.

 

The 14th amendment has nothing to do with this. No one's rights are being taken.
Representation should have nothing to do with skin tone, race or gender.
MLK said content of character not color of one's skin.
The algorithm is easy. Base it on population regardless of income levels, racial makeup etc.