Did SCOTUS Finally Kill the Voting Rights Act?
In 2013, the Supreme Court killed the major enforcement section of the VRA, Section 5 telling Congress they need to rewrite it to reflect the situation as it stands today.
In 2021, some are saying that the Conservative majority killed the other major enforcement section, Section 2.
Justice Alito effectively said it is OK to discriminate against minorities if there is more than one way to vote. He wrote:
"“Where a state provides multiple ways to vote,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority, “any burden imposed on voters who choose one of the available options cannot be evaluated without also taking into account the other available means.”
Justice Keagan responded with -
"“What is tragic here,” she wrote, “is that the court has (yet again) rewritten — in order to weaken — a statute that stands as a monument to America’s greatness and protects against its basest impulses. What is tragic is that the court has damaged a statute designed to bring about ‘the end of discrimination in voting.’”
Who is right?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/01/us/p … tions.htmlJust like in 2020, we must commit ourselves as if our very lives depend on it to show the Right that it has awakened a sleeping giant an filled him with a terrible resolve.
Now that we understand just how far are adversaries are prepared to descend.Unfortunately, your "adversary" here was the Constitution, not the Right. Are you prepared to rip it up because you don't like what it requires?
I just said that WE should all make that much more a concerted effort to get to the polls regardless of impediments, no one is talking about ripping up the Constitution, Wilderness
The Right is not in any way supportive of the Constitution. Revel in your relative victory today as we shall see that it is short lived.No, the "adversary" are Conservatives, who have made it their historical duty to deny the vote to anybody but white men, preferably Protestant.
Such is the claim. Of course every person, black, white, red, yellow or any other color operates under the same law - difficult to see "racism" in such laws, which is what was pointed out in court and the court agreed.
Absolutely. But in addition to Blacks and women, Democrats need to laser focus on activating Latino voters who seem to want to act against their own interests.
Esoteric, I saw a documentary regarding Hispanics living in Texas, South near the Rio Grande, who gave Trump and the GOP increased support. When asked why, it was about economics. The endless pursuit of fossil fuels were directly related to jobs that these people appreciated as keeping food on the table.
On top of that, a response I got from a tweet from another person in Texas was that religion had a lot to do with Latino siding with a political party who clearly dislike them. The way Democrats talk about a women's right to her own body is off-putting many religious Latinos, she said.
Another reason she gave is Democrats inability to fight off the Republican's false "socialist" attacks.
While I firmly believe that women have the right to chose and that they shouldn't have to lose their liberty and freedom because they don't want to have baby. I also know that Republicans have no clue what socialism really is. They just know it scares people and falsely painting Democrats with that brush gets them votes.
In Florida, the absolutely stupid "Defund the Police" slogan was devastating and lost many winnable seats.
Educated people often are able to see past the lies, but those without college degrees don't have the breath of learning to do that. Republicans know that and play on their fears and emotions.
Democrats, on the other hand, apparently don't have a clue on how to fight back effectively.Is that like liberals that have no idea what an "assault rifle" is or why it is different from the hunting rifles they are labeling an assault weapon? Liberals have been very effective in teaching conservatives how to mis-label things in the effort to create the desired response.
But as far as socialism and liberals, would it make you happier to hear that liberals believe in Marxism? It is probably a better term for what is being complained about; redistribution of wealth without any end in sight. Would it make you feel better to consider liberals the "nanny state", as that, too, is what they are all about - people in this country are unable to make choices for themselves so the omniscient liberals will make all the decision for everyone."Is that like liberals that have no idea what an "assault rifle" is or why it is different from the hunting rifles they are labeling an assault weapon? " - SORRY, it is the other way around, conservatives think any weapon is a hunting rifle.
"But as far as socialism and liberals..." - AGAIN you prove you have no idea what you are talking about. What liberals do oppose is the Darwinian-state conservatives want.
Whoever followed the law rather than emotional arguments, that's who is right.
If the VRA had legal problems built into it then it must be changed or abolished, not accepted anyway because somebody doesn't like what happened without it."because somebody doesn't like what happened without it." - That is an interesting perspective. Should it be OK for only Blacks to count the number of jelly beans in a jar in order to vote again?
No, they did not kill the Voting Rights Act. My gosh, some are off and running with that old battle cry --- WHAT IF !
The facts --- The SC ruled on one case, a case where 6 of them found no basis for the claim of discrimination or merit in the case before them.
The SC rules on cases before them. This case was one case.
The Voters Rights Act is still viable, and I would suppose if a case that truly shows discrimination the Justices will rule appropriately.
In my view, Justice Alito made perfect sense. Are black people lesser human beings, can they not maneuver themselves to vote in person or by absentee vote? It would appear Alito well pointed this out. It is very sad he needed to... Maybe liberals should find a new cause this voter suppression thing has fizzled out.
In this case, I feel Alito is right.As an outsider, it's clear that with all this voting mess that the US lost its credibility when they speak about bringing democracy to the world.
As an insider. subject to the results, I see it as a shining example of democracy at work.
GAI would think GA. If a voting system works and is just, you don't have to squabble about it. It simply works and people are happy with it. It is not an issue.
Apparently, this is not the case in the US.I think it is more about control of the "system" than it is about the system itself. Which, of course, means the "control" that gives the desired results.
I think it is those determinations that are also at the root of the search of all nations' citizens; what is "just" and what "works"? Who decides?
Apparently, we are not yet happy with our system. I think that if you look around the world you will find more than a few `free' nations whose citizens are also "not yet happy.'
GA"Apparently, "we" are not yet happy with our system." - I would have to argue that the "we" you are referencing are only Republicans.
I think both the John Lewis Voting Act needs to be passed to put teeth back into the VBA and Joe Manchin's alternative to an admittedly flawed For The People Act. needs to be passed to make access to voting fair for all.Fact --- After the House passed the HR 1 bill, it was blocked from receiving a vote by the then Republican-controlled Senate. It's dead in the water...
The bill was unconstitutional. I for one am very grateful the Senate panned it.How was H.R. 1 unconstitutional since the Constitution gives Congress to make many of the voting rules if they so chose, which they have done several time in the past? Here let me educate you -
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; [b]but[.b] the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. DO YOU stand corrected?
"Fact --- After the House passed the HR 1 bill, it was blocked from receiving a vote by the then Republican-controlled Senate. It's dead in the water..." - WHAT DOES that have to with the John Lewis Voting Rights bill or Manchin's alternative (or even H.R. 1 (which I oppose) since Schumer can reintroduce it if he wants)?The fact you can spin it whichever way suits you --- The Senate canned it.
Guess at this point it's one for the good guys zero for the Dems.
It must be hard for you to see all your what-if dissipate? Should make you stop and think.No, it is one for those who oppose people voting in free and fair elections. Why are you so happy the RINOs are turning American Civil and Voting Rights back to the 1950s or earlier? I just don't understand it. Given enough time, the conservatives will take your right to vote back.
And what "what ifs" are dissipating? I don't see any other than those in your imagination, lol.All have dissipated --- All your what if Trump committed crimes? What if his family committed crimes? What if Trump knew about the Russian's plot to pay bounties to have American soldiers killed? What if Trump obstructed justice? What if Trump purposely cleared protesters in Washington for a photo op? What if Trump Jr. was working with the Russians? What if Trump cheated on HIS taxes? Need I go on.
"what if Trump committed crimes? " - He did commit crimes, he just had a bunch of scared, lapdog RINOs who let him off the hook. Remember, over 50% of the Senate thought he was guilty.
"What if his family committed crimes? " - They have, that is why the Manhattan DA and NY Attorney General are getting ready to indict them.
And now that the IRS knows of the tax fraud, they shouldn't be very far behind, especially for Invaka.
"What if Trump knew about the Russian's plot to pay bounties to have American soldiers killed? " - He did, I already proved that to you
"What if Trump obstructed justice? " - He did that too based on the evidence Robert Mueller laid out.
"What if Trump purposely cleared protesters in Washington for a photo op?" - ACTUALLY, I have never said that he did, have I? So you made that up. I will admit I thought it because everything pointed to that. But I will accept, barely, the IG finding.
"What if Trump Jr. was working with the Russians?" - ACTUALLY, I have never said that he did, have I? So you made that up But he did collude with them as the Mueller report clearly lays out.
"What if Trump cheated on HIS taxes? " - There is much evidence, and more coming out every day, that he has cheated on his taxes. It is pretty clear now that his organization has - and HE has always said there is no difference between himself and the Trump Organization.
What is your stance on Bill Cosby raping all of those women now that he is exonerated? Are you going to claim What If Cosby raped those women now?
So, I am still waiting for real examples of my "What Ifism"
Missed this one --- I would assume the question is about HR1 being unconstitutional.
Here is one of the sources that helped me form my opinion. I am a bit tired of adding sources that you ignore. As a rule, if I add a resource you deflect quickly to another subject. Here are some facts in regards to HR1 and the fact there are many unconstitutional areas in the bill.
To many to list...
https://www.cato.org/blog/hr-1-how-many … titutionalIt all depends on what where your source comes from. For example, the Daily Caller isn't worth the digital print it is written on. Cato, on the other hand, even though very far to the right, is worth reading. Sometimes I even agree with it such as a couple of passages in this piece.
You claimed that H.R. 1 was unconstitutional. Even Cato's writers don't go that far. As I said earlier, I don't support H.R. 1, for some of the reasons the authors outline. It needed to have several things stripped out of it before passage - something that likely would have happened if the Democrats wanted Manchin's support.
But the RINOs were too chicken s... to even let it get to debate, just like with the January 6th non-partisan Commission. What are you and they scared of that you won't even talk about it??
But even with that there is a silver lining for Democrats - they will be using these what I consider unAmerican activities to beat RINOs about the head and shoulders with in attack ads that will be beginning in a few months time.
I can picture it now - in one frame is a video of the insurrection while in the next frame is a reference to the RINO candidate saying this is just a normal day at the Capitol.
I can see a constant barrage of ads in places like GA and TX and FL repeatedly tell people the RINOs are making it much harder to vote, and in GA's case, making it dangerous.
What has happened is the Republicans did not like the outcome of what many Republicans said was the fairest and fraud-free election in American history.
Consequently, the Republicans make up lies about fraud in order to justify Jim Crow laws to deny people the ability to easily vote. I wonder how long before they require English tests in order to vote or count jelly beans.
It is no coincidence that Conservatives opposed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. They were passed on straight philosophical votes - conservatives (who are called Republicans today) against, liberals (who are called Democrats today) were for it.
Here are examples of what might come again -
"After returning home from World War II, veteran Medgar Evers decided to vote in a Mississippi election. But when he and some other black ex-servicemen attempted to vote, a white mob stopped them. “All we wanted to be was ordinary citizens,” Evers later related. “We fought during the war for America, Mississippi included. Now, after the Germans and Japanese hadn’t killed us, it looked as though the white Mississippians would....”
"First, the new constitution required an annual poll tax, which voters had to pay for two years before the election. " - Now the 24 Amendment prohibits this but then the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were supposed to protect blacks, weren't they. Well the Supreme Court with people like Alito and Thomas on it made short shrift of those Amendments. So why would the conservative Court find a way around the 24th Amendment as well?
"But the most formidable voting barrier put into the state constitution was the literacy test." - what is stopping the Republicans from reinstituting that now that the Voting Rights Act has been invalidated just like the 14th and 15th Amendments were back in the late 1800s?
Me too... Even with all our recent turmoil, our system works.
What, deny people the ability to vote? Interesting.
Here is a story of how sick in the head the RINO politicians are in Texas.
"An ex-felon who thought he had finished his parole for burglary waited 6-hours in line to cast his vote. He said he had a civic duty to vote and therefore "waited out his time" in order to do so. The state claims he was still on parole, which means they need to prove he didn't know. So far so good, a difference of opinion. Here is the sick part. They set this man's bail at $100,000 to keep him in jail.[/i] - YOU guessed it, he was Black!
Explain to me why it is right for the State of Texas to purposefully keep this man in jail for an alleged crime which was non-violent? Fortunately, the Bail Project (which conservatives hate) found the money to post his bail.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/11/politics … index.htmlSo, Conservatives hate the Bail Project as the last avenue of justice for those whom they railroad?
With this outrageous response, why should I trust any of them. What they refer to as "moderates" are not much better.I guess it is how you define "moderate" since that is what I consider myself.
Esoteric, the only difference between the GOP legislators you mentioned and the rest of the GOP is that your group may be open to agreement as not willing to suck up to Trump.
They are still quite conservative and yes, I, further on the left than yourself, want more than just Republican light solutions under the Biden agenda.
Its about, another investigation appears to be starting into Trump and company's voter intimidation.
"Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs is calling for a criminal investigation into possible election interference after the 2020 election. Secretary Hobbs joined American Voices with Alicia Menendez to discuss her push to hold powerful people accountable for spreading disinformation about election results. "
As well as the Arizona Election Chief calls for an investigation as well.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p … n-1194967/"It's about, another investigation appears to be starting into Trump and company's voter intimidation."
No not another appears to be starting just a politician politicking that she thinks there should be an investigation.
WASHINGTON — The top election official in Arizona SAYS THERE SHOULD BE be a criminal investigation into newly revealed efforts by Donald Trump’s allies to interfere with the 2020 vote count in the state. In an interview with MSNBC, Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs---
In Arizona, Katie Hobbs’ call for a criminal investigation comes with a
PARTISAN TINT, as she’s now running for governor.
Just another pipe dream.
YOU KNOW who needs investigating --- Ask Barack Obama’s ethics chief Walter Shaub
Pay For Art To Play Or Just Pay For Play...
"Obama’s ex-White House ethics chief calls Biden artwork arrangement 'perfect mechanism for funneling bribes"
"The White House said Hunter Biden 'has the right to pursue an artistic career just like any child of a president has the right to pursue a career."
"Former President Barack Obama’s ethics chief Walter Shaub is slamming a White House arrangement that would allow the president’s son Hunter Biden to sell his expensive artwork to anonymous buyers and with no disclosure to the public – a deal Shaub derided as a "perfect mechanism for funneling bribes."
This is who the FBI is still investigating, and hopefully, they will soon conclude the investigations and we American's will get some answers about Hunter's dealings with foreign counties. while Joe was VP.
Voter intimidation by a former President vs selling artwork - You want the former left alone and the latter investigated - one obviously know where your priorities lie and it isn't with democracy it seems.
As to your easy dismissal of those who want an investigation we see that one is a Republican and the TOP ELECTIOP OFFICIAL and the other who is an elected Democrat who is the SECRATARY OF STATE. A BIPARTISAN call for action.
But will the Arizona Attorney General do anything? Probably not since he is a pro-Trump, anti-democratic hack who supports the fake audit.WE currently have the FBI and the DOJ investigating the Jan 6th protest/riot. Luckily the FBI is investigating Hunter Biden. I don't think we need Congress to investigate Hunter, as I don't feel they needed to investigate Jan 6rh. Not sure what point you are trying to make other than deflecting from your original comment --- It's about, another investigation that a Dem has called for into Trump and the company's voter intimidation. A mere political ploy...
"Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs is calling for a criminal investigation into possible election interference after the 2020 election. Secretary Hobbs joined American Voices with Alicia Menendez to discuss her push to hold powerful people accountable for spreading disinformation about election results. "
As I pointed out there is not an actual investigation only a Dem politicking by calling for an investigation."WE currently have the FBI and the DOJ investigating the Jan 6th protest/riot. " as well as Trump's role in instigating it. Now they need to investigate his voter intimidation in Arizona if that Attorney General refuses to do so.
Of course, the House is now looking into the causes of the insurrection (which the FBI and DOJ are NOT doing).
"As I pointed out there is not an actual investigation " - Did I say there was - yet?
"The bill was unconstitutional." Any support for that claim?
https://ballotpedia.org/Why_do_states_h … _rules%3F_(2020)
I prefer that we stick to individuals states keeping the full rights to continue to make voting laws. I am against the Federal Government blanketing voting laws. Hopefully, our Supreme Court will also perfer it.So you prefer poll taxes, literacy tests, or counting jelly beans if that is what a state wants? Good to know.
I have no fear that such laws would be reinstated by any state. This must be one of your unbelievable WHAT IF scenarios? Or PLEASE point out any state that is tried to reinstate either.
I have seen you post some crazy crap, this takes the cake.
Another big old what if... I would laugh at this comment, but it is actually so crazy it makes me wonder about how you could buy into such rhetoric."I have no fear that such laws would be reinstated by any state. " - It is because people don't fear that, that things like that can happen. Conservatives effectively took away Blacks right to vote more than once before so they can certainly do it again with this Supreme Court.
Just think how much backwards conservatives have already sent us simply because they didn't like the outcome of the last free and fair election. It is shameful.I have no fear in today's America that either of your fears could happen. You certainly have a low opinion of American's.in general.
No, I have a low opinion of American's who let themselves buy into the Trump and Qanon lie. I have a high opinion for Americans who can see through that BS.
And conservatives are justifying that low opinion on a daily basis as they promote the Big Lie and try to justify making it harder to vote for so many Americans just because they don't like the outcome of the 2020 election.
Look, the mindset of conservatives today is no different that it was in the 1950s or the 1890s or the 1800s when they suppressed the civil and voting rights of blacks. They give me no reason believe, especially after they have passed all of these oppressive laws, they will act any different than they did 100 years ago. There is a reason conservatives aren't known as progressive - they don't improve over time. In fact, I truly believe there is a small subset of conservatives, mainly the white supremacists, who would bring back slavery if they could.IMO -- Look at the mindset of liberals pushing Marxist ideals... Conservatives/Republicans are not attempting to suppress anything. That is a ridiculous fallacy.
"In fact, I truly believe there is a small subset of conservatives, mainly the white supremacists, who would bring back slavery if they could."
My God, I can't even comment on such a ridiculous statement.
Try reading the comment (actually it was a question to you which your refused to answer) again. I offered NO WHAT IF scenarios, unbelievable or otherwise. I asked you a simple question that encompasses historical fact.
I don't NEED to point to a state that did any of those things again because I didn't CLAIM that any had. You just made that up.
What I did ask you is, based on your previous statement, if you would be OK if a state did chose to do those things - a question you are clearly afraid to answer.So you prefer poll taxes, literacy tests, or counting jelly beans if that is what a state wants?
Not sure why you would think I would prefer these forms of voting laws
No, I wouldn'tRead the whole question. It ends with "if that is what the state wants". The reason for the question, of course, was your statement that "I prefer that we stick to individuals states keeping the full rights to continue to make voting laws. "
In a like vein, you prefer vote by internet, with zero checking of where the vote originates from?
Give me evidence that Internet voting has had significant problems with fraud. I doubt that you can.
And how do you know there is "zero checking". Is that just bias on your part?
I just did a quick google search and found a lot hits describing possible problems with on-line voting but not a one that described any fraud. That said, I am sure there has been some fraud, but just like with regular voting, not enough to matter and certainly not enough for these Jim Crow voter laws the RINOs are passing.
ALL of that said, I did more research and while still finding no evidence of any fraud, the articles do indicate serious challenges to keeping Internet voting secure. Now Estonia has been doing it very well since 2005, I think. But to do so, they have a national ID card with security built all through it, something the US needs but doesn't have.
You may be right that in practice, Internet voting may not work, but in theory, there is nothing wrong with it.The point was that the question was as silly as "So you prefer poll taxes, literacy tests, or counting jelly beans if that is what a state wants?"
No, internet voting, with the internet set up the US has (rife with hackers, back doors, etc.) is as foolish as wanting counting jelly beans and literacy tests.If " counting jelly beans and literacy tests." are silly, then why did conservatives do it? Since they did, it is not so silly, is it?
It may or may not have been. If it ever happened - never heard of counting jelly beans to qualify to vote.
But to ask Sharlee that question IS foolish. As foolish as asking you if you approve of unlimited internet voting with no checks.There is nothing wrong with asking if I approve of Internet voting or not (I don't know yet). As to your loaded parts of the question, "unlimited" (I don't know yet) and "with no checks" (No).
Jelly Beans - it has been in the news at least as recently as last year.
"We may no longer have to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar in order to cast a ballot," said Obama. "But even as we sit here, there are those in power are doing their darnedest to discourage people from voting — by closing polling locations, and targeting minorities and students with restrictive ID laws, and attacking our voting rights with surgical precision, even undermining the Postal Service in the run-up to an election that is going to be dependent on mailed-in ballots so people don't get sick."
https://www.wpsdlocal6.com/decision_202 … f9be9.html
Conservatives also made it dangerous to vote, killing some blacks in the process.
"It was not uncommon in the late 19th, early part of the 20th century, for armed white men to go to the polls to try to keep African Americans from voting," said Mulligan. "And they often would have signs, 'Coon Hunting Club,' obviously using the racial slur. So when we see today armed people parading around and talking about going to the polls and carrying their weapons into the polls, that's a terrifying reminder of the use of violence to intimidate minorities, especially African Americans, - I CAN EASILY SEE THAT HAPPENING TODAY. Hell, conservative Trump Supporters did exactly that on January 6th, 2021
As to "But to ask Sharlee that question IS foolish. " - WHY is it foolish to ask about something that your side has done before? (In any case, as I explained to her, that wasn't the question and you know it)
I must say, that is quite a legacy you are trying to defend.Wait - because Obama made a ridiculous political statement means it actually happened at some time? Your imagination is really running overtime!
You don't like allowing harassment and intimidation in poll lines...but would like to see people allowed to stand around those same lines today? How does that work? If they carry both water and the sign of the hunting club it would be alright? Or maybe if they just whisper the slogan while handing a bottle of water it's alright?
MY side did nothing of the sort, for I don't have a side, and I don't think Sharlee does, either. That's YOUR gig - to pick a side that does stupid things like encouraging harassment of people lined up to vote."As to "But to ask Sharlee that question IS foolish. " - WHY is it foolish to ask about something that your side has done before? (In any case, as I explained to her, that wasn't the question and you know it)"
Your Question... My responce
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/352 … ost4193802
This question was very out of place. It only insults one's intelligence, but one's very character. I took offense at you even being inquisitive enough to consider I would approve of such inappropriate voting laws.
Although, I have come to realize you do make judgments without really taking into consideration that you might not have the right to do so. I could see, if I had promoted such voting laws or given the impression I would approve of injustices being perpetrated on black citizens. You certainly at that point would have had some proof of my ideologies.
I have communicated very openly on Race issues here on HP, as I feel appropriate. I don't think blacks should be treated any differently than whites. In regard to this last election, whites had all the same optical as blacks. Such as on lines due to social distancing, fear of going to the polls, registering to vote by mail... I can't agree there was any voter suppression going on, and at this point, I have seen nothing in some of the new voting laws that lead me to believe these laws are being made to suppress anyone."I took offense at you even being inquisitive enough to consider I would approve of such inappropriate voting laws." - I don't understand why?
- You made the claim that states can enact any voting law they want. Conservative states have enacted those types of laws before.
- Conservative states are enacting similarly bad laws today.
- You are an avid Conservative.
- So why should I not think such a thing? It is perfectly logical. You actually leave me no choice but to wonder that.
You SAY " I don't think blacks should be treated any differently than whites. ", yet you support the Republican repressive voting laws that DO treat blacks differently than whites. How do you square those two opposing positions?
You also oppose federal voting laws that WOULD treat blacks the same as whites.
"In regard to this last election, whites had all the same optical as blacks. Such as on lines due to social distancing, fear of going to the polls, registering to vote by mail... I can't agree there was any voter suppression going on, and at this point," - AND I, and many Republicans, agree with that sentiment.
SO, how do you explain the RINO rush to enact hundreds of new laws to suppress voting? The ONLY thing that makes sense is they want to cut down the number of Democrat votes in order to enhance their own chances at winning. Hell, even you now admit there was no need to change any law - so why do it?"Conservative states are enacting similarly bad laws today."
Please give one example of a new voting law that has been passed as of today that discriminates against any of its citizens. Any state and law...
I am a conservative, so you feel I would approve of pulling blacks over and having them guess how many jelly beans are in a jar? OK
"You SAY " I don't think blacks should be treated any differently than whites. ", yet you support the Republican repressive voting laws that DO treat blacks differently than whites. How do you square those two opposing positions?"
I have as of YET not seen an example of repressive voting rights. Not one. Hopefully, you can offer one up. If you can't offer an example, I don't want to hear about Trump in any respect... Just a new voting law that is discriminatory.
Let me repeat I oppose the Federal Government taking control of voting laws.
"SO, how do you explain the RINO rush to enact hundreds of new laws to suppress voting? "
So far there have been 14 states that have enacted 28 new laws. None of what I found discriminatory. If you feel one of the new laws is a problem, glad to look at the new law. I found Zero problems.
HUNDREDS --- example needed for such a hyperbolic statement.
" Hell, even you now admit there was no need to change any law - so why to do it?" It would appear many states have listened to the citizen's complaints and actually tried to fix some problems.
Like Georgia now after never having dropboxes passing a law to provide drop boxes!
In my honest view -- the media has hooked the left into once again another conspiracy. This is ridiculous. Out of all the words in this thread, few are examples of any new voting laws that can be thought of as discriminatory. The media has you chasing a pure fallacy.
Put up some new voting laws that discriminate, not a bunch of words that express soapbox BS.
You are good at offering an I am holier than thou attitude...
But to me, that does not get you far."I have as of YET not seen an example of repressive voting rights. " - You must be selectively watching your right-wing media, lol.
First, you haven't answered the question as to WHY conservatives are passing all of these laws to begin with when there as clearly no need - you said that yourself. What is their rational other than to change the outcome of the next election?Many states have experienced their citizens up in arms about what they either felt was possible fraud, and the other half upset about what they see as voter suppression. IMO the media is responsible for both scenarios. I feel some states are changing mainly the laws their citizens were up in arms with. Some demanding Voter ID some demanding longer hours, and voting drop boxes, some wanting food, and water... I have sat back for the show, and just watching all the actors scream louder and louder.
The new laws are not only to make it easier to vote but yes help curb voter fraud. Which does go on, in some amount. There is nothing to stop anyone from voting, many of the new laws now will include longer periods when people can vote at the polls, and vote via mail. You keep saying the same thing over and over... You do not address any given problem you feel would be unreasonable or discriminatory. Plus you don't acknowledge my questions.Besides the crazy Quanon-Trump cult (you know, the ones that think the military should take over the country) what "Many states have experienced their citizens up in arms about what they either felt was possible fraud,"
Regular citizens, even right wing ones, have not been up in arms. It only seems that way because the right-wing propaganda machine wants you to believe that is true.
"The new laws are not only to make it easier to vote " - WHY THEN is it harder now for my wife and I to vote? It was easy as pie. The ballot showed up in the mail. We filled it out. We mailed it back. We tracked it to make sure it arrived. No mess, no fuss.
Now, each of us must track down where to request a ballot. request it, hope whoever it goes to gets it, wait for a ballot to arrive on time ... a pain in the ass. To avoid that pain in the butt, Ron DeSantis and the RINOs forced us to get in our cars and waste precious time and money to go to the polls when even YOU said there was no need because the elections were free and fair.
Tell me, how is it not voter suppression when TX limits county that is bigger than some states to ONE Drop Box?
LOL, I am sorry Sharlee, but you are clearly drinking Jim Jones' Kool Aid if you believe that right-wing lie.
As to how these new laws are obviously suppress the vote.
1. Between January 1 and May 14, 2021, at least 14 states enacted 22 new laws that restrict access to the vote. (Provisions are categorized as restrictive if they would make it harder for Americans to register, stay on the rolls, and/or vote, as compared to existing state law.) - Why do that when you say there is no problem?
(NOTE - The United States is on track to far exceed its most recent period of significant voter suppression — 2011. The restrictive laws from 2011 were enacted after the 2010 elections brought a significant shift in political control over statehouses — and as the country confronted backlash to the election of its first Black president. )
2. At least 16 mail voting restrictions in 12 states will make it more difficult for voters to cast mail ballots that count.
3. Six laws shorten the timeframe for voters to request a mail ballot, including a Georgia law that will reduce that window by more than one-half. Why do that when you say there is no problem?
4. Five laws make it more difficult for voters to automatically receive their ballot or ballot application — either by making it harder to stay on absentee voting lists or by prohibiting officials from sending applications or ballots without the voter’s affirmative request. Why do that when you say there is no problem?
5. Nine laws in eight states make it more difficult for voters to deliver their mail ballots, including a law in Arkansas that makes the in-person ballot delivery deadline earlier, six laws that restrict assistance to voters in returning their mail ballots, and four laws that limit the availability of mail ballot drop boxes. Why do that when you say there is no problem?
6. Three laws impose stricter signature requirements for mail voting, Why do that when you say there is no problem?
7. three others impose stricter or new voter ID laws for mail voting. Why do that when you say there is no problem?
8. Three states have enacted four laws that impose new or harsher voter ID requirements for in-person voting.Why do that when you say there is no problem?
9. Four laws make faulty voter roll purges more likely, risking confusion and disenfranchisement when voters show up at the polls.Why do that when you say there is no problem?
10. Montana eliminated Election Day registration and moved up its registration deadline to the day before Election Day.Why do that when you say there is no problem?
11. Three states have limited the availability of polling places: Montana permitted more locations to qualify for reduced polling place hours; Iowa reduced its Election Day hours, shortened the early voting period, and limited election officials’ discretion to offer additional early voting locations; and Georgia reduced early voting in many counties by standardizing early voting days and hours.Why do that when you say there is no problem?
12. One Georgia law makes it illegal to provide people standing long lines waiting vote water! Why do that when you say there is no problem?
Those are just some of the ones that have passed. Texas has a bunch more even harsher laws waiting in the wings. Florida made it more difficult for my Wife and I to vote Why do that when you (and Ron DeSantis said there is no problem?
Bottom line is, like in 2011, conservatives didn't like to see all of those Democrats and independents voting so they are doing what they can to suppress the vote. Conservatives, as they always have throughout American history, are cheating.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ … p-may-2021My gosh, you listed a bunch of the so-called problems --- I asked for a LAW, not a bunch of unproven so-called problems. A LAW. Example --- Here is Georgia's official website on all the voting regulations --- every new law is covered. There is nothing to indicate that the state is making it hard for anyone to vote. They have their citizens covered from A-z.
https://georgia.gov/register-to-vote
At this point I will bow out believe what you please, I am believing the actual laws that I see right in front of my eyes, not a list of accusations that in no respect ring true due to THE ACTULA LAWS."I asked for a LAW, " - If you look closely, you will find those ARE LAWS
If you like, I can go back to the source I provided and quote you the specific laws they are talking about - or - you can look yourself.
"In my honest view -- the media " - Don't go blaming the main stream media. They just report facts and offer some opinion.
The media you watch offer few facts and an onslaught of opinion based on conspiracy theories.The media is not in any respect reporting on the actual new voting laws. They are very careful not to quote an actual new voting law. They quote pretty much what they see as problems that could occur.
"The media is not in any respect reporting on the actual new voting laws." - You are correct, the media you watch or listen to won't report those things. But the real media which you claim you refuse to watch or read, e.g. CNN, WAPO, do.
Here is what your media reports --- read your post carefully for context. Do you see them quoting a LAW? What you see is them telling you once again --- What if this happens... Not one quoted true law. all hyperbolic garbage you apparently believe.
Your comment in full ---
As to how these new laws are obviously suppress the vote.
1. Between January 1 and May 14, 2021, at least 14 states enacted 22 new laws that restrict access to the vote. (Provisions are categorized as restrictive if they would make it harder for Americans to register, stay on the rolls, and/or vote, as compared to existing state law.) - Why do that when you say there is no problem?
HOW DID A LAW RESTRICT ACCESS TO VOTE? NEED A LAW TO PROVE THIS --- just an oinion
(NOTE - The United States is on track to far exceed its most recent period of significant voter suppression — 2011. The restrictive laws from 2011 were enacted after the 2010 elections brought a significant shift in political control over statehouses — and as the country confronted backlash to the election of its first Black president. ) WHAT BACKLASH? seems very openended
2. At least 16 mail voting restrictions in 12 states will make it more difficult for voters to cast mail ballots that count.
WHAT RESTRICTIONS? No facts just balbber
3. Six laws shorten the timeframe for voters to request a mail ballot, including a Georgia law that will reduce that window by more than one-half. Why do that when you say there is no problem?
WOW SIX --- Name ONE
4. Five laws make it more difficult for voters to automatically receive their ballot or ballot application — either by making it harder to stay on absentee voting lists or by prohibiting officials from sending applications or ballots without the voter’s affirmative request. Why do that when you say there is no problem? MORE DIFFICULT? LAW PLEASE-- AND WHICH STATE DID I MISS SOMETHING? Can get sued when you don't pin a state down., and can't find the law the media would be referring to.
5. Nine laws in eight states make it more difficult for voters to deliver their mail ballots, including a law in Arkansas that makes the in-person ballot delivery deadline earlier, six laws that restrict assistance to voters in returning their mail ballots, and four laws that limit the availability of mail ballot drop boxes. Why do that when you say there is no problem?
IT'S ARKANSAS' RIGHT TO PROVIDE TIMETABLES ON THEIR VOTING LAWS. Arkansas has never used dropboxes... So, I guess they have been suppressing the vote in your opinion. But, no one seemed to complain before 2020. Go figure
6. Three laws impose stricter signature requirements for mail voting, Why do that when you say there is no problem? WHAT LAWS? YOU HAVE NOT LISTED ON LAW IN ALL OF THIS?
7. three others impose stricter or new voter ID laws for mail voting. Why do that when you say there is no problem? YES, MANY STATES REQUIRE VOTER ID and have for many years... I fully approve of voter ID.
8. Three states have enacted four laws that impose new or harsher voter ID requirements for in-person voting. Why do that when you say there is no problem? NO PROBLEM support voter ID
9. Four laws make faulty voter roll purges more likely, risking confusion and disenfranchisement when voters show up at the polls. Why do that when you say there is no problem? WHAT LAWS? WHAT FOUR LAWS?
10. Montana eliminated Election Day registration and moved up its registration deadline to the day before Election Day.Why do that when you say there is no problem? THIS IS THEIR RIGHT
11. Three states have limited the availability of polling places: Montana permitted more locations to qualify for reduced polling place hours; Iowa reduced its Election Day hours, shortened the early voting period, and limited election officials’ discretion to offer additional early voting locations; and Georgia reduced early voting in many counties by standardizing early voting days and hours.Why do that when you say there is no problem?
YOU DO REALIZE PEOPLE ARE HIRED TO CONDUCT AN ELECTION? GEORGIA"S LAW GIVES all ample time to vote in person as well as absentee, and they have now changed their long-time law to now have drop boxes in the state.
12. One Georgia law makes it illegal to provide people standing long lines waiting vote water! Why do that when you say there is no problem? NO GEORGIAS NEW LAW PERMITS ONE TO HAVE WATER AND FOOD 150 feet away from the polling station. NOW THAT IS A LAW...
Those are just some of the ones that have passed. Texas has a bunch more even harsher laws waiting in the wings. Florida made it more difficult for my Wife and I to vote Why do that when you (and Ron DeSantis said there is no problem?
FLORIDA HAS ABSENTEE ballots. Not sure why you and your wife can't fill them out and mail them in? But whatever... Here is a link to explain how to use them in Florida.
https://www.myfloridaelections.com/Voti … ee-Ballots
Bottom line is, like in 2011, conservatives didn't like to see all of those Democrats and independents voting so they are doing what they can to suppress the vote. Conservatives, as they always have throughout American history, are cheating.You really want me to waste a lot of digital ink on something that is obvious, but here goes. You can research the actual laws yourself.
"3. Six laws shorten the timeframe ... Read AL HB 538, AR SB 643, GA SB 202, IA SF 413, KY HB 574, OK HB 2663. Believe it or not, those are REAL LAWS.
"4. Five laws make it more difficult for voters to ..." - Read AZ SB 1485, FL SB 90, GA SB 202, IA SF 413, KS HB 2332. - Believe it or not, those are REAL LAWS.
" Nine laws in eight states make it more difficult for voters to deliver their mail ballots ..." - Read AR HB 1715, AR SB 643, FL SB 90, GA SB 202, IA SF 413, IN SB 398, KS HB 2183, KY HB 574, MT SB 530. Believe it or not, those are REAL LAWS.
I'll produce more if you want. Sooner or later your eyes will be opened to the TRUTH.Just choosing one of your list, KS HB 2332 and googling it, I find that it says:
"Prohibiting the modification of election laws other than by legislative process, requiring county election officials to maintain residential and mailing addresses for registered voters, requiring identification of the sender on third party solicitations to registered voters to file an application for an advance voting ballot and prohibiting such solicitations by nonresidents of this state, expanding the crime of election tampering and providing for the appointment of elected officials when vacancy is due to military service."
https://openstates.org/ks/bills/2021-2022/HB2332/
I can't find a single thing here that isn't reasonable OR that make it significantly more difficult to vote. Can you point out which area makes it more difficult? Is it that only the legislature can change voting laws? Does requiring county officials to maintain a list of addresses for registered voters make it more difficult to vote? Does expanding the crime of election tampering make it more difficult to vote (for legal voters, anyway - fraudulent votes may be harder)?
Is the rest of your list like this one - just changes that provide some security without making it more difficult to actually exercise our right to vote?HR 2332, among other things, prohibits the executive (meaning election officials) and judicial branches of government from changing election laws.
It prevents the secretary of state from entering any consent decrees without specific approval from from the legislative coordinating council, which, it the KS constitution is anything like the U.S constitution on separation of powers, is unconstitutional.
It also takes away the Secretary of State's authority to extend mail-in voting deadlines.
Further, it makes it harder for a voter to get their ballot in ."HR 2332, among other things, prohibits the executive (meaning election officials) and judicial branches of government from changing election laws."
I said that. I how does that make it harder to vote?
"It prevents the secretary of state from entering any consent decrees without specific approval from from the legislative coordinating council, which, it the KS constitution is anything like the U.S constitution on separation of powers, is unconstitutional. "
Again, your claim (do I need to copy/paste it?) is that this makes it harder to vote, at least for black voters. Can you explain how?
"It also takes away the Secretary of State's authority to extend mail-in voting deadlines."
Same thing - how does this make it harder to vote?
"Further, it makes it harder for a voter to get their ballot in."
How? Unless you mean the SoS WILL extend voting deadlines AND that the legislature will NOT? (If that's the reasoning, I'd like to borrow your crystal ball...)""It also takes away the Secretary of State's authority to extend mail-in voting deadlines."" - How it makes it harder to vote is self-evident.
As to the others, the danger is whether the votes will be counted if they turn out the wrong way.. That, in and of itself, makes it harder to vote because if your vote is tossed out for no good reason, it is effectively not voting.Self-evident to YOU maybe; to the rest of us it means the SoS WILL extend deadlines AND that the legislature will not. A pretty big assumption, but one you are free to make...until, that is, you declare that it WILL happen and thus make things harder for blacks (that it also does so for everyone else must be irrelevant, right?).
But changing election laws means votes will not be counted if they are for the wrong candidate? You will have to provide proof of that one!You might reread what you wrote. I think you have it bas-ackwards from what you intended to say.
Nope: the only way one can assume voting will be harder is to ALSO assume that the Sos WILL extend deadlines if allowed to do so AND that the legislature will NOT extend them if the law takes effect.
Two assumptions, both without any experience or history to back either one.Exactly! The legislature is taking over the duties of the executive. And if there is good reason to extend voting, increase the number of days of early voting, put out more drop boxes, etc, they will have to run to some board in the legislature and ask Mother May I.
Why did they do that if not to interfere with access to the ballot? There were no pressing need (other than Trump telling them to do it) for any of these Jim Crow changes because there was little if any fraud?
I am acquainted with the Georgia bill so we can start with this law----
GA SB 202, A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Chapter 2 of Title 21 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to elections and primaries generally, so as to provide that persons or entities that mail absentee ballot applications shall mail such applications only to eligible registered electors who have not already requested, been issued, or voted an absentee ballot; to require certain comparisons to remove improper names from mail distribution lists; to provide for sanctions for violations; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws and for other purposes.
I find nothing discriminatory in this law. What do you find discriminatory?
The IASF 413 -- is a regulation that removes a voter if they have been inactive voters in two consecutive general elections. They are notified by mail with information on how to stay on the registered rolls. If they do not respond they are removed from active voter rolls and can still go to a poll in person and vote.
Seems fair, and will cut down on fraud. I see nothing discriminatory in that law.
You have listed a bunch of laws that are very fair and show no discrimination.
I have no intention of playing this game. You find one of the long lists of laws that is discriminatory. You are the person holding on to the concept that Republican states are discriminating prove it with JUST ONE new law.
Pick one of the long lists you coped and pasted. I certainly am not here to convince you of anything. You don't follow logic or facts. You need to put up or shut up.
"It would appear many states have listened to the citizen's complaints and actually tried to fix some problems." - WHAT citizen's complaints? I haven't heard any from actual citizens. All of the reporting, including your own, says the election went fine.
The only people that are complaining are conservative election officials who are afraid of people voting in large numbers.
The question you asked was in a one-sentence comment...
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/352 … ost4193796
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/352 … ost4193802
And I did answer your question.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/352 … ost4193831
Every once in a while some Conservatives on the Court show a sentilla of sense, as in this case where they supported voting rights for a change.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/19/politics … index.htmlMore fall-out from the Republican attack on voting rights in America.
"The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday kept in place a Jim Crow-era voting restriction in Mississippi's constitution that removes voting rights from people convicted of certain felonies, ruling that the provision was created with racist intent -- but no longer operates in a racist manner in the state."
BS if that judge actually thinks racism has disappeared!
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/26/us/missi … index.html
Related Discussions
- 8
What are your feelings on the Supreme Court's change to the Voting RIghts Act of
by Pamela Hutson 11 years ago
What are your feelings on the Supreme Court's change to the Voting RIghts Act of 1965?What are your feelings on the Supreme Court's change to the Voting RIghts Act of 1965? Do you understand the change? I get the impression a lot of people either 1) aren't interested, or 2) don't understand what...
- 29
Do We Need To Have Washington Dectating Voter Laws?
by Sharlee 3 years ago
The House will vote on this bill Wed, 3rd, 2021. Would appear the Federal Government wants its fingers in one more pie...Improve Access – H.R. 1 expands access to the ballot box by taking aim at institutional barriers to voting, including cumbersome voter registration systems, disenfranchisement,...
- 28
We Must Rise Up To Force Accountability Using A Diversity Of Tactics
by Sharlee 2 years ago
Left-wing activist groups are planning to send protesters to the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices following a leak indicating the court may soon overturn Roe v. Wade.The activists are organizing under the moniker "Ruth Sent Us" and have published the supposed home addresses of...
- 52
What will the 2019 Trump Court do to American Civil Liberties?
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
With the addition of Justice Kavanaugh, the make-up of the Court is similar in temperament as the one that existed between 1840 and 1929. That Court destroyed American Civil Liberties then, and this Court will do the same. So let's see how the previous conservative Court ruled:* Prigg...
- 181
That's it: Uncle Clerance has got to go!
by Credence2 16 months ago
Background, let me know if for some reason you cannot access thishttps://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk … velations/I go back to 1969 when Abe Fortas was forced to step down as a Supreme Court Justice for accepting 20k from a donor, who was charged with financial impropriety. The demand for...
- 49
Democrats who won't accept Presidential election results
by Readmikenow 4 years ago
If you want to know what Democrats are guilty of...simply see what they are accusing others of doing. THAT is what they're guilty of doing."Will Democrats accept election loss? New report says no.But there is another, equally pressing question: Will Democrats accept the results of the...