Did SCOTUS Finally Kill the Voting Rights Act?

Jump to Last Post 1-2 of 2 discussions (84 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image87
    My Esotericposted 12 months ago

    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.html

    1. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Just 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.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        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?

        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          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.

        2. My Esoteric profile image87
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          No, the "adversary" are Conservatives, who have made it their historical duty to deny the vote to anybody but white men, preferably Protestant.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            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.

      2. My Esoteric profile image87
        My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. My Esoteric profile image87
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. My Esoteric profile image87
                My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                "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.

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. My Esoteric profile image87
        My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        "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?

    3. Sharlee01 profile image82
      Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      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.

    4. peterstreep profile image81
      peterstreepposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        As an insider. subject to the results, I see it as a shining example of democracy at work.

        GA

        1. peterstreep profile image81
          peterstreepposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          I 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.

          1. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            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

            1. My Esoteric profile image87
              My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              "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.

              1. GA Anderson profile image91
                GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Okay, you can argue.:-o

                GA

              2. Sharlee01 profile image82
                Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. My Esoteric profile image87
                  My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  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)?

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image82
                    Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                  2. Sharlee01 profile image82
                    Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    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 … titutional

          2. My Esoteric profile image87
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            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?

        2. Sharlee01 profile image82
          Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Me too... Even with all our recent turmoil, our system works.

        3. My Esoteric profile image87
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          What, deny people the ability to vote?  Interesting.

    5. My Esoteric profile image87
      My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      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.html

      1. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        So, 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.

        1. My Esoteric profile image87
          My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          I guess it is how you define "moderate" since that is what I consider myself.

          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            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.

    6. My Esoteric profile image87
      My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      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/

      1. Sharlee01 profile image82
        Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        "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.

        https://hubstatic.com/15637984.jpg

        1. My Esoteric profile image87
          My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image82
            Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. My Esoteric profile image87
              My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              "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?

  2. Kathleen Cochran profile image81
    Kathleen Cochranposted 12 months ago

    "The bill was unconstitutional." Any support for that claim?

    1. Sharlee01 profile image82
      Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. My Esoteric profile image87
        My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        So you prefer poll taxes, literacy tests, or counting jelly beans if that is what a state wants?  Good to know.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image82
          Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. My Esoteric profile image87
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            "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.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image82
              Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. My Esoteric profile image87
                My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image82
                  Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

          2. My Esoteric profile image87
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image82
              Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

              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't

              1. My Esoteric profile image87
                My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Read 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. "

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  In a like vein, you prefer vote by internet, with zero checking of where the vote originates from?

                  1. My Esoteric profile image87
                    My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                2. Sharlee01 profile image82
                  Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this
 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)