Antiquated racial entitlement about to get hacked by the SCOTUS

How is it you are able to quote MLK in your sig and yet you mock and celebrate the defeat of a big piece of what he spent his life fighting for?

Weird.

 

very different is a relative term, you may define it differently from someone who is a US citizen and prevented from voting

 

Since the justice department has found thousands of examples of discriminatory practices related to election it isn't that different.

 

yeah. and the VRA is a large reason why

“Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”-Justice Ginsburg

 

I think the prerogative on those who want to throw out a law that works (you have accepted that it thinks) implies that they have to seek why the marginal cost is above the marginal benefit. don't fix what ain't broke.

But to inform you a bit on the academic research with regards to prevalent discrimination---

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

http://www.economist.com/node/21526320

Lurking discrimination.

why should it be allowed the channel to go free, especially when a law proven to work at keeping it hidden has worked for so long?

 

I get what you are saying, and you do make a valid point. However, in a world where there have been recent federal election issues (see FL in 2000), it strikes me as odd that there isn't federal involvement in the process of voting in federal elections.

That being said, a state like Louisiana, which is steeped in corruption probably needs something like the VRA to ensure that their elections are held properly. For elections for federal office, I think the federal government needs to be involved in some way in all 50 states. For elections that involve solely state offices, this would not be true.

 

With the insane gerrymandering keeping Latinos in Texas from having the number of representative that they should have, the logic behind the SC decision completely escapes me, as it does tens of millions around the country. Except for a wing of the Republican Party, that is.

 

I've never said nothing has changed. Why don't you wake up, sleepytexxx? There were numerous changes that have tried to implemented that would have been kept minorities from having the same access to the polls.

You know what's great about the voting act? If people really had changed they were free to apply to have the checks removed from them. Many had done so successfully.

It was a system that already allowed people to apply and be removed from the checks of the voting rights act.

So if there were all the improvements you believed have taken place, why didn't they just apply to have the checks removed?

 

To give everyone an additional update. Major was postulating that courts could use the bail-in procedure to put states back under federal preclearance.

Well that's exactly what's happening with the Texas redistricting maps. The maps have been in the courts since 2011 and the Supreme Court refused to hear Texas's case and instead threw it back to the lower courts.

Plaintiffs are now arguing that the DC Court of Appeals finding of "intentional discrimination" last year is evidence that Texas needs to be bailed in and put under federal supervision for any new maps. Texas is arguing that the DC ruling is part of preclearance that is no longer valid so it can't be used as a finding in court.

Either way, this is the first test of putting states back into federal preclearance so this will be a big test.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/07/01/redistricting-redone-lawmakers-goes-back-judges/

 

I can't really think of a good reason why voting requirements/rules shouldn't be universal and federally controlled.

 

Efficiency and better responsiveness to local issues. For example it would be very cumbersome to have federal control for the election for rural dog catcher.

 

I don't think it's very cumbersome to enforce/enact the same requirements for voters across the entire country. What the federal government seems to have done so far is prevent cumbersome rules and controls from being put in place.

 

But why would a person in one state have any less voting rights than someone in another state?

 

Because some states are run by Republicans? :grin:

 

The perpetuation of racial entitlement or just straight up voter suppression. No doubt.

 

@bigtexxx very happy that this antiquated law has been crippled by a right wing court so that voter suppression could go on full bore. Receipts in hand.