Is there a Right to vote or not?

[Wry Catcher]

Issue: Whether Congress’ decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.

"Petition GRANTED limited to the following Question: Whether Congress’ decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution. - See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/shelby-county-v-holder/#sthash.04jn9rAN.dpuf"

Shelby County v. Holder : SCOTUSblog

Discuss

 

[Sallow]

Conservatives, who are completely ignorant of the Constitution, view it as an "entitlement".

Scalia should be booted from the bench.

 

[martybegan]

Conservatives, who are completely ignorant of the Constitution, view it as an "entitlement".

Scalia should be booted from the bench.

The states are supposed to set up voter qualifications, within the limits of the amendments that provide the vote to various groups.

The issue isnt voter rights, its more to do with racial gerrymandering. Evidently race is the one factor you are allowed to take into account when jury-rigging election districts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is there a Right to vote or not?

Yes, there is a right to vote:

The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1870. Promptly thereafter, Congress passed the Enforcement Act of 1870, [n6] which made it a crime for public officers and private persons to obstruct exercise of the right to vote.

South Carolina v. Katzenbach

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Conservatives, who are completely ignorant of the Constitution, view it as an "entitlement".

Scalia should be booted from the bench.

The states are supposed to set up voter qualifications, within the limits of the amendments that provide the vote to various groups.

The issue isnt voter rights, its more to do with racial gerrymandering. Evidently race is the one factor you are allowed to take into account when jury-rigging election districts.

Of course the issue is voting rights. Section 5 is both reasonable and appropriate in jurisdictions with a history of enacting discriminatory measures.

For example:

In 2011, the Texas legislature drew districts for four new House seats, gained because the state's population increased by about 4 million — 65 percent of that gain accounted for by Latinos. It designed the new districts in such a way as to make it unlikely that minority communities would elect their candidate of choice. A federal district court deemed this intentional discrimination and blocked Texas' redistricting proposal under Section 5.

If anything, more scrutiny, not less, is needed.

Protection of voting rights remain vital - Courant.com

Indeed.

 

[whitehall]

Is there an inbred democrat base living up in the hills someplace or the inner city that can't function in society? You need ID to register to vote, rent a home, cash a welfare check, drive a car, buy a bottle of anything but moonshine, get into the county office building to register for food stamps. Male citizens need to register for the draft upon reaching the age to vote. I would think voting is the last thing on the minds of these people if they are too helpless to produce a photo I.D. Why is showing an ID to prove you are who you claim to be in order to vote considered to be a hardship do democrats? Maybe losing another venue for voter fraud is the real basis for Holder's suit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Conservatives, who are completely ignorant of the Constitution, view it as an "entitlement".

Scalia should be booted from the bench.

Interesting that the only argument you can come up with is an insult.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Conservatives, who are completely ignorant of the Constitution, view it as an "entitlement".

Scalia should be booted from the bench.

The states are supposed to set up voter qualifications, within the limits of the amendments that provide the vote to various groups.

The issue isnt voter rights, its more to do with racial gerrymandering. Evidently race is the one factor you are allowed to take into account when jury-rigging election districts.

Of course the issue is voting rights. Section 5 is both reasonable and appropriate in jurisdictions with a history of enacting discriminatory measures.

For example:

In 2011, the Texas legislature drew districts for four new House seats, gained because the state's population increased by about 4 million — 65 percent of that gain accounted for by Latinos. It designed the new districts in such a way as to make it unlikely that minority communities would elect their candidate of choice. A federal district court deemed this intentional discrimination and blocked Texas' redistricting proposal under Section 5.

If anything, more scrutiny, not less, is needed.

Protection of voting rights remain vital - Courant.com

Indeed.

Given your position that the only way to interpret the Constitution is through Supreme Court precedent, and given the fact that the court specifically refused to rule on Section 5 the last time it was challenged, how can you claim it is both reasonable and appropriate?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Conservatives, who are completely ignorant of the Constitution, view it as an "entitlement".

Scalia should be booted from the bench.

The states are supposed to set up voter qualifications, within the limits of the amendments that provide the vote to various groups.

The issue isnt voter rights, its more to do with racial gerrymandering. Evidently race is the one factor you are allowed to take into account when jury-rigging election districts.

Read the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution.

 

[JohnA]

Is there an inbred democrat base living up in the hills someplace or the inner city that can't function in society? You need ID to register to vote, rent a home, cash a welfare check, drive a car, buy a bottle of anything but moonshine, get into the county office building to register for food stamps. Male citizens need to register for the draft upon reaching the age to vote. I would think voting is the last thing on the minds of these people if they are too helpless to produce a photo I.D. Why is showing an ID to prove you are who you claim to be in order to vote considered to be a hardship do democrats? Maybe losing another venue for voter fraud is the real basis for Holder's suit.

you also need to show id to buy a gun as that is covered by the constitution the dimocrats should consider that to be a hardship as well

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is there an inbred democrat base living up in the hills someplace or the inner city that can't function in society? You need ID to register to vote, rent a home, cash a welfare check, drive a car, buy a bottle of anything but moonshine, get into the county office building to register for food stamps. Male citizens need to register for the draft upon reaching the age to vote. I would think voting is the last thing on the minds of these people if they are too helpless to produce a photo I.D. Why is showing an ID to prove you are who you claim to be in order to vote considered to be a hardship do democrats? Maybe losing another venue for voter fraud is the real basis for Holder's suit.

There are no more ‘welfare checks,’ hence nothing to cash.

Renting a home, driving a car, or burying alcohol are not fundamental rights.

And there is no disagreement that one must provide valid ID to register to vote.

But once registered it is an undue burden to one’s fundamental right to vote to require a citizen to produce a photo ID every time he votes, when he votes at every election and his name shows valid and current on the registration roll. This in conjunction with the fact there is no evidence of voter ‘fraud’ renders ID requirements to vote invalid.

Last, the ignorant, hateful, and racist tenor of your post is compelling evidence that you and many others on the right indeed seek to prevent minorities from voting predicated on some perceived political advantage.

 

[Sallow]

Conservatives, who are completely ignorant of the Constitution, view it as an "entitlement".

Scalia should be booted from the bench.

The states are supposed to set up voter qualifications, within the limits of the amendments that provide the vote to various groups.

The issue isnt voter rights, its more to do with racial gerrymandering. Evidently race is the one factor you are allowed to take into account when jury-rigging election districts.

Well bullshit.

There isn't ANY provision in the constitution that allows local officials to set up a set of 'voter qualifications' to vote. None. Nadda. Zip. And for decades local officials have been using this "gray area" as a means to take voter rights away..hence this legislation.

It's funny you guys only complain about gerrymandering when it comes to "race". Personally, I'd like to see the whole electoral college go away. Presidential elections should be decided by a majority. Districts should be divided by geography and a bi-partisan commission of officials...and it should be done scientifically based on the census. It's baloney to cobble together districts based on political affiliation to assure the same outcome every time. THAT would be a much better solution then term limits.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Conservatives, who are completely ignorant of the Constitution, view it as an "entitlement".

Scalia should be booted from the bench.

The states are supposed to set up voter qualifications, within the limits of the amendments that provide the vote to various groups.

The issue isnt voter rights, its more to do with racial gerrymandering. Evidently race is the one factor you are allowed to take into account when jury-rigging election districts.

Well bullshit.

There isn't ANY provision in the constitution that allows local officials to set up a set of 'voter qualifications' to vote. None. Nadda. Zip. And for decades local officials have been using this "gray area" as a means to take voter rights away..hence this legislation.

It's funny you guys only complain about gerrymandering when it comes to "race". Personally, I'd like to see the whole electoral college go away. Presidential elections should be decided by a majority. Districts should be divided by geography and a bi-partisan commission of officials...and it should be done scientifically based on the census. It's baloney to cobble together districts based on political affiliation to assure the same outcome every time. THAT would be a much better solution then term limits.

Are you saying that it would be unconstitutional for a state to allow 16 year olds to vote? What about out of state college students who are registered to vote in their home state, would it be unconstitutional for a state to allow them to vote in the state they go to school in also? Would it be unconstitutional to say that only residents of that state can vote?