Georgia republicans Back Away From Some Voting Restrictions

[playtime]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

By widespread I guess you mean they find 100k votes in a box somewhere? Democrats LOVE the no voter ID, automatic registration, same-day registration(with no ID?), etc because it makes it easy to be fraulent yet hard to catch because each case would have to be investigated separately, which is a no go.

If 1 out of every 100 committed fraud (1%) by saying they were someone they weren’t for example, that would amount to about 1.6 million illegal votes based on the last election. Since it isn’t 100k here and 100k there, it is very hard to find and prosecute. You can’t investigate 1.6 million cases. That is their plan. Smart folks get it. Dumb/ignorant folks fall for the voter disenfranchisement nonsense.

Every single person registered to vote has a voters registration card.

You don’t need to supply this card to vote. No ID of any kind necessary to vote. A person’s word that they are who they say they are is good enough. That is in HR1.

fake news. try researching claims b4 you blindly believe such claims. not doing so only proves how much donny loves the poorly educated long time.

Fact Check: Did House Democrats Vote to Ban Voter ID Nationwide with HR-1?
By Mary Ellen Cagnassola On 3/4/21 at 5:20 PM EST



Fact Check: Did House Democrats vote to ban voter ID nationwide with HR-1?

Per your source:

There is no language in HR-1 that "bans" voter identification laws. It allows individuals in states with identification requirements who do not have ID to vote by providing in writing that they are eligible.om your article:

LOL...Yeah, they can SWEAR they are who they say they are by signing a document before voting. LIke I said, no voter ID required. Democrats can’t even figure out that their “fact checking” is lying to them?

under penalty of law.... it just ain't worth the risk, dummy.

 

[lennypartiv]

America was a better country when the dumb people were not allowed to vote.

 

[playtime]

America was a better country when the dumb people were not allowed to vote.

how very CONstitutional of you.

 

[DBA]

America was a better country when the dumb people were not allowed to vote.

how very CONstitutional of you.

Our founding fathers never envisioned that such an ignorant group of government-dependent people would ever be voting. Many are simply voting themselves a paycheck and other "free" stuff.

 

[playtime]

America was a better country when the dumb people were not allowed to vote.

how very CONstitutional of you.

Our founding fathers never envisioned that such an ignorant group of government-dependent people would ever be voting. Many are simply voting themselves a paycheck and other "free" stuff.

our founding fathers also thought that owning people was A-OK. they weren't right about everything - howeverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..... in their wisdom in forethought, they have designed the constitution to be a living document that amended that, among other rights.

tutt tutt but that's the way it is.

 

[OKTexas]

Thanks to a couple corporations, Coca Cola and Home Depot, Georgia republicans are backing down from two of their proposals that take away the ability to vote mostly from democrats.

None of the proposals they are passing into law will stop voter fraud. Mostly because there isn't any real voter fraud happening.

All the proposals will do is make it much harder for mostly democrats to vote. Which is the point. They don't want those pesky democrats to exercise their constitutional right to vote in an election.

If the republicans in Georgia kept allowing democrats to vote, republicans would keep losing elections.

The republicans in Georgia can't allow that to keep happening so they are passing legislation that is specifically designed to prevent mostly democrats from voting.

I'm sure whatever legislation ends up passing into law will immediately be taken to court and overturned.

Which means the republicans in Georgia are just wasting time and tax payer's money.

Georgia Republicans back away from some voting restrictions

Top Republicans in Georgia’s state legislature are backing away from a controversial plan to eliminate no-excuse absentee voting and to do away with early voting on Sundays after increasing critici…

thehill.com

What a crock of generic commie bullshit. Tell everyone, specifically, what laws are being proposed that dems are incapable of complying with.

.

 

[OKTexas]

In Supreme Court, GOP attorney defends voting restrictions by saying they help Republicans win
The response was a remarkable moment at a pivotal time for voting rights.

March 2, 2021, 6:21 PM UTC
By Jane C. Timm

An attorney for Arizona's Republican Party offered a blunt reason for his presence defending the state's voting restrictions before the Supreme Court on Tuesday: The measures disadvantage Democrats.


“What’s the interest of the Arizona RNC in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?" Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked, referencing legal standing.

“Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,” said Michael Carvin, the lawyer defending the state's restrictions. “Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretation of Section 2 hurts us, it’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing an election 51 to 50.”

In Supreme Court, GOP attorney defends voting restrictions by saying they help Republicans win

it's indicative of what is happening across the country. hundreds of cases are intro'd to limit voting rights. them blacks came out in droves & that just can't happen in the future. that GOP lawyer made the mistake of saying it out loud & the SC handmaid stopped him cold, because she knew he f'd up & revealed the reason why he was there arguing why they gotta impose new restrictions.

And the Supreme Court is going to allow Arizona and other Republican-controlled states to enact measures that disadvantage Democrats, ignoring the fact that these bad faith laws likewise disadvantage minority voters and undermine the right to vote.

What laws, be specific.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

Are people not smart enough to bring their own damn water? If they can't see that far ahead, they damn sure shouldn't be voting.

.

 

[playtime]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

Are people not smart enough to bring their own damn water? If they can't see that far ahead, they damn sure shouldn't be voting.

.

<pffffft> lame dude ... lame. to make it ILLEGAL?

c'mon ... you can't come up with any justification for that one.

 

[OKTexas]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

By widespread I guess you mean they find 100k votes in a box somewhere? Democrats LOVE the no voter ID, automatic registration, same-day registration(with no ID?), etc because it makes it easy to be fraulent yet hard to catch because each case would have to be investigated separately, which is a no go.

If 1 out of every 100 committed fraud (1%) by saying they were someone they weren’t for example, that would amount to about 1.6 million illegal votes based on the last election. Since it isn’t 100k here and 100k there, it is very hard to find and prosecute. You can’t investigate 1.6 million cases. That is their plan. Smart folks get it. Dumb/ignorant folks fall for the voter disenfranchisement nonsense.

Every single person registered to vote has a voters registration card.

You don’t need to supply this card to vote. No ID of any kind necessary to vote. A person’s word that they are who they say they are is good enough. That is in HR1.

It might be. It's also not law.

it's not.


But HR-1 does not "ban" voter identification laws. Instead, it offers a workaround to state voter IDs for individuals who do not have the means to obtain identification. Voters may alternatively present a sworn, written statement to an election official under penalty of perjury that states the voter is eligible to vote.

The Ruling
False.

There is no language in HR-1 that "bans" voter identification laws. It allows individuals in states with identification requirements who do not have ID to vote by providing in writing that they are eligible.


per the link i provided on fact checks.

Yeah, how about I provide my bank a written promise that I'm a multimillionaire, would you require they take my word for it? You commies really need to pull your heads out of your collective asses.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

Are people not smart enough to bring their own damn water? If they can't see that far ahead, they damn sure shouldn't be voting.

.

<pffffft> lame dude ... lame. to make it ILLEGAL?

c'mon ... you can't come up with any justification for that one.

I just did. People shouldn't need their hands held to vote. If they can't think for and provide for themselves, they should just stay the fuck home.

.

 

[playtime]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

By widespread I guess you mean they find 100k votes in a box somewhere? Democrats LOVE the no voter ID, automatic registration, same-day registration(with no ID?), etc because it makes it easy to be fraulent yet hard to catch because each case would have to be investigated separately, which is a no go.

If 1 out of every 100 committed fraud (1%) by saying they were someone they weren’t for example, that would amount to about 1.6 million illegal votes based on the last election. Since it isn’t 100k here and 100k there, it is very hard to find and prosecute. You can’t investigate 1.6 million cases. That is their plan. Smart folks get it. Dumb/ignorant folks fall for the voter disenfranchisement nonsense.

Every single person registered to vote has a voters registration card.

You don’t need to supply this card to vote. No ID of any kind necessary to vote. A person’s word that they are who they say they are is good enough. That is in HR1.

It might be. It's also not law.

it's not.


But HR-1 does not "ban" voter identification laws. Instead, it offers a workaround to state voter IDs for individuals who do not have the means to obtain identification. Voters may alternatively present a sworn, written statement to an election official under penalty of perjury that states the voter is eligible to vote.

The Ruling
False.

There is no language in HR-1 that "bans" voter identification laws. It allows individuals in states with identification requirements who do not have ID to vote by providing in writing that they are eligible.


per the link i provided on fact checks.

Yeah, how about I provide my bank a written promise that I'm a multimillionaire, would you require they take my word for it? You commies really need to pull your heads out of your collective asses.

.

& if you got a loan based on falsification - you'de be in bigley trouble facing some jail time, kitty cat.

it sure ain't worth it to most people.

 

[playtime]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

Are people not smart enough to bring their own damn water? If they can't see that far ahead, they damn sure shouldn't be voting.

.

<pffffft> lame dude ... lame. to make it ILLEGAL?

c'mon ... you can't come up with any justification for that one.

I just did. People shouldn't need their hands held to vote. If they can't think for and provide for themselves, they should just stay the fuck home.

.

you didn't justify anything.... going so far as doing somethig like that only proves that lying, cheating, stealing & gerrymandering are the only ways that (R)s can win. hell, a GOP lawyer outright told the C handmaid that very thing.

 

[OKTexas]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

By widespread I guess you mean they find 100k votes in a box somewhere? Democrats LOVE the no voter ID, automatic registration, same-day registration(with no ID?), etc because it makes it easy to be fraulent yet hard to catch because each case would have to be investigated separately, which is a no go.

If 1 out of every 100 committed fraud (1%) by saying they were someone they weren’t for example, that would amount to about 1.6 million illegal votes based on the last election. Since it isn’t 100k here and 100k there, it is very hard to find and prosecute. You can’t investigate 1.6 million cases. That is their plan. Smart folks get it. Dumb/ignorant folks fall for the voter disenfranchisement nonsense.

Every single person registered to vote has a voters registration card.

You don’t need to supply this card to vote. No ID of any kind necessary to vote. A person’s word that they are who they say they are is good enough. That is in HR1.

It might be. It's also not law.

it's not.


But HR-1 does not "ban" voter identification laws. Instead, it offers a workaround to state voter IDs for individuals who do not have the means to obtain identification. Voters may alternatively present a sworn, written statement to an election official under penalty of perjury that states the voter is eligible to vote.

The Ruling
False.

There is no language in HR-1 that "bans" voter identification laws. It allows individuals in states with identification requirements who do not have ID to vote by providing in writing that they are eligible.


per the link i provided on fact checks.

Yeah, how about I provide my bank a written promise that I'm a multimillionaire, would you require they take my word for it? You commies really need to pull your heads out of your collective asses.

.

& if you got a loan based on falsification - you'de be in bigley trouble facing some jail time, kitty cat.

it sure ain't worth it to most people.

Who said anything about a loan? Oh, that's right, you.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

Are people not smart enough to bring their own damn water? If they can't see that far ahead, they damn sure shouldn't be voting.

.

<pffffft> lame dude ... lame. to make it ILLEGAL?

c'mon ... you can't come up with any justification for that one.

I just did. People shouldn't need their hands held to vote. If they can't think for and provide for themselves, they should just stay the fuck home.

.

you didn't justify anything.... going so far as doing somethig like that only proves that lying, cheating, stealing & gerrymandering are the only ways that (R)s can win. hell, a GOP lawyer outright told the C handmaid that very thing.

Deflection, really? You obviously want only people that can't think for themselves, to vote the way you tell them to.

.

 

[playtime]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

By widespread I guess you mean they find 100k votes in a box somewhere? Democrats LOVE the no voter ID, automatic registration, same-day registration(with no ID?), etc because it makes it easy to be fraulent yet hard to catch because each case would have to be investigated separately, which is a no go.

If 1 out of every 100 committed fraud (1%) by saying they were someone they weren’t for example, that would amount to about 1.6 million illegal votes based on the last election. Since it isn’t 100k here and 100k there, it is very hard to find and prosecute. You can’t investigate 1.6 million cases. That is their plan. Smart folks get it. Dumb/ignorant folks fall for the voter disenfranchisement nonsense.

Every single person registered to vote has a voters registration card.

You don’t need to supply this card to vote. No ID of any kind necessary to vote. A person’s word that they are who they say they are is good enough. That is in HR1.

It might be. It's also not law.

it's not.


But HR-1 does not "ban" voter identification laws. Instead, it offers a workaround to state voter IDs for individuals who do not have the means to obtain identification. Voters may alternatively present a sworn, written statement to an election official under penalty of perjury that states the voter is eligible to vote.

The Ruling
False.

There is no language in HR-1 that "bans" voter identification laws. It allows individuals in states with identification requirements who do not have ID to vote by providing in writing that they are eligible.


per the link i provided on fact checks.

Yeah, how about I provide my bank a written promise that I'm a multimillionaire, would you require they take my word for it? You commies really need to pull your heads out of your collective asses.

.

& if you got a loan based on falsification - you'de be in bigley trouble facing some jail time, kitty cat.

it sure ain't worth it to most people.

Who said anything about a loan? Oh, that's right, you.

.

why bother with a banker then? oh you mean to defraud for insurance sake?

like donny is under the microscope for?

 

[playtime]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

Are people not smart enough to bring their own damn water? If they can't see that far ahead, they damn sure shouldn't be voting.

.

<pffffft> lame dude ... lame. to make it ILLEGAL?

c'mon ... you can't come up with any justification for that one.

I just did. People shouldn't need their hands held to vote. If they can't think for and provide for themselves, they should just stay the fuck home.

.

you didn't justify anything.... going so far as doing somethig like that only proves that lying, cheating, stealing & gerrymandering are the only ways that (R)s can win. hell, a GOP lawyer outright told the C handmaid that very thing.

Deflection, really? You obviously want only people that can't think for themselves, to vote the way you tell them to.

.

now you're grasping.

 

[OKTexas]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

By widespread I guess you mean they find 100k votes in a box somewhere? Democrats LOVE the no voter ID, automatic registration, same-day registration(with no ID?), etc because it makes it easy to be fraulent yet hard to catch because each case would have to be investigated separately, which is a no go.

If 1 out of every 100 committed fraud (1%) by saying they were someone they weren’t for example, that would amount to about 1.6 million illegal votes based on the last election. Since it isn’t 100k here and 100k there, it is very hard to find and prosecute. You can’t investigate 1.6 million cases. That is their plan. Smart folks get it. Dumb/ignorant folks fall for the voter disenfranchisement nonsense.

Every single person registered to vote has a voters registration card.

You don’t need to supply this card to vote. No ID of any kind necessary to vote. A person’s word that they are who they say they are is good enough. That is in HR1.

It might be. It's also not law.

it's not.


But HR-1 does not "ban" voter identification laws. Instead, it offers a workaround to state voter IDs for individuals who do not have the means to obtain identification. Voters may alternatively present a sworn, written statement to an election official under penalty of perjury that states the voter is eligible to vote.

The Ruling
False.

There is no language in HR-1 that "bans" voter identification laws. It allows individuals in states with identification requirements who do not have ID to vote by providing in writing that they are eligible.


per the link i provided on fact checks.

Yeah, how about I provide my bank a written promise that I'm a multimillionaire, would you require they take my word for it? You commies really need to pull your heads out of your collective asses.

.

& if you got a loan based on falsification - you'de be in bigley trouble facing some jail time, kitty cat.

it sure ain't worth it to most people.

Who said anything about a loan? Oh, that's right, you.

.

why bother with a banker then? oh you mean to defraud for insurance sake?

like donny is under the microscope for?

Like the typical commie, you keep trying to define whit "I said". Nothing "I said" needs your interpretation. I was simply pointing out that the only area where you commies think a persons word is good enough, is when it comes to voting. No need for proof of eligibility when you register, no need for proof you are who you say you are when voting. It's just sign here and you're good to go, because no one will be checking anyway. And if they try, we'll sue their pants off.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

Are people not smart enough to bring their own damn water? If they can't see that far ahead, they damn sure shouldn't be voting.

.

<pffffft> lame dude ... lame. to make it ILLEGAL?

c'mon ... you can't come up with any justification for that one.

I just did. People shouldn't need their hands held to vote. If they can't think for and provide for themselves, they should just stay the fuck home.

.

you didn't justify anything.... going so far as doing somethig like that only proves that lying, cheating, stealing & gerrymandering are the only ways that (R)s can win. hell, a GOP lawyer outright told the C handmaid that very thing.

Deflection, really? You obviously want only people that can't think for themselves, to vote the way you tell them to.

.

now you're grasping.

FOAD

.

 

[playtime]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak

• June 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
[...]
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
[...]
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act (Published 2013)

so the first round of striking down the voting rights act was due to the fact that since a black prez was elected ... there is no more racial discrimination in said voting rights?

wow wow wow ... & this here current litigation isn't the last nail for those uppities? sure sounds like it is.

Don’t you have to PROVE their is racial voting discrimination? I could have sworn that despite quite a bit of smoke regarding voting irregularities in the last election, according to Democrats, there was “no significant” evidence of voter fraud, therefore, it doesn’t need to be addressed nor investigated. Seems to me the SC did just that here. Until you can PROVE there is enough racial discrimination in voting, cry me a river. It certainly doesn’t appear to be as blatant nor prevalent as voter fraud to me.

Democrats would be nothing if not inconsistent and hypocritical.

Fraud and laws restricting voting are two different things.

Ultimately, this is about laws that do not secure voting(unrestricted) and laws that secure voting(restricted). If voting is insecure, it is ripe for fraud.

& yet there has been no widespread fraud that occurred at all. hmmmm.... curious that. in georgia, they want to make it illegal to give someone water whilst in line.

wanna 'splain that reasoning?

By widespread I guess you mean they find 100k votes in a box somewhere? Democrats LOVE the no voter ID, automatic registration, same-day registration(with no ID?), etc because it makes it easy to be fraulent yet hard to catch because each case would have to be investigated separately, which is a no go.

If 1 out of every 100 committed fraud (1%) by saying they were someone they weren’t for example, that would amount to about 1.6 million illegal votes based on the last election. Since it isn’t 100k here and 100k there, it is very hard to find and prosecute. You can’t investigate 1.6 million cases. That is their plan. Smart folks get it. Dumb/ignorant folks fall for the voter disenfranchisement nonsense.

Every single person registered to vote has a voters registration card.

You don’t need to supply this card to vote. No ID of any kind necessary to vote. A person’s word that they are who they say they are is good enough. That is in HR1.

It might be. It's also not law.

it's not.


But HR-1 does not "ban" voter identification laws. Instead, it offers a workaround to state voter IDs for individuals who do not have the means to obtain identification. Voters may alternatively present a sworn, written statement to an election official under penalty of perjury that states the voter is eligible to vote.

The Ruling
False.

There is no language in HR-1 that "bans" voter identification laws. It allows individuals in states with identification requirements who do not have ID to vote by providing in writing that they are eligible.


per the link i provided on fact checks.

Yeah, how about I provide my bank a written promise that I'm a multimillionaire, would you require they take my word for it? You commies really need to pull your heads out of your collective asses.

.

& if you got a loan based on falsification - you'de be in bigley trouble facing some jail time, kitty cat.

it sure ain't worth it to most people.

Who said anything about a loan? Oh, that's right, you.

.

why bother with a banker then? oh you mean to defraud for insurance sake?

like donny is under the microscope for?

Like the typical commie, you keep trying to define whit "I said". Nothing "I said" needs your interpretation. I was simply pointing out that the only area where you commies think a persons word is good enough, is when it comes to voting. No need for proof of eligibility when you register, no need for proof you are who you say you are when voting. It's just sign here and you're good to go, because no one will be checking anyway. And if they try, we'll sue their pants off.

.

how ironic. like a typical trump humping basket dwelling, knuckle dragging, deplorable - YOU keep trying to define w-h-a-t ' i said '. nothing 'i said' needs your interpretation. lol ...