playtime
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2015
- 58,057
- 51,544
- 3,645
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By Adam Liptak
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.
- June 25, 2013
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.