Yahoo/AP: Tough ID laws could block thousands of 2012 votes

[twa]

we have a VRA that applies to the whole country....what specifically are you missing?

[Larry]

we have a VRA that applies to the whole country....what specifically are you missing?

 

We have part of a VRA that applies to the whole country. 

 

We also have part of a VRA, which used to apply to only part of the country, which the Republicans successfully got rid of.  Because it was interfering with their plans to legislatively disenfranchise minorities. 

 

But nice attempt at appearing clueless while trying to push a point that even you won't come out and state. 

[twa]

so you miss unequal treatment under the law is what you are saying?

 

SCOTUS got rid of it ....in a large part because the Dem congress overreached in extending the preclearance BS for 25 yrs.

 

Bigots

[Larry]

so you miss unequal treatment under the law is what you are saying?

So you like to have sex with goats is what you are saying?

Now that we've dealt with the "make something up which someone has specifically stated the opposite of, and put a question mark at the end of it" part of the conversation, . . . .

 

SCOTUS got rid of it ....in a large part because the Dem congress overreached in extending the preclearance BS for 25 yrs.

 

Bigots

Roll call vote of the Republican House passing the law, 390-33.

Roll call vote of the Republican Senate passing the law, 98-0

 

And the actual Supreme Court decision ruled that the formula used to determine which portions of the country are covered by the "only some parts of the country" section of the law was unconstitutional, because the formula was based on which laws and practices were in effect in the 60s, not on their practices more recently. 

 

Held: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formula can  no  longer  be  used  as  a  basis  for  subjecting  jurisdictions  to  preclearance.  Pp. 9–25.

(a)   In Northwest  Austin, this  Court  noted  that  the  Voting  Rights Act “imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs” and  concluded  that  “a  departure  from  the  fundamental  principle  of equal  sovereignty  requires  a  showing  that  a  statute’s  disparate  geographic coverage is sufficiently related to the problem that it targets.”  557 U. S.,at 203.  These basic principles guide review of the question presented here.  Pp. 9–17.

 

[twa]

So you like to have sex with goats is what you are saying?

 

 

 

You are in town?

 

The Dems controlled Congress in 2006

 

add

 

OK I was wrong about control of congress  ....it is still good to have states treated equally

[Predicto]

A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/

[dfitzo53]

To state it slightly differently, you have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than you do of pulling a fraudulent ballot out of a metaphorical hat.

(At least according to the findings of that study.)

[TheGreatBuzz]

A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/

So you are admitting that voter fraud happens?

/sarcasm

[daveakl]

So you are admitting that voter fraud happens?

Not only does it happen, but it's 31 times more likely to happen then just happening 1 time. And even 1 time is 1 time to many.

I should work for Trump.

[Larry]

I should work for Trump.

Make sure you get paid in advance.

[skinsmarydu]

we have a VRA that applies to the whole country....what specifically are you missing?

You are missing the part where states have sought to exclude themselves from the Constitution.

Vamos, Texas.  No mas para ti ahora.  De nada.

[twa]

You are missing the part where states have sought to exclude themselves from the Constitution.

Vamos, Texas.  No mas para ti ahora.  De nada.

 

We did secede , but other than that I fail to see your point.

 

Texas simply wanted to be treated as other states are under the VRA...twas ya'll that wanted to exclude us from the Constitution....while preaching equality.

[mistertim]

Not only does it happen, but it's 31 times more likely to happen then just happening 1 time. And even 1 time is 1 time to many.

I should work for Trump.

Well, 31 times is enough to sway an election.

 

For school board of a tiny county in a rural area.

[twa]

Well, 31 times is enough to sway an election.

 

For school board of a tiny county in a rural area.

 

 

One was enough to sway a council race here, and a state senate race....and we ain't tiny 

[visionary]

 

[The Evil Genius]

On 8/6/2016 at 9:38 PM, TheGreatBuzz said:

So you are admitting that voter fraud happens?

/sarcasm

 

I suspect all the time with absentee balloting. You'll notice that the GOP will never want to restrict that form of voting, since it historically sways very republican.

[mikered30]

Commissioner of the New York City Board of Elections was caught on hidden camera saying people are bused in from site to site using fake identities so they can vote multiples times - taking advantage of the fact that New York State election laws don’t allow election workers to ask for any sort of ID whatsoever. This was released by James O’Keefe (same clown as the ACORN videos), who is dropping more hidden videos tomorrow. He also released another video with a Manhattan Democratic Election Commissioner admitting voter fraud is real.  I didn't see that these videos were refuted or doctored or selectively edited (yet).

https://nypost.com/2016/10/11/assemblyman-demands-elections-official-resign-for-linking-minorities-to-voter-fraud/

 

[Larry]

9 hours ago, mikered30 said:

I didn't see that these videos were refuted or doctored or selectively edited (yet).

 

 

But you will. 

It's what he does. He's Michael Moore, only much less ethical. 

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

 

[visionary]

 

Quote

The 5-3 ruling, written by Justice Elena Kagan, was the latest in a series of decisions by the justices against the excessive use of race in redistricting, the decennial process of drawing new district lines for Congress and state legislatures. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the court's four liberal justices in striking down the state's maps.

 

Quote

The North Carolina ruling upheld a federal district court decision that struck down the state's 1st and 12th congressional districts because state lawmakers had packed African American voters into them, thereby minimizing the influence of black voters in other districts. Kagan said the 1st district "produced boundaries amplifying divisions between blacks and whites," while in the 12th, "race, not politics, accounted for the district's reconfiguration."

 

Justice Samuel Alito dissented on the 12th district, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. They agreed with state officials that the district was drawn to help Republicans, not to disenfranchise black voters. The high court has never struck down political maps drawn to help one party, though a case from Wisconsin is likely to offer a new test next year.

 

[Larry]

Pointing out that it appears that the punishment for racially gerrymandering your state's districts is that the SC might make you change the gerrymandering, after you've gerrymandered 3 congressional elections.  (And, in 4 years, you can gerrymander them again.)  

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[Kilmer17]

So what happens now?

[Larry]

2 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

So what happens now?

 

We will have another big political fight.  And districts will have to be redrawn, for 2018.  

 

if Florida is any indication, the legislature will likely attempt to keep the existing districts, without leaving the evidence of racial profiling that they left the first time.  And the same people who sued, before, will claim that "they're just doing the same thing, again".  A court will have to rule on it, again.  

 

Maybe they can back-and-forth it till after 2018.  

 

And then, maybe, they'll have a less-gerrymandered election in 2020.  And then it will all become moot, and they can start gerrymandering the new districts.  This time, with some notes in hand on which things not to do so openly as they did, last time.