NYT: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act

[SteveFromYellowstone]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?_r=0

 

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down
the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, ruling
that Congress had not provided adequate justification for subjecting
nine states, mostly in the South, to federal oversight.

 

“In 1965, the states could be divided into two groups: those with a
recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout,
and those without those characteristics,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts
Jr. wrote
for the majority. “Congress based its coverage formula on that
distinction. Today the nation is no longer divided along those lines,
yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were.”

The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew
sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement
and gave very different accounts of whether racial minorities continue
to face discrimination in voting.

 

Rest at link...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

UGH is all I have to say. We see these same southern states attempting to disenfranchise minorities last election but somehow the court thinks they no longer need oversight? I'm really disappointed in the Supreme Court right now. I wish they were above the ideological fray.

[Larry]

UGH is all I have to say. We see these same southern states attempting to disenfranchise minorities last election but somehow the court thinks they no longer need oversight? I'm really disappointed in the Supreme Court right now. I wish they were above the ideological fray.

 

Well, in the court's defense, we also saw lots of other states attempting to disenfranchise minorities, too.

It's just that the other states succeeded in doing it.

 

Edit: 

 

As to the law?  I admit, I have a problem with any federal law that doesn't apply to the whole country.  (My opinion?  It ought to apply to the whole country.) 

[elkabong82]

Agreed larry that there should be some sort of oversight with voting for the entire country

[Kilmer17]

Really this ruling just sends the law back to Congress to address the issue of selective enforcement.

 

The problem is the Civil Rights act doesnt have the ability to adjust to current demographics.

 

So GA cant enact a law, but Wisconsin can?  Just because 50 years ago the demographics of GA were different?  that makes no sense.

 

 

Now good look getting Congress to do anything about it.

[Larry]

Well, we know the Republicans will block any attempt to pass it, because they were the ones doing the "illegal in some places" things. 

 

And I think it's a pretty safe bet that at least some, maybe a majority, of Dems would oppose it, too.  (Because it might some day interfere with something they want to do.) 

[twa]

Free at last, Free at last, Thank God almighty we are free at last

 

not from supervision or law,but from discrimination

[Larry]

Yeah, now everybody can pass discriminatory laws, not just most people. 

 

"Free from discrimination". 

[twa]

not if there is a law against it.

I've lived my whole life being treated differently than many of you.

[TheItalianStallion]

I'm an advocate of citizens having to prove who they are (preferably with photo ID) in order to vote, but I'm not sure how this fixes the problem.

[LadySkinsFan]

Free at last, Free at last, Thank God almighty we are free at last

 

not from supervision or law,but from discrimination

 

When I move to TX, I'll be going from a state that issues Voter ID cards (Virginia, sans photos) to TX which now requires photo ID to vote.  So when was the last voter fraud by an individual trying to vote illegally prosecuted in TX?

 

Thank goodness we still have Motor Voter, so I can register when I transfer my vehicles registrations.

[twa]

we require a photo ID to vote?....sounds good,but I'm not aware of it

dang, looks like you are right

http://www.kmsstv.com/news/photo-id-now-required-vote-tx-elections

I think I'll have a cigar and a drink

[elkabong82]

Now good look getting Congress to do anything about it.

 

They're busy with important things, like asking a team to change its name while ignoring that 90% of the people who are supposed to be offended aren't

[LadySkinsFan]

Now good look getting Congress to do anything about it.

 

They're busy with important things, like asking a team to change its name while ignoring that 90% of the people who are supposed to be offended aren't

 

They are also busy trying for the umpteenth time to repeal the Affordable Care Act and to meddle in women's private reproductive decisions by trying to abolish abortion/birth control.

[MEANDWARF]

How hard is it for a legal resident of the U.S., minority or poor person to get a photo ID? Not being sarcastic, just curious.

[Larry]

How hard is it for a legal resident of the U.S., minority or poor person to get a photo ID? Not being sarcastic, just curious.

 

It took me a year and a half to get one for Mom.

Now, granted, it looks like a big part of the problem was that some time, decades ago, her parents switched an "I" for an "E" in the spelling of their last name. Dad's ID only toom a few months.

OTOH, Mom had somebody working to kelp her (me), with internet access, a fax machine, color printer and scanner, a cell phone, and the same mailing address for the last 15 years. She had photo ID (it had just expired). And, about halfway through the back-and-forth, I even found a state-certified copy (from the 50s) of her birth certificate (the document I was trying to obtain)

Now, I've never tried getting one, for somebody who, say, doesn't even HAVE an address.

 

----------

 

Edit:

 

Now, though, let's turn this question around. 

 

How much of an inconvenience does it have to be, to cause a noticable percentage of voters to say "Eff it, I'll just skip it"? 

 

The threat of rain will suppress voter turnout by more than 1%.  People, right now, will skip voting vecause of what's on TV, or because they're tired after work, or because they heard a rumor that there's a long line. 

 

I think I've read that, right now, in some demographics (mostly elderly, students, and the very poor), something like 20% of people don't have ID. 

 

How many of those 20%, when told that they have to spend, say, $75 and three month's time, so they can get a piece of plastic, so they can vote, will simply decide not to vote? 

 

(You don't know, and neither do I.  But I guarantee you The Republican Party thinks it's a big enough number, that they're willing to take the political heat for pushing this agenda.  Or they wouldn't be doing it.) 

[PleaseBlitz]

I think making arguments about the Voting RIghts Act as it compares to the Voter ID laws is misguided.  They are very different.  The Voting Rights Act was enacted to prevent discrimination against US Citizens based on race, after a very long and very shameful history of disenfranchisement, intimidation, and every kind of scheme that could be thought of.  Voter ID laws are something quite different.

 

The crux of the decision was about the formula used to determine whether a state was in violation, and I haven't looked at the actual formula, so it's tough for me to really say I have an informed opinion on this.  But as I read Robert's opinion, he seems to be saying that since 1965, racism in the deep south has been eradicated, and i really dont think that is the case.   

[twa]

eradicated at least to the level of other states not discriminated against.

there is no reason something legal in one state cannot be made law in another...voter id is just a example of just that happening.

larry if it costs you $75 for photo id ya need to hang some officials

[Bang]

When i was a kid we had a "bookmobile" which was a bus converted into a rolling library. it was part of the PG countty library, and it parked about 4 blocks from where I lived about every three weeks or so.

It seems to me that the compromise about the photo IDs is to have IDmobiles that go out into neighborhoods to sign up people that would otherwise have trouble getting to a DMV or what have you.

Make a few jobs, make it easy for those who are complaining of being disaffected, and have the ID so the paranoids can relax.

 

~Bang

[MEANDWARF]

Larry, $75 really. It only cost me $25 to renew my drivers license. But thank you for answering my question.

 

Bang, what you post makes sense.

[Larry]

larry if it costs you $75 for photo id ya need to hang some officials

 

Tell ya what.

Go look up the cost for ID in your stats, and the cost of all the things that you have to have, to get the ID, and let me know what it comes to.  Fell free to treat yourself as the "typical citizen". 

 

(And, when you come back, fell free to answer the other question I asked:  How much inconvenience does it take, to cause a noticible number of voters to punt?) 

[Larry]

Larry, $75 really. It only cost me $25 to renew my drivers license. But thank you for answering my question.

 

And the cost of a birth certificate. And a social security card. (Which also requires another copy of the birth certificate.)

The homeless people who don't have photo ID? They don't carry around a copy of their birth certificate, either.)

----------

In the case of Mom and Dad, there were further complications.

In order to get photo ID, you have to have your birth certificate.

In order to get a birth certificate from Oklahoma, you have to have photo ID.

 

(Fortunately, both of my parents had executed Power of Attorney, to me. So, I was able to use the Power of Attorney, and my photo ID, to order their birth certificates.)

 

There was another complication that I managed to avoid, as the laws changed. 

 

In Dad's case, to get his ID, he had to have an original Social Security card. 

 

If he needed one now, it would be impossible, because to get one, the applicant must go, in person, to a SS office and wait around until they get to you.  Dad was in a nursing home for the last 7 years of his life.  Wonder what it would have cost, for me to hire an ambulance, and a nurse, to go with him to the SS office so he could get the SS card which he had to have before he could go to the DMV for his photo ID? 

 

But that wasn't the law, back then.  Back then, all I had to do was to mail in his original documentation to Washington.  (They promise that they'll mail them back, when they're done.) 

 

When Mom's birth certificate finally arrived, the rules had changed.  For her, to get an SS card, you had to have photo ID.  (Remember, I'm trying to get the card, because you have to have the card, so you can GET photo ID.)  (And, again, you not only have to have photo ID, you have to mail the ID to Washington, or personally bring it to an SS office.) 

 

Fortunately, while SS has changed their rules so that you have to have photo ID to get an SS card, Florida changed their rule, so that you don;t have to have an SS card, you just have to have proof of your SS number.  And they were willing to accept Mom's 1099 as proof of her SS#. 

 

(Insert observation that very few homeless people have current 1099s, either.) 

[twa]

The things you need to have anyway

(insert observation they should require voters to own land)

[Larry]

The things you need to have anyway

 

Really?  Then I wonder why I had to obtain all of them, for my parents? 

 

In fact, do YOU have an original SS card?  I don't.  

[twa]

I do have it, but I do not have to have it for photo id

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/identificationrequirements.htm

[Larry]

I don't have to, either, any more. (Unless they've changed the rules, again).

I could use my 1099, instead.

Apparently, 20% of some common demographics do not have photo ID.

In your opinion, how many of those 20%, possess the documents required, for your list?

And, again, I will ask you: in your opinion, how inconvenient does it have to be, for a significant number of voters to just punt?

(Since I haven't answered my own question, I will, now. I assert that if voting required an hours work, a month before the election, a significant number of voters will simply not bother. (Assuming that the people jumping through hoops are sufficiently tilted towards one party. If you require all voters to stand in line for an hour, it will suppress turnout, but it might suppress both parties equally))