Supreme Court Guts The Key Part of Landmark

[scribblet]

If I understand this correctly, all this does is allow some states to make changes to voting laws without having to get permission from the Feds. Which I suppose means, these states could require ID from voters,which I believe was considered discrimination against minorities.

I don't see how requiring ID is discriminatory, federally at least, Canadians have to have ID, and rightly so...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/25/us-usa-court-voting-idUSBRE95O0TU20130625

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday gutted a core part of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act and challenged Congress to come up with a replacement plan to protect blacks and other minorities in places where discrimination still persists rather than target former slaveholding states in the South.

In a 5-4 ruling with the court's conservatives in the majority, the justices ruled that Congress had used outdated facts in continuing to force nine states, mainly in the South, to get federal approval for voting rule changes affecting blacks and other minorities.

The court ruled in favor of officials from Shelby County, Alabama, by declaring unconstitutional a section of the law - most recently updated by Congress in 2006 - that set the formula that decides which states and locales with a history of racial discrimination need federal approval to change voting laws.

President Barack Obama expressed disappointment with the ruling and asked Congress to pass legislation "to ensure every American has equal access to the polls." cont..

[Bryan]

Proving who you are seems to be the bare minimum that one can do to at least keep up the appearance of preventing fraud. It makes me shake my head that Americans are not required to do this already. The opposition to it is equally puzzling. ID is discriminatory? Yeah. it discriminates against fraud.

[guyser]

Considering there is very little to non-existant (statistically) fraud......meh. Sledgehammer and finishing nail and all that.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm required to show my ID when I vote.

[Shady]

I think this ruling is an actually a step forward. It's progress. Old laws that hold no relevance anymore should absolutely be struck down. Especially when they're not needed. There are already voting laws that pertain to everyone.

[Shady]

I'm required to show my ID when I vote.

Exactly. So am I. Or to buy alcohol, or cigarettes, to get on a plane, to sign a lease, etc, etc, etc.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Shady

[Argus]

I'm imagining Texans dancing around in their cowboy boots waving their big cowboy hats in the air, shooting off guns yelling "Yee hahhh! We can keep the darkies from voting again!!"

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm imagining Texans dancing around in their cowboy boots waving their big cowboy hats in the air, shooting off guns yelling "Yee hahhh! We can keep the darkies from voting again!!"

....or them darn snowbird Canadians.

Section 4 should have been gutted years ago strictly under the Equal Protection Clause.of the 14th Amendment.

[Shady]

I'm imagining Texans dancing around in their cowboy boots waving their big cowboy hats in the air, shooting off guns yelling "Yee hahhh! We can keep the darkies from voting again!!"

Obviously you have absolutely no understanding of the current voting laws, or the voting rights act, and the parts struck down. You might wanna stick to Canadian politics, because often your stereotypes of Americans/American government/American politics bares no resemblance to reality.

[Argus]

Obviously you have absolutely no understanding of the current voting laws, or the voting rights act, and the parts struck down. You might wanna stick to Canadian politics, because often your stereotypes of Americans/American government/American politics bares no resemblance to reality.

And often they do. Everyone who has followed American politics at all knows there has been a strong move afoot the last few years by Republican governors in many states to make it harder for minorities and the poor (often the same group) to vote.

If the Texas government could get away with passing a law which flat out made it illegal for blacks, hispanics, or other minorities to vote they'd do it in a heartbeat.

[scribblet]

I'm required to show my ID when I vote.

I guess not all States require it.

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx

• Alabama will become a photo ID state in 2014 if its new law receives pre-clearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
• Mississippi and Texas have new strict photo ID laws which may take effect in future elections if they receive pre-clearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
• Wisconsin's new strict photo ID law was held unconstitutional on March 12, 2012.

So, section 4 was struck down but not section 5... does that mean their new laws will not take effect, and for petes sakes, why would it be unconstitutional to require photo ID ?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323469804578521363840962032.html

I highly doubt that Texas would flat out try to make it illegal for minorities to vote. IMO that's a real stretch.

[bush_cheney2004]

And often they do. Everyone who has followed American politics at all knows there has been a strong move afoot the last few years by Republican governors in many states to make it harder for minorities and the poor (often the same group) to vote.

Sure...then they would also know about Democrats and voter registration fraud.

Many anti-voter reform advocates claim that there is no such thing as voter fraud in the United States. That might be news in Rensselaer County, New York where an eighth local Democrat has been brought up on charges in connection with a 2009 attempt by Democrats to forge absentee ballots for the Working Families Party.

On January 11, Troy Democrat City Councilman Gary Galuski, 51, was indicted on four counts of first-degree falsifying business records, pleaded not guilty and was released on his own recognizance.

Edited June 25, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Bryan]

And often they do. Everyone who has followed American politics at all knows there has been a strong move afoot the last few years by Republican governors in many states to make it harder for minorities and the poor (often the same group) to vote.

If the Texas government could get away with passing a law which flat out made it illegal for blacks, hispanics, or other minorities to vote they'd do it in a heartbeat.

Reading this makes it pretty clear the real bigots aren't living in Texas.

[The_Squid]

Exactly. So am I. Or to buy alcohol, or cigarettes, to get on a plane, to sign a lease, etc, etc, etc.

No, you are not. Clearly you don't even know your own country's election rules... Kind of makes me suspicious about how much you know about our neighbours to the south.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index〈=e

You can even just swear an oath as to your identity as long as you are with someone who knows who you are.

[Shady]

No, you are not. Clearly you don't even know your own country's election rules... Kind of makes me suspicious about how much you know about our neighbours to the south.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index〈=e

You can even just swear an oath as to your identity as long as you are with someone who knows who you are.

Exaclty what I said. It's in your link. You MUST prove your IDENTITY and address. Prove your IDENTITY. It's the usual Democrat motto, vote early vote often. That's why they don't want the voting process to be secure. So they can have people vote multiple times. It undermines the whole democratic process.

[Shady]

You can even just swear an oath as to your identity as long as you are with someone who knows who you are.

Yep, as long as they have AUTHORIZED IDENTIFICATION.

[The_Squid]

Exaclty what I said. It's in your link. You MUST prove your IDENTITY and address. Prove your IDENTITY. It's the usual Democrat motto, vote early vote often. That's why they don't want the voting process to be secure. So they can have people vote multiple times. It undermines the whole democratic process.

You said we have to show ID, like when you buy alcohol. You are wrong.

[The_Squid]

Yep, as long as they have AUTHORIZED IDENTIFICATION.

But you don't have to have any ID whatsoever. You were simply wrong.

[Shady]

But you don't have to have any ID whatsoever. You were simply wrong.

Then you have to take an oath and have somebody with you that has AUTHORIZED IDENTIFICATION! Uh oh, sounds racist. What if that person doesn't have ID?

[Shady]

This is how ridiculous Democrats have made the voting process.

[The_Squid]

You can also show two pieces of mail (bills) with your address on them. No ID required.

[Shady]

You can also show two pieces of mail (bills) with your address on them. No ID required.

What if you're poor and you don't have bills to pay? Sounds racist.

[Bryan]

You can also show two pieces of mail (bills) with your address on them. No ID required.

There are many acceptable forms of ID, that is one of them.

[Shady]

There are many acceptable forms of ID, that is one of them.

Exactly. Even bills are a form of identification. Just not photo identification.

[Shady]

More voting without any ID for ya Squid.