Bigotry for the right reasons

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gator996, Aug 22, 2013.

  1. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15
    Expect Texas & North Carolina to have strong challenges to their voting law changes.


    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/08/texas-and-voting-rights-act


    Texas and the Voting Rights Act

    Bigotry for the right reasons

    Last month Eric Holder, the attorney-general, asked a district court to make Texas "pre-clear" any proposed changes to its election procedures with the federal government. Texas was doing this as a matter of course in every election for the last 40 years: it was subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). That section requires jurisdictions with a history of discrimination against minority voters to get approval from either the Justice Department or a federal district court in Washington, DC before changing their election procedures to ensure those changes have "neither discriminatory purpose or effect". But the Supreme Court's ruling in Shelby County v Holder last June made Section 5 vestigial. The court found that the formula used to determine which jurisdictions must pre-clear changes was outdated, but it did not, as some VRA opponents had hoped, find Section 5 a violation of the tenth amendment.


    Hence Mr Holder's turn to the previously little-used (because little-needed) Section 3 of the VRA, which lets courts mandate pre-clearance for jurisdictions found to be violating the 14th- or 15th-amendment guarantees of equal protection and access to the ballot. In this case, Mr Holder argues, the violation stems from state redistricting plans proposed in 2011—plans that a federal court already rejected, saying that they "provided more evidence of discriminatory intent than [the Court had] space, or need, to address." The Texas Republicans in charge of redistricting did almost everything wrong that a jurisdiction could do, short of imposing literacy tests or poll taxes. They gerrymandered black and Hispanic districts, presumably to dilute their votes; they excluded minority lawmakers from the redistricting process; and despite dramatic growth in the state's Hispanic population, they failed to create "any new House districts in which minority voters would have the chance to elect their preferred candidate". So Texas abandoned those plans and came with new ones. Mr Holder still used those first plans—as well as Texas's remarkable gift for repeatedly, since 1970, coming up with redistricting plans that violate the VRA—as the basis for his request for pre-clearance.

    Last week Greg Abbott, the attorney-general of Texas, filed his response, and it is a doozy. He notes, correctly, that the redistricting plans are moot, and have resulted in no violations of the 14th and 15th amendments. Fair enough. He then writes that the Shelby County ruling "makes clear that the extreme sovereignty-infringing remedy of pre-clearance is constitutionally suspect" and applies "only to cases where more traditional remedies have proven demonstrably adequate, as in the south in 1965". And he calls Mr Holder's allegations of discrimination "baseless...[R]edistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party's electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats... [They] were motivated by partisan rather than racial considerations and the plaintiffs and DOJ have zero evidence to prove the contrary."

    Bear in mind that Mr Abbott appears to be running for governor; this response will play well with the party faithful. Beyond electoral considerations, however, that is a wonderfully brazen defence of gerrymandering Mr Abbott offers. Rarely does one see political gamesmanship admitted so openly, and I have to admit it's kind of refreshing to hear a politician decline to even pay lip-service to fairness. Mr Abbott seems to think that the VRA allows him to abrogate minority voting rights as long as he does so for partisan rather than overtly, provably racial reasons. As a matter of history, I might point out that voting discrimination did not happen "in the south in 1965". It happened in the election of 1964. And 1962. And 1960. And 1958. And in every single election since the founding of the United States except for those few years during Reconstruction when federal troops made sure that some southerners did not have their constitutional right to vote violently kept from them because of an excess of melanin.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,730
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +984
    Lost me at Eric Holder. It is like saying "George Bush" to certain posters on Too Hot.
  3. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    26,304
    Likes Received:
    2,424
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,971
    Abbott does have some big brass ones... gotta give him that.

    We're not discriminating against minorities because they're minorities... we're discriminating against them because them vote Democrat. :laugh:
  4. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    33,153
    Likes Received:
    2,524
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,647
    And many of them are here illegally.
  5. baygator1
    Offline

    baygator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,191
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +1,871
    996 - considering the ID requirement in the NC law doesn't take effect until 2016...

    I went three weeks ago one afternoon and got my new drivers license. It took me about 30 minutes at the local tax collector's office.

    Is 2 years enough time to get 30 minutes worth of work completed to prepare to vote in the fall 2016 elections?
  6. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    71,420
    Likes Received:
    4,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +9,855
    boo effin hoo
  7. gatorchamps0607
    Offline

    gatorchamps0607 Always Rasta Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    Messages:
    40,732
    Likes Received:
    947
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Ft. Myers, Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,640
    Voter ID laws hurt the poor, young people and the elderly, they say. Even though poor people should have an ID already, because I'm sure they applied for government assistance, which requires ID. Young people should have one if they plan on going to college, driving, smoking, drinking... etc. The elderly should also have a photo ID so that they can cash their SS check. Don't worry, Im already ahead of you, if they don't have to cash it, they were required to provide an ID to open a bank account assuming that check is direct deposited.

    So this leaves the one group that they REALLY care about, I'll give you 3 guesses as to who that group is and the first 2 don't count.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    71,420
    Likes Received:
    4,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +9,855
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^just more liberal goibbidally gook
  9. baygator1
    Offline

    baygator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,191
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +1,871
    So, back to the question, is two years enough time to get an ID?
  10. GatorRade
    Online

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,980
    Likes Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +797
    Just thinking out loud here, but I don't think that illegals can vote.
  11. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15

    I don't have a real problem when a change like this is implemented with enough time.
    That was my chief argument with what the GOP tried to pull in 2012....

    ...they tried to ram it through just prior to the POTUS election.

    The remaining problems I have with voter ID relate to the arguments put up to support these efforts.

    Many of the useless arguments are even factually correct...


    1.You can get on a plane w/o a government issued photo ID...I've done it.


    2.The justification for a major overhaul of voter IDs would be a lot more believeable if the GOP would show the cause for this action.


    Show us the fraud in North Carolina, Texas, Florida....


    3. Why not just make a plan for the "outliers"...the elderly that don't have the documents to get a new ID, the sick that can't travel, etc.

    Also, why not issue the new voter IDs during DMV registration renewals etc.


    Texas plans to allow voters without the proper ID to vote if election officials recognize them...

    When that's part of their F'd up plan then what's being proposed seems less about fraud and more about suppression.

    There are plenty things the states could do to promote registration & participation that could be linked to the issuance of the new ID but they are suspiciously absent from these campaigns.

    Given the history of these states for being discriminatory towards non-whites its not sufficient to just believe the GOP here...make them show us they aren't being discriminatory
  12. gatorchamps0607
    Offline

    gatorchamps0607 Always Rasta Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    Messages:
    40,732
    Likes Received:
    947
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Ft. Myers, Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,640
    I don't support voter suppression laws or tactics by either side of our government, but to suggest that it only targets one group is wrong.

    You're basically saying that black voters won't follow the rules and white people will, amiright? Thats pretty discriminatory if you ask me. It seems like the dem party is filled with minorities and white people that feel sorry for them so they make excuses for them.
  13. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15
    These changes don't only affect blacks...the poor, elderly, and young voters are being targeted along with blacks.

    Who said anything about "blacks won't follow the rules"?

    The basic voting rights argument is that the proposed changes put an undue burden on a group...if the changes do, they are blocked.


    You propose changes but they have to be legitimate under the equal protection clause.
  14. gatorchamps0607
    Offline

    gatorchamps0607 Always Rasta Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    Messages:
    40,732
    Likes Received:
    947
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Ft. Myers, Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,640
    I'm not sure about you personally, but a few people on here seem to think that voter ID laws and voter suppression laws are strictly to stop young blacks (or minorities in general) from voting. To me that is just a convenient way of saying black people won't follow the rules so don't make them.
  15. GatorRade
    Online

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,980
    Likes Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +797
    I think the deal is a bit more like a logic train of action. We know that if you increase transaction costs, the number of those transactions will decrease. The rate of decrease should be described basically by the relative cost imposed (how hard is it to get an ID or drive 20 min or whatever) measured against the relative benefit of conducting the transaction (how much does it mean to you to vote).

    So here is the train (and I am using the republican version here, but I'm sure there is some kind of democratic corollary): Raise the cost of voting on some group, let's say those without IDs, this will cause a marginal decrease in their voting. Now it is ok to raise the cost on some likely to vote for you, as long as there are more people that will vote against you. Poor people are less likely to have IDs. Poor people are more likely to vote for a democrat. Push the ID law, and give yourself a minor advantage.

    That's not to say that the ID law is a bad one in any other respect, but I highly doubt that it is a coincidence that the group that is pushing these laws is the one that will benefit and the group that is fighting them is the one that will be hurt.
  16. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    71,420
    Likes Received:
    4,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +9,855
    Boone is a very small town-not sure why they would need more than 1 precinct-but I do not see this as any type of racial issue or voter suppression issue
  17. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    33,153
    Likes Received:
    2,524
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,647
    With picture ID's needed for voting we can be sure that it wont happen... as much.
  18. GatorRade
    Online

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,980
    Likes Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +797
    Perhaps, but I don't see how redistricting does anything about illegals voting.
  19. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    33,153
    Likes Received:
    2,524
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,647
    I'm quite sure the poor and the old have a picture ID... they use it every time the get food-stamps and other government freebies. :wink:

Share This Page