Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Little by little...
Sunday, September 2, 2012 5:35 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:Bad Week for Vote ID Laws: This week, federal judges struck down two voting-related Texas measures, including a set of redistricting maps that judges found “discriminatory” against Hispanics and a voter ID law, which a separate panel of judges, citing a $22 fee for a state ID, said imposed “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor.” The battle over poll security continues to heat up, and could become even uglier as Texas and South Carolina appeal their decisions, possibly putting the Supreme Court in the position to have to make a quick ruling before the election on whether the laws should stand for the November election In the Texas voter ID case, judges took note that Texas is one of the jurisdictions covered under Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act, where new voting rules have to be “precleared” by the Justice Department before they take effect – residue of the historic legacy of discrimination, largely in the South. Justices said their ruling was a “narrow” one looking specifically at a law they deemed perhaps the toughest in the nation. “A law that forces poorer citizens to choose between their wages and their franchise unquestionably denies or abridges their right to vote,” the opinion said. “Simply put, many Hispanics and African Americans who voted in the last election will, because of the burdens imposed by [the voter-ID law], likely be unable to vote in the next election.” In the Texas redistricting case, judges specifically cited evidence of discrimination in the way Republicans redrew voting maps, in one case to create a district where they replaced likely Hispanic voters with less-likely ones, ostensibly to favor conservative Anglo candidates. What’s more, during the trial over South Carolina’s voter ID law, which the Justice Department refused earlier to pre-clear, one of the state’s attorneys last week had to admit one piece of evidence had the “shade of racism.” It related to an e-mail to the attorney from a constituent, who noted that more minorities and elderly would get the ID if the legislature offered them $100 to do it. “It would be like a swarm of bees going after a watermelon,” the constituent wrote, to which the attorney replied, “Amen … thank you for your support of voter ID.” Watermelon imagery has long been associated with racist comments in the South. In July, Attorney General Eric Holder, too, raised the specter of racism by calling the Texas voter ID law a “poll tax,” a reference to Jim Crow-era efforts in the South to make voting difficult for minorities. A recent report by the nongovernmental Brennan Center for Justice suggests that new voting restrictions could disenfranchise more than 5 million voters in November. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/2012/0901/Bad-week-for-voter-ID-laws.-Will-Supreme-Court-weigh-in-before-election/(page)/2 series of court battles in several states may determine, over the next several weeks, everything from how people cast their votes, when polling locations will be open and what ballots will look like. Many cases have a partisan bent, with rulings potentially tipping the scales slightly in favor of Democrats or Republicans. The legal fights have entered an urgent phase, two months before the Nov. 6 election and just a few weeks before military and overseas absentee ballots must go out. Pennsylvania lawyers recently filed briefs arguing whether an appeal on the state's strict voter ID law should be held in September or October. Opponents won a mid-September court date, which is late even by their standards. "This is by no means impossible, but certainly the closer you get a decision to Election Day the harder it is to make changes," said Vic Walczak, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. Wisconsin's attorney general is making a late push in the courts to reinstate voter ID requirements. Along with Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, there are unresolved cases in Florida, Ohio, Iowa and Nevada. Those are among the most competitive states and any factor could tip the balance. —Florida and Ohio are locked in litigation tied to changes in early voting rules. Republicans in Florida approved a law last year that reduced the number of early voting days to eight from as many as 14. Advocates are challenging that, and a panel of three federal judges recently determined that the changes could hurt participation by blacks, who lean heavily toward the Democrats. Ohio officials have struggled for months over early voting rules. The Obama campaign sued over a law that prevented most people from using early voting on the weekend and Monday before Election Day; a federal judge on Friday agreed to restore those voting days. The state's attorney general is working on an appeal. —Florida and Iowa are dealing with suits related to the efforts by election administrators to purge voting rolls of ineligible people. The U.S. Department of Justice is continuing to pursue a suit challenging Florida's purge, which previously included a list that contained more than 500 people who were citizens. A Hispanic civic organization also sued, alleging that the purge is an attempt to remove legitimate minority voters from the rolls. Civil rights activists in Iowa are seeking to block the state's Republican secretary of state from using emergency rules to try and purge voting lists of noncitizens. The groups contend that Secretary of State Matt Schultz was abusing his power in a bid to disenfranchise Latinos. Schultz says the effort is necessary to help maintain fair elections. —Nevada is dealing with a unique case over the state's decades-old voting option of "none of the above." The state attorney general is appealing a federal court's decision that the ballot option is unconstitutional. The Republican National Committee financed the suit out of fears votes for "none" could influence the outcome, with conventional thinking that people who might cast a ballot for "none" are anti-incumbent voters who might be more likely to support Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. Nevada officials filed an emergency motion in that case Thursday, noting that the state must finalize ballots for overseas and military voters by Sept. 7. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0902/Voter-ID-and-early-voting-cases-heat-up-in-courts-across-the-country
Sunday, September 2, 2012 6:04 AM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Sunday, September 2, 2012 11:13 AM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: They won't deal with it before the election, or, expectedly, they'll upholed the egregious laws.
Sunday, September 2, 2012 1:03 PM
JONGSSTRAW
Sunday, September 2, 2012 3:52 PM
6IXSTRINGJACK
Sunday, September 2, 2012 4:23 PM
MAGONSDAUGHTER
Quote:Originally posted by 6ixStringJack: I'm not coming at it from either side... I'm just wondering, why the big disagreement about using an ID to vote? Everyone who is a citizen can get an ID, even if they're ineligible to drive. A State ID costs the same as a Driver's License. Just as I don't think it would be fair for me to pay a genius to go take my ACT because there is no call for identification.... or to pay my very charismatic cousin to do my "union job" interviews, I don't think that there should be this obvious flaw in the system. I don't even understand why this seems to be a partisan issue.
1KIKI
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
Sunday, September 2, 2012 4:34 PM
Sunday, September 2, 2012 4:54 PM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Quote:Everyone who is a citizen can get an ID, even if they're ineligible to drive. A State ID costs the same as a Driver's License.
Sunday, September 2, 2012 6:04 PM
CHRISISALL
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Yeah, it's absolutely going to disenfranchise people who are below the poverty line. And that is entirely the aim behind these laws.
Sunday, September 2, 2012 6:08 PM
Sunday, September 2, 2012 6:17 PM
Tuesday, September 4, 2012 7:24 AM
Quote:Have you ever considered just giving Texas back to the Mexicans?
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL