Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Voting Rights Act challenge
Friday, November 23, 2012 5:44 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:How much has the South changed? That's the question at the heart of one of the most important cases the Supreme Court will take up this year. The case weighs the fate of one of the most important laws in American history: the Voting Rights Act of 1965. A century after the Civil War, Congress created that law to give African Americans the right to vote, not just on paper, but in fact. The key provision was Section 5, which decreed that jurisdictions with histories of discrimination, mostly in the South, had to get Justice Department approval before they changed any aspect of their voting rules, right down to the location of polling places. There is little doubt that, in the years immediately after 1965, the Voting Rights Act achieved a revolution in voting rights for African-Americans in the South. In subsequent years, Congress has reauthorized the law several times, most recently in 2006. ..... Shelby County, Alabama, went to court to argue that the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional. The court will hear the case, Shelby County v. Holder, early next year. ..... Still, the Obama administration has to deal with a very important likely adversary in this case: Chief Justice John Roberts. The court heard a similar challenge to the Voting Rights Act in 2009, and the court sidestepped the core issue, resolving the case on procedural grounds. But there was little doubt, in Roberts' questions at oral argument or in his opinion, that he believes, constitutionally speaking, times have changed. The chief is unlikely to look for a procedural way out of controversy for a second time. The controversy over voter suppression in the 2012 elections might have a paradoxical effect on the future of the law. Democrats argued that the efforts to impose Voter ID requirements and the like amounted to discrimination against African-Americans and thus could be seen as justification for preserving the Voting Rights Act. But several of the acts of alleged voter suppression took place in states -- like Pennsylvania and Ohio -- that are not covered by Section 5 of the act. That may help the plaintiff's core argument: Times have changed in the South.More at http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/23/opinion/toobin-voting-rights-act-scotus/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Friday, November 23, 2012 3:46 PM
FREMDFIRMA
Quote:5. Poll Tapes: Poll tapes from each voting machine with vote results are to be signed by poll workers and maintained by SCEC in accordance with law (TCA 2-8-108). During the first day of the post-election inspection at the SCEC Operations Center, two large trash bags were found containing crumpled, but original signed poll tapes, without reasonable explanation from the SCEC except that they were being thrown away. Such election documentation is required to be preserved by law. On the other hand, many poll tapes being kept by SCEC to allegedly verify the certified vote totals lack proper signatures and verification, and others are just missing, making it impossible to confirm vote totals. 6. Unsealed/Unsecured Equipment: Voting machines, tabulators, memory cards and other voting apparatuses used in the election were seen at the SCEC Operations Center and were not secured or stored in a manner to protect them from manipulation. Many voting machines used in the election were not sealed and had not been sealed since Election Day, August 5th. Multiple voting machines were not returned to the SCEC until August 12, 2010, a week after the election in violation of law. There were voting machines running at the SCEC between August 12th through at least August 17th, all open and able to accept votes more than a week after the election. Memory cards holding votes were in open boxes throughout the facility. 7. The Ghost Race: The election machines chosen by SCEC affix an ID to each race being run. One ID number is found on the GEMS report and poll tapes and a corresponding but different ID is in the MDB tables. For example, the Sheriff's race is ID 92 in the MDB tables and is identified as race 408 in the export to GEMS. According to the MDB and GEMS tables, there are a total of 105 races. However, only 104 races were visible to the public while voting, with one race existing but hidden from view. In the MDB tables, this Ghost Race is designated Race 105, with GEMS export ID number 440. This "Ghost Race" was created on June 11 and remained in the system until after the August election. It is coded so as to be hidden on both touch screen (early voting and at the polls) ballots and absentee ballots. It does not appear to be designed to capture votes entered by voters but it can be used to transfer, delete or temporarily store votes. The race contains no candidate and is marked "nocount" which will cause any votes in this race to be omitted from vote count reports. The existence of a "Ghost Race" is similar to a dummy bank account or a second set of log books. It allows votes to be moved around without reflecting transactions in the audit data. The most troubling aspect is that it only appeared on ballot styles 2, 10, and 80, which encompass 54 primarily Democratic precincts. 8. Obstructionism: On August 17, 2010 during inspection, employees of the SCEC were stopped while taking computers to their cars. SCEC represented to the inspection team that the computer memories had been wiped clean, and the computers were being given away due to their age per a "policy" of the SCEC. However, upon examination, the computer memories were not wiped clean; voter files were on the machines and the machines' memories indicated they had been accessed multiple times in the wee hours of August 12, 2010, before candidate inspection teams arrived that same day.
Saturday, November 24, 2012 8:07 AM
Saturday, November 24, 2012 11:42 AM
Monday, November 26, 2012 8:49 AM
RIONAEIRE
Beir bua agus beannacht
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL