What???? The Stark Silence on Section 5 of the VRA being debated in the SCOTUS...

[kayman23]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2768942.html

"Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes," Scalia said during oral argument in Shelby County v. Holder.

Now this is hilarious, the sub-forum can talk about everything else inferring such as (race), but when a case that actually speaks on it. You can hear a pin drop in this forum on this topic...

[Rolyo85]

Um, could it be because this is a gay forum, focused primarily on gay issues? I mean, this is the first I hear of this, it isn't like I knew but kept silent for nefarious reasons. I doubt anyone else did either.

[kayman23]

Well, as much ruckus that has gone on this forum with inferences about race in the past 5 years, you can tell what is the hubbub is with 8 out 10 of the those always negative about the said person in the presidency...

Anyways, gay forum or not, if Section 5 is retracted LGBTs of color could be adversely affected, so it is a gay issue.

[bankside]

Man, kayman, you're on a roll tonight. The first i even heard of this case (like any other case from the states I hear about) was in this morning's news. There is no conspiracy of silence why it hasn't been posted in its own topic until now.

As far as the 8 out of 10, it is clear that the vast majority of people in CE&P were delighted to see Obama win the presidency because he's the smarter man for the job, and better able to deliver on what the citizens of your country need, regardless of their colour. He sure as hell is a welcome change of pace in the international community too. He makes America look sane again after 8 years of idiot Bush.

That view is so common that the two out of ten who disagree actually do feel persecuted and marginalised and there are lots of complaints about liberal bias in what is really a very moderate centrist group. So, not sure where you're getting the idea that CE&P is anti-Obama.

As for the VRA, whether or not it's a gay issue, it is still an important issue.

Would it honestly surprise you to know that most people who regularly post in CE&P think Scalia is full of shit?

Just imagine how often people have clicked on Scalia's face, hoping only for the opportunity to bring more balance to the court and rid it of his bias:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...different.html

[kayman23]

Man, kayman, you're on a roll tonight. The first i even heard of this case (like any other case from the states I hear about) was in this morning's news. There is no conspiracy of silence why it hasn't been posted in its own topic until now.

As far as the 8 out of 10, it is clear that the vast majority of people in CE&P were delighted to see Obama win the presidency because he's the smarter man for the job, and better able to deliver on what the citizens of your country need, regardless of their colour. He sure as hell is a welcome change of pace in the international community too. He makes America look sane again after 8 years of idiot Bush.

That view is so common that the two out of ten who disagree actually do feel persecuted and marginalised and there are lots of complaints about liberal bias in what is really a very moderate centrist group. So, not sure where you're getting the idea that CE&P is anti-Obama.

As for the VRA, whether or not it's a gay issue, it is still an important issue.

Would it honestly surprise you to know that most people who regularly post in CE&P think Scalia is full of shit?

Just imagine how often people have clicked on Scalia's face, hoping only for the opportunity to bring more balance to the court and rid it of his bias:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...different.html

Context clues, Bankside, context clues...

what is the hubbub is with 8 out 10 of those always negative about the said person in the presidency...

I understand that most here are happy about Obama, but my quote is very obvious about that lot not the whole forum.

[bankside]

Context clues, Bankside, context clues...



I understand that most here are happy about Obama, but my quote is very obvious about that lot not the whole forum.

I think you should reread it for obviousness and not use vague antecedents. But you have now (just now) made it clear what you're talking about. And I agree. Many of the people who disagree with Obama, in US political life and on this forum, seem to have peculiar ideas about race.

[mightbe]

I disagree with Bankside's earlier comment about Scalia being full of shit. He is shit. There's no benign casing. Solid shit; though he does seem to have a nasty case of diarrhea of the mouth.

Kayman-what are you getting at? If it's just that those with extreme distaste for Obama also have issues with racism, I hear ya. But what are you saying about 8 in 10? I don't get it.

[kevin23]

The 1965 VRA only covered about five Southern states and Arizonia and Alaska. It has been renewed or extended a few times, last time under Bush II for another 25 years. It is largely seen as a political ploy to attrack or retain or pacify Black voters. Under this law the Justice Dept has to apporve redistricting, and even approve moving of polling places for the "covered states" . Source Wiki and personal knowledge. This law is unfair as it singles out only a few states and has not been necessary for many years. The US Justice Dept has been in total control of these States for 48 years and the law is good for another 20 or so. About the only ones pleased by the law are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
Speaking of the Rev. Sharpton, he was on the ABC nightly news tonight saying " that in the past they wore white sheets, now they wear black robes" referring to the Supreme Court. I'm sure those comments were not helpful to his cause .

[mightbe]

Yes, fine and dandy; we get what the VRA does and its somewhat redundant nature nowadays, but what were you pointing to with the 8 in 10 nonsense?

EDIT: I assume from your post that you'd either eliminate it or expand it nationwide. Which? I personally think that some of the protections should be extended nationwide, and perhaps amend to it other sections to curb the utter lack of efficiency at voting places we've seen election after election.

[mightbe]

To be clear, the preclearance as it stands is a bit cumbersome. While it may no longer really affect discriminatory practices, it would be decent to at least have it on the books. We've seen that certain changes were attempted this last election in the most unlikely of places. Usually not the covered ones. Even though they were ruled unconstitutional under Section 2, I'd prefer to have Section 5 encompass all states and territories. That way we'll never have to face it again.

[loki81]

it seems fair to me to challenge the Section 5 formula when it hasn't been updated in 30 years.

“The evil that Section 5 is meant to address may no longer be concentrated in the jurisdictions singled out for preclearance... The statute’s coverage formula is based on data that is now more than 35 years old, and there is considerable evidence that it fails to account for current political conditions. For example, the racial gap in voter registration and turnout is lower in the states originally covered by Section 5 than it is nationwide.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us...a-formula.html

Congress renewed the act in 2006 after holding extensive hearings on the persistence of racial discrimination at the polls, again extending the preclearance requirement for 25 years.

But it made no changes to the list of jurisdictions covered by Section 5, relying instead on a formula based on historical practices and voting data from elections held decades ago. It applies to nine states — Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia — and to scores of counties and municipalities in other states.

Should the court rule that Congress was not entitled to rely on outdated data to decide which jurisdictions should be covered, lawmakers could in theory go back to the drawing board and re-enact the law using fresher information.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/us...ights-act.html

[kayman23]

it seems fair to me to challenge the Section 5 formula when it hasn't been updated in 30 years.



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us...a-formula.html



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/us...ights-act.html

Think about it. It was renewed in 2006, and whom was in the majority and vetoing majority control of Congress? It kind of makes sense why rubberstamping occurred rather than methodical assessment and updating during that time.

[bankside]

Here's a really smart review of Scalia's disrespect for the constitution:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...ing-rights-act

Let us posit for the sake of argument that Mr Scalia’s cynicism is on target: American senators voted unanimously to extend the law in 2006 not because they found merit in its provisions but because they feared that a "no" vote would earn them condemnation as racists. What then? Should America trust its Supreme Court to bring a more careful, measured eye to the question? The tenor of the comments from the conservative justices suggests the answer is no. Consider the simplistic suggestion from the chief justice that because “the citizens in the South are [no] more racist than citizens in the North” we can safely ignore evidence that Southern states still systematically discriminate against minorities. Consider the ease with which Mr Scalia equated the guarantee of an equal right to vote with the concept of “racial entitlement”. And consider the failure of any justice to mention efforts in many of the covered states to depress voter turnout among minority voters in 2012. It remains highly questionable whether a majority of the Supreme Court is up to the task of diagnosing America's racial challenges.

Scalia doesn't suggest the law is ineffective or that there is a better way the government had a duty to consider, he actually thinks a guarantee of an equal right to vote is a racial perk.

What an odious contemptible man. He dishonours the office to which he was appointed.

[JockBoy87]

Anyways, gay forum or not, if Section 5 is retracted LGBTs of color could be adversely affected, so it is a gay issue.

If that were true, then every issue would be a gay issue, because there are gays among every nationality, race, religion, and creed.

You also speak as though you are not part of this forum, talking down to 'us' as though 'we' don't care, when clearly you are one of 'us' because you just posted about it. Also, I see there are lots of responses. Therefore, the forum does care.

That said, I'm glad you posted this thread. Scalia is a piece of shit.

[maxpowr9]

Again, voter IDs will be shot down because unless the US government provides IDs freely, it is considered a poll tax which is against the Constitution [want to say 16th Amendment].

[JockBoy87]

Again, voter IDs will be shot down because unless the US government provides IDs freely, it is considered a poll tax which is against the Constitution [want to say 16th Amendment].

The VRA doesn't discuss voter identification, and I think SCOTUS has decided in favor of an ID law in at least one state.

[maxpowr9]

The VRA doesn't discuss voter identification, and I think SCOTUS has decided in favor of an ID law in at least one state.

Curious as to which state. I have had this very conversation with non-New Englanders because I believe the only two states in the Union that have liquor IDs are MA and RI. We differentiate between a regular state ID and a liquor ID as those that have lost their driver's license from DUIs are not allowed to obtain a driver's license nor a liquor ID. For those without a driver's license but are a resident of the state, they can purchase a liquor ID to get into bars/clubs. Oh yes, we are required [not mandated by law but because of the way MA law is written, the liability is on the purveyor of alcohol] to card every single person. I have turned down seniors because they didn't have a valid ID. It sucks to do such a thing but blame the government for its policies. In fact, at my bar, we are told to turn away anyone with an out-of-state ID under the age of 25.

This is why I get a chuckle out of people clamoring for voter ID laws but imagine if they had to deal with the harsh liquor policies [drinking alcohol is not a right unlike voting] of MA. You can blame our huge college population in the Boston area for those policies.

/rant

[kayman23]

If that were true, then every issue would be a gay issue, because there are gays among every nationality, race, religion, and creed.

You also speak as though you are not part of this forum, talking down to 'us' as though 'we' don't care, when clearly you are one of 'us' because you just posted about it. Also, I see there are lots of responses. Therefore, the forum does care.

That said, I'm glad you posted this thread. Scalia is a piece of shit.

I appreciate your contribution to this important thread. If it is an issue that involves social inequities then it is an 'everybody issue" including LGBTs. Especially, considering the obscurity of LGBTs of color in general on the social issues front.

For whom I am talking to: the main ones always pulling their anti-black Obama-oriented shit out of their asses. I shouldn't have to name those individuals because they know whom they are and what they are doing.

Ironically, they have been more silent that a whore on the front pew of a church on this very issue.

[opinterph]

Curious as to which state.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24351798/n.../#.UTAWwo7pYqY

[maxpowr9]

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24351798/n.../#.UTAWwo7pYqY

That is why it wouldn't fly in MA. I am not familiar with others states if they do in fact charge their own citizens for IDs because then it is an indirect poll tax.

[mightbe]

What other states have strange ID laws? Wouldn't it be to the government's advantage to give out/register IDs as a standard procedure when people turn 18?

Like going to a courthouse, showing driver's license to confirm age, then get one federally-issued ID for free (replacements costing money). That wouldn't seem to be a poll tax--they got one for free, replacements aside.

[White Eagle]

The conservative SCOTUS is suspected of striking down Section Five of the Voting Rights Act, thus bringing back Jim Crow laws. The GOP will not stop until they have the dictator they are always blaming Obama of being one. There has to be a way to stop them.


http://consortiumnews.com/2013/02/28...supreme-court/

The Neo-Confederate Supreme Court
February 28, 2013

Exclusive: The Right’s desperation over U.S. demographic changes has spread to the U.S. Supreme Court where its five Republican partisans appear ready to tear up the most important part of the Voting Rights Act and thus clear the way for suppressing the votes of minorities, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

If white rule in the United States is to be restored and sustained, then an important first step will be the decision of the five Neo-Confederate justices on the U.S. Supreme Court to gut the Voting Rights Act, a move that many court analysts now consider likely.

[kevin23]

The conservative SCOTUS is suspected of striking down Section Five of the Voting Rights Act, thus bringing back Jim Crow laws. The GOP will not stop until they have the dictator they are always blaming Obama of being one. There has to be a way to stop them.


http://consortiumnews.com/2013/02/28...supreme-court/

Your assertion that "bringing back Jim Crow laws" has no basis and shows your ignorance reguarding the people of the South. This is not 1950. In general State agencies in the South give huge advantages to blacks over other races. From personal experience, I was told I could hire one person in a two person department, but only if they are black, which I did.
And since the federal justice department has been the overseerer of our elections since 1965 there is little chance of discrimination if there was intent to do so. I do not see that intent.

Ever think why the VRA only effected so few mostly southern states? Why did they not apply it to all states? If I were an extremest and racist I would argure that it was a continuation of the 1865 Reconstruction Act where the Federal government totally controlled the governments of the South for many years.

The truth is the South is very capable of running its government in a fair manner without Federal oversight.

[xbuzzerx]

Your assertion that "bringing back Jim Crow laws" has no basis and shows your ignorance reguarding the people of the South. This is not 1950. In general State agencies in the South give huge advantages to blacks over other races. From personal experience, I was told I could hire one person in a two person department, but only if they are black, which I did.
And since the federal justice department has been the overseerer of our elections since 1965 there is little chance of discrimination if there was intent to do so. I do not see that intent.

Ever think why the VRA only effected so few mostly southern states? Why did they not apply it to all states? If I were an extremest and racist I would argure that it was a continuation of the 1865 Reconstruction Act where the Federal government totally controlled the governments of the South for many years.

The truth is the South is very capable of running its government in a fair manner without Federal oversight.

Somebody didn't see black people waiting in line till past midnight to vote in states like Florida.

[loki81]

Somebody didn't see black people waiting in line till past midnight to vote in states like Florida.

and yet, Florida isn't covered by Section 5 of the VRA except for a couple counties... another reason why the formula needs to be updated?

[kayman23]

Your assertion that "bringing back Jim Crow laws" has no basis and shows your ignorance reguarding the people of the South. This is not 1950. In general State agencies in the South give huge advantages to blacks over other races. From personal experience, I was told I could hire one person in a two person department, but only if they are black, which I did.
And since the federal justice department has been the overseerer of our elections since 1965 there is little chance of discrimination if there was intent to do so. I do not see that intent.

Ever think why the VRA only effected so few mostly southern states? Why did they not apply it to all states? If I were an extremest and racist I would argure that it was a continuation of the 1865 Reconstruction Act where the Federal government totally controlled the governments of the South for many years.

The truth is the South is very capable of running its government in a fair manner without Federal oversight.

I would like to know which Southern states you have resided in. I have resided in a few in my adult years and some of them are quite clever at playing that game with the untrained eye not being able to connect the dots. My native state of Alabama comes to mind first and foremost on this from, and it is one of the main reasons why I relocated from there...

[JockBoy87]

I would like to know which Southern states you have resided in. I have resided in a few in my adult years and some of them are quite clever at playing that game with the untrained eye not being able to connect the dots. My native state of Alabama comes to mind first and foremost on this from, and it is one of the main reasons why I relocated from there...

I know recently an Alabama town controlled by whites cancelled a special local election when they realized it was majority black.

[bankside]

and yet, Florida isn't covered by Section 5 of the VRA except for a couple counties... another reason why the formula needs to be updated?

Is that formula best updated by the courts or should perhaps Congress have a say? And if Florida needs a law like this, and an updated formula, that kind of speaks against striking the law down, doesn't it?

I would have thought the states objecting should have pursued negotiation with the federal government rather than running to the courts.

[kayman23]

I know recently an Alabama town controlled by whites cancelled a special local election when they realized it was majority black.

Yeah, things of that nature still occurs elsewhere as well. However, in that case it was "rescheduled to another date".

[kayman23]

Is that formula best updated by the courts or should perhaps Congress have a say? And if Florida needs a law like this, and an updated formula, that kind of speaks against striking the law down, doesn't it?

I would have thought the states objecting should have pursued negotiation with the federal government rather than running to the courts.

The main idea behind this strategy is to kill the law because the current sitting Congress wouldn't pass such legislation any way, shape or fashion without months if not years of stalling it. All we have to do is see the just recently passed update of the "Violence Against Women" Act as an example. It was stalled for over a year.

This has become a calculated effort to oppress any group that are not heterosexual, cisgendered white males from full ability of having some type of rights and protections. Ironically, the main groups that supported the election and reelection of President Obama...

[JB3]

The conservative SCOTUS is suspected of striking down Section Five of the Voting Rights Act, thus bringing back Jim Crow laws. The GOP will not stop until they have the dictator they are always blaming Obama of being one. There has to be a way to stop them.


http://consortiumnews.com/2013/02/28...supreme-court/

I would rather have no law than a law that uses a 35 year old formula as an integral part of its enforcement mechanism. Most of their consternation (with the exception of Scalia) isn't due to the fact that section 5 exists, it has to do with the formula used as a part of it. They could (and very well may) strike that part down and say that congress must update the formula, and leave the rest of the law intact.

[JockBoy87]

I would rather have no law than a law that uses a 35 year old formula as an integral part of its enforcement mechanism. Most of their consternation (with the exception of Scalia) isn't due to the fact that section 5 exists, it has to do with the formula used as a part of it. They could (and very well may) strike that part down and say that congress must update the formula, and leave the rest of the law intact.

What will happen is instead of having administrative relief, those states will be defending themselves in court at great cost to taxpayers each time they discriminate based on race.

Those southern states have been itching since the day this law was passed to be able to suppress minority voters they way they want to once again.

[Vitamin]

After doing some research on the VRA of 1965 I have come to the conclusion that it is the most ridiculous, over-complicated legislation ever to come out of Washington.

For one thing, the idea that Section 5 only covers the South outside of Alaska and Arizona is a bald face lie. Notable states also covered by Section 5 include California, South Dakota, Michigan, New York, and New Hampshire. Notable states NOT covered by Section 5 include Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky. As a matter of fact it would appear these three former slave states aren't covered at all by the VRA.



Source: http://www.civilrights.org/voting-rights/vra/map.html

Will someone please explain to me in what universe voter suppression is more likely to occur in California then in Tennessee?

If this law really is the only thing standing in the way of minority voter suppression then it only makes sense to have it as a nationwide law. Even if the ludicrous idea that voter suppression would never happen anymore in Tennessee is true why should minorities let their voting rights be decided based on the whims and good graces of their white neighbors? As it stands right now the VRA makes a total mockery of Civil Rights, and our federal system. Make it nationwide.

[bankside]

I can't think of another country off the top of my head that does as bad a job of twisting its ridings into pretzels for partisan advantage. Canada is bad, subject to political interference, and we have some stupid constitutional provisions for the smallest provinces and territories that prevent the "one person one vote" principle from being applied. But we're amateurs at manipulating the boundaries compared to the States. Does this law relate to that problem at all?

[Durango95]

After doing some research on the VRA of 1965 I have come to the conclusion that it is the most ridiculous, over-complicated legislation ever to come out of Washington.

For one thing, the idea that Section 5 only covers the South outside of Alaska and Arizona is a bald face lie. Notable states also covered by Section 5 include California, South Dakota, Michigan, New York, and New Hampshire. Notable states NOT covered by Section 5 include Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky. As a matter of fact it would appear these three former slave states aren't covered at all by the VRA.



Source: http://www.civilrights.org/voting-rights/vra/map.html

Will someone please explain to me in what universe voter suppression is more likely to occur in California then in Tennessee?

If this law really is the only thing standing in the way of minority voter suppression then it only makes sense to have it as a nationwide law. Even if the ludicrous idea that voter suppression would never happen anymore in Tennessee is true why should minorities let their voting rights be decided based on the whims and good graces of their white neighbors? As it stands right now the VRA makes a total mockery of Civil Rights, and our federal system. Make it nationwide.

The intent of the law was never meant to be a remedy for discrimination or voter suppression. That is why it is, in fact, selective. This coupled with the CRA were grand sweeping socialist policies. Socialism is always selective. As a system it cannot be universally applied. It won't work that way.

[chrisrobin]

.
If the "legislators in robes" are going to nullify the VRA, they might as well resurrect literacy tests while
they're at it.

The Antonin (voting is an entitlement)* Scalia vision of America:



- Judge Thomas licking Scalia's boots -

*whites have had voting entitlement since 1776.

[Vitamin]

The intent of the law was never meant to be a remedy for discrimination or voter suppression. That is why it is, in fact, selective. This coupled with the CRA were grand sweeping socialist policies. Socialism is always selective. As a system it cannot be universally applied. It won't work that way.

Webster defines socialism as "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods". Please tell me what part of fighting voter suppression has to do with socialism.

[Kulindahr]

The truth is the South is very capable of running its government in a fair manner without Federal oversight.

Given that in a number of southern states blacks are more disenfranchised than at any time almost back to Reconstruction, that's a joke. The plot is hidden by not disenfranchising by race, but by things which apply to blacks more than others -- like the practice of not allowing felons to vote.

[JB3]

What will happen is instead of having administrative relief, those states will be defending themselves in court at great cost to taxpayers each time they discriminate based on race.

Those southern states have been itching since the day this law was passed to be able to suppress minority voters they way they want to once again.

I foresee no situation where the court will strike down the entire law, or say that it is no longer appropriate. They've hinted as much with their questions. I do see them striking down section 5, and congress quickly altering the law to use a more up to date formula.

[Durango95]

Given that in a number of southern states blacks are more disenfranchised than at any time almost back to Reconstruction, that's a joke. The plot is hidden by not disenfranchising by race, but by things which apply to blacks more than others -- like the practice of not allowing felons to vote.

All but one of the most segregated cities in the U.S. are located in other areas besides the south. Maybe you should think about that for a while.

Here's a link to one of your favorite sites...I'm sure:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...sauSuffolk_New

[GiancarloC]

That's beyond the point. Entire states are still very segregated in the South and opportunities are far less for minorities in the South. Perhaps think about that for a while.

[Kulindahr]

All but one of the most segregated cities in the U.S. are located in other areas besides the south. Maybe you should think about that for a while.

Here's a link to one of your favorite sites...I'm sure:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...sauSuffolk_New

Changing the subject?

BTW, I read Huffington slightly less often than people here reference it.