View Full Version : NAACP to challenge state voting laws before U.N. panel in Geneva
Apparently in the eyes of some the legal system in the US is inadequate to handle voting laws.....and no one should be required to provide proof of citizenship to vote.
If they are right in their thinking then that begs to question why we need drivers licenses, Concealed carry License, social security numbers, insurance cards, birth certificates, contractor license, proof of age for child activities, school districts, national & state borders, etc.
The professional black victim caucus, officially known as the NAACP, is going before a disgraced UN council to beg for help.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/naacp_seeks_help_from_racist_un_uYQdXKn9immfpRrmvC 7wJK#ixzz1pBWyByo2
NAACP president Benjamin Todd Jealous said Thursday. "Now, like then, the principal concern is voting rights. The past year more states in this country have passed more laws pushing more voters out of the ballot box than any point since Jim Crow."
http://bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view/20120311naacp_to_challenge_state_voting_laws_befor e_un_panel_in_geneva
The leadership of the United States' oldest and largest civil rights organization is in Geneva, pressing a meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council for help battling what the organization views as forces attempting to push back voting rights.
Four leaders from the NAACP and two citizens who say their voting rights have been threatened by laws requiring would-be voters to produce identification made statements before the meeting.
Thirty states have voter identification laws (a Wisconsin judge ruled this week that the state's law is unconstitutional), and seven of them, not including Wisconsin, were enacted last year.
The NAACP has been campaigning against what it sees as a wave of new Voter ID laws being pushed by states, and it released a report in December reviewing laws that have been passed in recent years. Proponents of such laws say they are necessary to prevent identity fraud at the polls and maintain that Americans should be used to the concept of having to produce identification to perform certain tasks, such as applying for a job or buying a home.
Roslyn Brock, NAACP board chairwoman, said, "As of December 2011, 14 U.S. states passed 25 measures designed to restrict or limit ballot access of voters of color, threatening to disenfranchise millions of eligible Americans. Furthermore, since January 2012, additional states have introduced measures that, if enacted, would result in the disenfranchisement of even more racial and ethnic minorities."
"We are here today because in the past 12 months, more U.S. states have passed more laws pushing more U.S. citizens out of the ballot box than in any year in the past century," NAACP President Ben Jealous said during the meeting. "Historically, when people have come after our right to vote, they have done so to make it easier to come after so many of our other rights that we hold dear."
During a conference call with reporters last week, Jealous said he hoped the NAACP presentations would prod the U.N. body into taking some sort of action.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/03/naacp-presses-un-panel-in-geneva-on-voting-rights/1#.T2HXxvWAo14
In related news the DOJ is objecting the State of Texas Voter ID Law:
Justice Department Voter ID opposition glaringly inconsistent with gun stance
By David Codrea, Gun Rights Examiner
“The Justice Department's civil rights division on Monday objected to a new photo ID requirement for voters in Texas because many Hispanic voters lack state-issued identification,” Pete Yost of Associated Press reported today.
DOJ Civil Rights Division head Thomas E. Perez, in a letter to the Texas Secretary of State, said he could not conclude the state’s newly-enacted voter ID law was not discriminatory, either in purpose or effect, Yost reports.
This is consistent with what Perez has maintained on previous occasions, as in his Dec. 23, 2011 letter to South Carolina’s Deputy Attorney General.
Where it’s inconsistent is with Justice’s position on enforcing gun laws. From Gun Rights Examiner’s January 17 column:
If Perez is correct, that lack of state-issued photo ID is 20% more likely to disenfranchise minorities from their right to vote, why would we not also believe it would have a similar effect on their right to purchase a firearm, as is specified on ATF’s Form 4473 requiring a driver’s license or “valid government issued photo identification,” and similar forms as proof of eligibility?
The government can’t have it both ways. By their own admission and actions, they consider a requirement to produce official photo identification as discriminatory, with a significant statistical impact on the enfranchisement of minority rights. Heller and McDonald leave no doubt that the Second Amendment articulates an individual right recognized by the federal government and applicable to the states, and it is the duty of the Department of Justice to ensure that denials of rights are prosecuted.
Likewise, state-issued identification is required to obtain concealed carry permits and to apply for registration/transfer of National Firearms Act weapons such as machine guns, short barrel firearms, destructive devices, AOWs, etc.
So the question now becomes why is the head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division tolerating, allowing and insisting on discrimination against minorities in general and Hispanics in particular when it comes to exercising their Second Amendment-recognized right to keep and bear arms?
And, of course, the answer is that the Obama/Holder Justice Department is hostile to that right, is racist in its application of the law, and is relying on fraudulent voter turnout to keep themselves and their fellow Democrats in power, assuming the incompetence of the Republicans at selecting a fire-in-the-belly principled candidate isn’t sufficient to let them win fair and square.
Continue reading on Examiner.com Justice Department Voter ID opposition glaringly inconsistent with gun stance - National gun rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/justice-department-voter-id-opposition-glaringly-inconsistent-with-gun-stance#ixzz1pBcqEV00
Hmmm, don't get it your way here...cry to higher.
One step closer to world gov't???? Looks like it.
So, how do people get all their benefits, apply for benefits, go to the bank, sign up for school, cash a check, get utilities etc etc without an ID????
I have to use one pretty much everyday...oh, wait a minute....I'm legal...
...and no one should be required to provide proof of citizenship to vote.
That's not what anyone is saying in these debates.
Richard :munchin
That's not what anyone is saying in these debates.
Richard :munchin
Maybe...
The NAACP has been campaigning against what it sees as a wave of new Voter ID laws being pushed by states
On December 5, 2011, the NAACP released a new report (http://www.naacp.org/pages/defending-democracy) revealing direct connections between the trend of increasing, unprecedented African American and Latino voter turnout and an onslaught of restrictive measures across the country designed to stem electoral strength among communities of color
According to NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. "Voting rights attacks are the flip side of buying a democracy. First you buy all the leaders you can, and then you suppress as many votes as possible of the people who might object."
Buying a Democracy was essentially what ACORN was doing with their vote drive, only they were trying to suppress the perceived oppositions votes by augmenting votes on their side.
So if you aren't required to prove who you are and where you live then anyone from citizens to foreign nationals, illegal aliens, Cartoon Characters, the Dead and pets can vote anywhere and as many times as they wish.
ddoering
03-15-2012, 07:06
The NAACP are community organizers aren't they? Why don't they organize to drive their currently unidentifiable voters to the f'ing DMV to get some I.D.?
When you were a little kid, and your Mama said you couldn't do something, didn't you ever go ask your Daddy? That's all they're doing.
When you were a little kid, and your Mama said you couldn't do something, didn't you ever go ask your Daddy? That's all they're doing.
Ben Jealous is of the same mind as Justice Ginsberg.
"The power of the U.N. on state governments historically is to shame them and to put pressure on the U.S. government to bring them into line with global standards, best practices for democracy,
The NAACP are community organizers aren't they? Why don't they organize to drive their currently unidentifiable voters to the f'ing DMV to get some I.D.?
Common sense there.
IMO, the point of the voter ID push is clearly not that citizens should be denied their right to vote - quite the opposite - lawfully registered voters should not have their validly cast vote cancelled by illegal votes.
Producing a valid ID at the poll certainly disenfranchises the dead, convicted felons and illegal immigrant voters.
The minor inconvenience of obtaining and producing a valid ID in order to protect the integrity of the voting process seems obvious enough - even to community organizers.
If the UN doesn't come through there is always the Grand Poobah of the Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes.
I wonder how many countries of the world allow a person to vote without solid identification?
I wonder how many countries of the world allow a person to vote without solid identification?
lol That's why the NAACP's petitioning the UN.
Streck-Fu
03-15-2012, 09:21
Ink the thumb of every voter that can't/won't provide ID.
PedOncoDoc
03-15-2012, 10:39
When you were a little kid, and your Mama said you couldn't do something, didn't you ever go ask your Daddy? That's all they're doing.
My kids get punished for trying that shit. It's a shame we can't do the same to the jackwagons trying this on an international level.
Streck-Fu
03-15-2012, 10:53
So the UN is a legitimate legislative authority over individual US states?
So the UN is a legitimate legislative authority over individual US states?
That answer might be contained in Leon Panetta's remark to Sen. Sessions the other day.
Secretary Panetta responded "Our goal would be to seek international permission, and we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this Whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress, I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here."
Streck-Fu
03-15-2012, 12:07
That answer might be contained in Leon Panetta's remark to Sen. Sessions the other day.
I mean, with regards to addressing grievances with the states, the UN is somehow, now, supposed to be a governing body.
That's not what anyone is saying in these debates.
Richard :munchin
From AP:
The Justice Department conveyed its objection in a letter to Texas officials that was also filed in the U.S. District Court case in Washington between Texas and the department. Justice said Hispanic voters in Texas are at least 50 percent more likely and possibly more than twice as likely as non-Hispanic voters to lack a driver's license or a personal state-issued photo ID, which the Texas law requires.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/state&id=8577315
Since the constitution itself doesn't guarantee a right to vote, one has to look, mostly, at the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As I am sure you are aware, the intent of this act was to stop discrimination against blacks. I think the spirit of the law is to remove barriers to access (my opinion). However, if one presumes that at the heart of voting, here in America, is a requirement to be a citizen, why is it unreasonable to insist that the individual casting the vote is who he says he is and is an American citizen? To me, this would infer less a picture ID and more a birth certificate or certificate of naturalization as proof.
just a thought.
PedOncoDoc
03-15-2012, 12:42
Liberal groups say the push for these requirements is led by Republicans aiming to disenfranchise people who tend to vote Democratic -- African-Americans, Hispanics, the poor and college students
Show me a college student without a photo ID.
It relied on the two Texas-supplied lists for the estimates of 175,000 and 304,000 registered Hispanic Texas voters who do not have driver's licenses or state-issued IDs.
I'd like to see from where these numbers were obtained - it sounds way too high of a numbers of people legally residing in the state without photo ID. They also don't mention the potential number of illegals in the state who might be encouraged to vote illegally in counterpoint.
Show me a college student without a photo ID.
I'd like to see from where these numbers were obtained - it sounds way too high of a numbers of people legally residing in the state without photo ID. They also don't mention the potential number of illegals in the state who might be encouraged to vote illegally in counterpoint.
My point is only that it is not unreasonable to ask the person casting a vote to prove his citizenship (American). Since many states grant ID, and even a drivers license, to non residents, I would require something more stringent (US passport, certified birth certificate or certificate of naturalization) and would allow nothing else.
PedOncoDoc
03-15-2012, 13:00
My point is only that it is not unreasonable to ask the person casting a vote to prove his citizenship (American). Since many states grant ID, and even a drivers license, to non residents, I would require something more stringent (US passport, certified birth certificate or certificate of naturalization) and would allow nothing else.
I think an easier solution is to put a label on all state-issued photo ID's identfying the person as either a U.S. citizen (born, naturalized, whatever) or non-resident. How much extra could that possibly cost? (Do I want to hear the answer to that question?)
Would you rather your voting rights were threatened by a law or by a Black Panther?
How would a mandate for voter identification co-exist with the notion of secret ballots?
As redistricting is an issue of growing concern, will giving professional political operatives access to more precise data of how people vote help or hinder efforts to curtail gerrymandering?
How would proposed voter identification legislation impact absentee voters--including members of the armed services deployed oversees?
If states start passing laws that place the burden of proof on citizens that they're not committing a crime by exercising their basic rights, when/where does the dynamic stop?
FWIW, those who do not automatically take the commentary of a broadsheet run by a corporation that facilitates the hacking of cellphones (http://news.yahoo.com/timeline-news-corp-phone-hacking-scandal-141131859.html) at face value, and are interested in the NAACP's stated intent, that organization's press release on the matter is available here (http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/naacp-brings-u.s.-voting-rights-problems-before-un-human-rights-commission).
Or, we can just keep reading Drudge Report and let Mr. Murdoch et al. wind us up. IIRC, that approach worked wonders in 2008.:rolleyes:
The Reaper
03-15-2012, 20:37
How would a mandate for voter identification co-exist with the notion of secret ballots?
As redistricting is an issue of growing concern, will giving professional political operatives access to more precise data of how people vote help or hinder efforts to curtail gerrymandering?
How would proposed voter identification legislation impact absentee voters--including members of the armed services deployed oversees?
If states start passing laws that place the burden of proof on citizens that they're not committing a crime by exercising their basic rights, when/where does the dynamic stop?
FWIW, those who do not automatically take the commentary of a broadsheet run by a corporation that facilitates the hacking of cellphones (http://news.yahoo.com/timeline-news-corp-phone-hacking-scandal-141131859.html) at face value, and are interested in the NAACP's stated intent, that organization's press release on the matter is available here (http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/naacp-brings-u.s.-voting-rights-problems-before-un-human-rights-commission).
Or, we can just keep reading Drudge Report and let Mr. Murdoch et al. wind us up. IIRC, that approach worked wonders in 2008.:rolleyes:
Sigaba:
Have you ever seen an absentee ballot?
TR
Horned Frog
03-15-2012, 20:40
I have a lot of respect for Sigaba's posts. Thanks for asking thoughtful questions.
I don't know the answers to most of them, but they tend to make me do some research until I have some ideas.
If states start passing laws that place the burden of proof on citizens that they're not committing a crime by exercising their basic rights, when/where does the dynamic stop?
Your basic presumption is flawed. You assume that everyone that presents themselves at the ballot are citizens. Physical presence doesn't equate to citizenship.
If states start passing laws that place the burden of proof on citizens that they're not committing a crime by exercising their basic rights, when/where does the dynamic stop?
That is a very good question and it is definitely a concern. However, as we have witnessed with the ACORN scandal(s) and service members Absentee Ballot fiasco's this is a knife that can cuts both when left unchecked.
From my reading of the NAACP report it would appear that if the States efforts are curtailed there would remain many loopholes which would likely result in maintaining the status quo of subverting our election system.
ddoering
03-16-2012, 04:21
Much like when the IRS required all children to have an SSN at which time 11 million tax deductions disappeared I believe you would see the same effect when photo ID is required to vote.
Our country is as corrupt as any other. The only difference is here our corrupt officials wear suits, smile while they are screwing you, and have spin doctors to tell you its for your own good.
I have a lot of respect for Sigaba's posts. Thanks for asking thoughtful questions.
I don't know the answers to most of them, but they tend to make me do some research until I have some ideas.
Sigaba's OK; just don't ask him what time it is. You'll get a history of the measurement of time from sundial to Seiko. :D
If states start passing laws that place the burden of proof on citizens that they're not committing a crime by exercising their basic rights, when/where does the dynamic stop?
When considering government(s) passing laws placing the burden of proof on citizens exercising their "basic rights" ...have you ever completed a Form 4473?
A government issued photo ID is certainly involved with exercising that basic right.
Have you watched the "O'Keefe" link(video) posted by SF-TX posted in thread below? ...IMO, a good take...
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37129
"James O'Keefe has released an undercover video that documents the absurdity of not requiring ID to vote. He also confronts bartenders and a hotel receptionist on their ID requirements. The exchange with the hotel receptionist is comical."
Video (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/13/EXCLUSIVE%20OKeefes%20Project%20Veritas%20Exposes% 20Voter%20Fraud%20In%20VT%20Primary)
Another thing I heard on the news. The "concerned people" who say that a photo ID would curtail certain folks from being able to vote say they don't have the means to be able to go get an ID card...
Well, how the hell do they have the means to show up at a voting booth???
Why doesn't the concerned organization round up some vans, bring them to the appropriate agency, and get them issued some damn ID's???
Go figure..
Why doesn't the concerned organization round up some vans, bring them to the appropriate agency, and get them issued some damn ID's???
Go figure..
They are saving the gas for rounding them up and chauffeuring them to the voting booth.
Anything Texas does regarding voting deserves a good long look. In 1960 elections were stolen by the "graveyard vote" Since then it has gotten a lot more sophisticated. The redistricting directed by Tom Delay in 2003 was determined by the career lawyers at the FEC as absolutely illegal. They were over ridden by the political appointees. Even loyal (real) Republicans in the state were disgusted by Delay's antics. Other tactics have been confusion as to voting sites. Hourly wage guy and you go to your normal voting site only to find it has been moved 20 minutes away. Get there and the line is around the block. In MY neighborhood, the voting site is right in my subdivision-easy to get to going to or coming from work. Never waited more than 2-3 minutes. Lot shorter lines in GOP neighbor hoods. And we all have cars!. These activities do go on. Now, how loud are those who are benefitting today going to scream when the tables are reversed? Bottom line for me, the voter ID law in MY state is first and formost to limit voting and preserve the GOP power base. As a long time Republican I find that disgusting and stupid. Cause guess what? Anybody who thinks Texas is always going to be a "Red State" is a fool of the highest order!! Look at the demographics. Last time I checked the 5 largest cities all have Democratic mayors.
http://www.chron.com/default/article/Crossbones-showing-up-a-year-early-2247541.php
One recent article
As redistricting is an issue of growing concern, will giving professional political operatives access to more precise data of how people vote help or hinder efforts to curtail gerrymandering?
MOO: Won't make much of a difference. Politics is a business, and a lucrative one at that. Professional "pole critters" will always find a way to buy their voting block, and the special interests will keep on giving, it's a very expensive two way street, with the tax payers footing the bill. Considering that the district I live in is number one on the NY chopping block in the *current* redistricting fight, I have some skin in this game. The little research I have done shows that the entrenched incumbents have many ways of determining their needed demographics, or they make it that way, regardless of voting records...
My .002
Anything Texas does regarding voting deserves a good long look. In 1960 elections were stolen by the "graveyard vote" Since then it has gotten a lot more sophisticated. The redistricting directed by Tom Delay in 2003 was determined by the career lawyers at the FEC as absolutely illegal. They were over ridden by the political appointees. Even loyal (real) Republicans in the state were disgusted by Delay's antics. Other tactics have been confusion as to voting sites. Hourly wage guy and you go to your normal voting site only to find it has been moved 20 minutes away. Get there and the line is around the block. In MY neighborhood, the voting site is right in my subdivision-easy to get to going to or coming from work. Never waited more than 2-3 minutes. Lot shorter lines in GOP neighbor hoods. And we all have cars!. These activities do go on. Now, how loud are those who are benefitting today going to scream when the tables are reversed? Bottom line for me, the voter ID law in MY state is first and formost to limit voting and preserve the GOP power base. As a long time Republican I find that disgusting and stupid. Cause guess what? Anybody who thinks Texas is always going to be a "Red State" is a fool of the highest order!! Look at the demographics. Last time I checked the 5 largest cities all have Democratic mayors.
Maybe, but are we supposed to take your word for it? Not a shred of proof to back up your many assertions as to the corrupt Texas system. I guess you made your way around to all polling sites and conducted your own exit polls and surveys throughout the entire state? Your post was one, long biased rant. At least have the objectivity to cite non partisan survey's or something.:boohoo
Stargazer
03-16-2012, 09:17
I am not red or blue but rather an independent. I don't reside in Texas but live in a state that requires photo ID. Yes, people that don't take the proper steps before heading to the polls to cast a vote may fall short of their objective. Those are personal choices and has nothing to do with discrimination based on gender or race.
The actions of the NAACP is laughable... the whole reason is to "shame" the states.... SHAME... How plausible is it to go before the United Nations Human Rights Council to "argue that new voting laws approved by some U.S. states violate civil and human rights by suppressing the votes of minorities and others." I don't need to tell the individuals on this forum who sits around that table....
MOO, at the end of the day it boils down to how one sees the responsibility of self and government. Which is why I believe there should be steps taken to ensure the one casting a vote, is eligible.
I think voting for the exeutive and legislators of this great republic is important and should not be done lightly. If an individual is unwilling to take ownership/due diligence before casting their vote..... well, they flushed away the opportunity to do so, and NO ONE denied them that right.
I am not red or blue but rather an independent. I don't reside in Texas but live in a state that requires photo ID. Yes, people that don't take the proper steps before heading to the polls to cast a vote may fall short of their objective. Those are personal choices and has nothing to do with discrimination based on gender or race.
The actions of the NAACP is laughable... the whole reason is to "shame" the states.... SHAME... How plausible is it to go before the United Nations Human Rights Council to "argue that new voting laws approved by some U.S. states violate civil and human rights by suppressing the votes of minorities and others." I don't need to tell the individuals on this forum who sits around that table....
MOO, at the end of the day it boils down to how one sees the responsibility of self and government. Which is why I believe there should be steps taken to ensure the one casting a vote, is eligible.
I think voting for the exeutive and legislators of this great republic is important and should not be done lightly. If an individual is unwilling to take ownership/due diligence before casting their vote..... well, they flushed away the opportunity to do so, and NO ONE denied them that right.
That's an outstanding way to put it. :cool:
jrygalski
03-16-2012, 10:00
Voter ID cards, much like voter registration cards, are only to prove eligibility to vote.
They are not meant to identify anyone by party, or preference.
The identification process stops where the line to step into a voting booth starts. The two transactions are not conncected and the way a person votes is still only known by them. The machine, last time I voted, did not ask me any identifying information and with that, my votes are not traceable to me...
I need to prove I live in my county just to use the landfill (aka Dump). Everyone does or they do not get in the gate. Why is the NAACP not bitchin about that? And "To hell with them" for thinking that I am going to be forced to act or live by anything the UN does/says/attempts to mandate. I've worn that blue beret before and hated every f-ing minute of it...
my .02
Ben Jealous wraps Voter Rights all together with NOW, Tree Huggers, Big Labor and Big Education.....that was a big part of the Obama 2008 Campaign!
This campaign isn't about rights or equality, to the contrary it is an attack on voting rights by limiting checks and balances and about getting a leg up n the competition....Ben Jealous's quote in red say's it all.
"It's been more than a century since we've seen such a tidal wave of assaults on the right to vote. Historically, when voting rights are attacked, it's done to facilitate attacks on other rights. It is no mistake that the groups who are behind this are simultaneously attacking very basic women's rights, environmental protections, labor rights, and educational access for working people and minorities," said NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. "Voting rights attacks are the flip side of buying a democracy. First you buy all the leaders you can, and then you suppress as many votes as possible of the people who might object."
http://www.naacp.org/pages/defending-democracy
Horned Frog
03-16-2012, 11:06
The identification process stops where the line to step into a voting booth starts. The two transactions are not conncected and the way a person votes is still only known by them. The machine, last time I voted, did not ask me any identifying information and with that, my votes are not traceable to me...
Reminds me of this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFBN_JgXHdg&feature=related
"...in America we vote for the right guy!"
:D
How would a mandate for voter identification co-exist with the notion of secret ballots?
As redistricting is an issue of growing concern, will giving professional political operatives access to more precise data of how people vote help or hinder efforts to curtail gerrymandering?
You're required to sign your name on the ballots you cast in your locale, Sig?
Voter ID cards, much like voter registration cards, are only to prove eligibility to vote.
They are not meant to identify anyone by party, or preference.
The identification process stops where the line to step into a voting booth starts. The two transactions are not conncected and the way a person votes is still only known by them. The machine, last time I voted, did not ask me any identifying information and with that, my votes are not traceable to me...
I need to prove I live in my county just to use the landfill (aka Dump). Everyone does or they do not get in the gate. Why is the NAACP not bitchin about that? And "To hell with them" for thinking that I am going to be forced to act or live by anything the UN does/says/attempts to mandate. I've worn that blue beret before and hated every f-ing minute of it...
my .02
I have often wondered about this, as the line where you check in and wait for the next available booth records who you are on a computer. Then you wait, until directed to the open booth. At least that is how they do it here, there really isn't much of a line after you check in, but with all the computers and software there has to be time stamps. If that is the case, I think someone might be able to see how an individual voted if they wanted to by coordinating the timestamps on the two computers (the check in computer and booth or many booths) with the next open booth and the next person in line.
FWIW, I read the current situation like this:
1. It's an election year.
2. Some states (e.g., Texas and South Carolina) have a long-standing and well-documented history of seeking to disenfranchise voters through legislation (and other means), and, therefore, have to 'prove' to the DOJ that any new laws are not seeking to continue that tradition - it seems as if the DOJ thinks the arguments for the new laws may not yet meet that "burden of proof" on the part of those states and is asking for further clarification before approving them.
3. It's an election year.
4. However it turns out, one thing seems fairly certain to me, it's an election year and the over-abundance of politicians, reporters, and talking heads filling the airwaves and the blogosphere with their 24/7 "In my opinion..." programs, utterances, and postings will certainly ensure it gets plenty of visibility.
5. It's an election year.
6. Whenever there is power, money and prestige involved, people will try to somehow subvert whatever the "system" may be for their personal gain, and even when all "reasonable" precautions may be taken, it seems as if there's always something which leads to a challenging of the "fairness" of the process...like those irritable "hanging chad" things and ACORN practices, for instance...
7. Did I say it's an election year. ;)
And so it goes...during an election year...
Richard :munchin
FWIW, I read the current situation like this:
1. It's an election year.
2. Some states (e.g., Texas and South Carolina) have a long-standing and well-documented history of seeking to disenfranchise voters through legislation (and other means), and, therefore, have to 'prove' to the DOJ that any new laws are not seeking to continue that tradition - it seems as if the DOJ thinks the arguments for the new laws may not yet meet that "burden of proof" on the part of those states and is asking for further clarification before approving them.
3. It's an election year.
4. However it turns out, one thing seems fairly certain to me, it's an election year and the over-abundance of politicians, reporters, and talking heads filling the airwaves and the blogosphere with their 24/7 "In my opinion..." programs, utterances, and postings will certainly ensure it gets plenty of visibility.
5. It's an election year.
6. Whenever there is power, money and prestige involved, people will try to somehow subvert whatever the "system" may be for their personal gain, and even when all "reasonable" precautions may be taken, it seems as if there's always something which leads to a challenging of the "fairness" of the process...like those irritable "hanging chad" things and ACORN practices, for instance...
7. Did I say it's an election year. ;)
And so it goes...during an election year...
Richard :munchin
The Repubs don't want The Dems to unfairly stack votes. Remember ACORN? That was a Dem organization. The Repubs don't have an ACORN. (Which is now OWS.)
The Left knows the only way it could possibly get the incumbent elected is by doing everything it can to get all the "entitlement" and illegal alien votes possible, because the college kids who got hoodwinked last election grew up; the current batch doesn't seem to have as acute a case of Obama flu.
Stargazer
03-17-2012, 10:32
Is it an election year? :D
I interpret the intent of "The Voting Rights Act of 1965" to stop states from discriminating against United States citizens. There are constitutional 'experts' that argue this act is an over reach of authority at the federal level. In 2006, President G.W. Bush amended the Act thereby extending it for 25 years.
Georgia is required to seek preclearance and wasn't denied implementation of a photo ID by the DOJ. Why? Could it be DOJ are political too? Doesn't that establish precedent (which this admin so often cites as justification for their actions)? Other states that are on watch require ID (not photo) to prove citizenship. Why did the DOJ preclear these changes? My thought is because requiring proof of citizenship is not only within the states authority, it is their responsibility. Last I knew, we were a nation of laws, although I admit the lines seem to be getting fogger.....
My take on the situation, is the DOJ is misusing the authority given to them under "The Voting Rights Act of 1965" because it's an election year. That the NAACP is part of a orchestrated movement by the incumbent's political machine to influence minority and female voters because it's an election year. I am tired of politics and politicans being excused for bad behavior and misuse of authority, even when it's not an election year.
I still see no viable argument for not requiring a citizen to prove he is a citizen in order to vote. You have to show picture ID to buy alcohol, cigarettes, rent a hotel room, buy property, open and use bank accounts, get and use welfare services and any number of other things. To me, there is no valid argument to the contrary EXCEPT allowing people to vote who should not be able to.
It might be of interest to some to read what the DOJ has to say and try to keep it all in context among their numerous on-going efforts regarding our voting rights.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/opa/pr/speeches/2011/crt-speech-111201.html
We have received numerous inquiries about recently enacted state laws relating to voter identification requirements, voter registration requirements, and changes to early voting procedures. We are carefully reviewing these laws, and a number of the provisions have been enacted in states that are covered by Section 5. Texas and South Carolina have enacted laws establishing new photo identification requirements. We are currently reviewing these submissions. In both cases, our initial view was that the states did not submit enough information to allow us to determine whether they had met their burden of proving that the changes were not discriminatory. We requested more information from both Texas and South Carolina, and our review of those photo ID laws remains ongoing.
Reading the numerous month-by-month press releases found here can also be educational in both a macro and micro sense.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/March/index.html
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
It might be of interest to some to read what the DOJ has to say and try to keep it all in context among their numerous on-going efforts regarding our voting rights.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/opa/pr/speeches/2011/crt-speech-111201.html
We have received numerous inquiries about recently enacted state laws relating to voter identification requirements, voter registration requirements, and changes to early voting procedures. We are carefully reviewing these laws, and a number of the provisions have been enacted in states that are covered by Section 5. Texas and South Carolina have enacted laws establishing new photo identification requirements. We are currently reviewing these submissions. In both cases, our initial view was that the states did not submit enough information to allow us to determine whether they had met their burden of proving that the changes were not discriminatory. We requested more information from both Texas and South Carolina, and our review of those photo ID laws remains ongoing.
Reading the numerous month-by-month press releases found here can also be educational in both a macro and micro sense.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/March/index.html
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
The DOJ. Hmmm. Is that the same agency that wouldn't prosecute the New Black Panther party for voter intimidation because the perps were black? :mad:
Stargazer
03-17-2012, 13:26
Dusty -- that thought occurred to me as I was reading Mr. Perez's release. I had been to the DOJ site before when looking for answers to my questions. Actually, the release from Mr Perez I had not read. MOO, it supports my prior statement regarding the political-ness of this administration.
Texas submitted the required preclearance request in July of 2011. They also requested 'expedited' consideration(by August 20, 2011) in order to meet statutory requirements in September of 2011. http://brennan.3cdn.net/d222bc3e6149e2a206_ljm6i3t0w.pdf
Here is a link to a site I came across when looking for the original preclearance submissions. Got a little more than I was looking for.. :D ...clearly a source that cannot be accused of having 'conservative' leanings. http://www.brennancenter.org/content/pages/voter_id_and_the_voting_rights_act
In both cases, our initial view was that the states did not submit enough information to allow us to determine whether they had met their burden of proving that the changes were not discriminatory.
Unless Texas says that blacks and hispanics must have photo ID but not whites (which they are not), what more info would they need? They are complicating what is not complicated. period.
The DOJ. Hmmm. Is that the same agency that wouldn't prosecute the New Black Panther party for voter intimidation because the perps were black? :mad:
Hyperbolic misperception vs judicial reality?
Investigation of Dismissal of Defendants in United States v. New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, Inc., et al
17 Mar 2011
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52515892/Department-of-Justice-OPR-Report-on-the-New-Black-Panther-Party-Matter
Richard :munchin
http://abusivediscretion.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/black-panther-voter-intimidation-prosecutor-resigns-justice-dept-failure-to-prosecute-part-of-political-pattern-of-obama-hostility-towards-racial-neutrality-in-civil-rights/
A top-level, career prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice, J. Christian Adams, has resigned his post in protest against alleged racially biased enforcement of federal voting rights laws under Obama Attorney General, Eric Holder. The final straw was “untruthful” testimony given by an Obama political appointee about the merits of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case in Pennsylvania.
Adams summarized the case that he and other lawyers won in court, but which Holder didn’t want to follow through to a final judgment:
On Election Day 2008, armed men wearing the uniforms and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were posted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, at the entrance to a polling site. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters. After the election, the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice brought a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and these armed thugs. I, and other Justice lawyers, obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the case against them.
Hyperbolic misperception vs judicial reality?
Investigation of Dismissal of Defendants in United States v. New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, Inc., et al
17 Mar 2011
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52515892/Department-of-Justice-OPR-Report-on-the-New-Black-Panther-Party-Matter
Richard :munchin
I couldn't get it to download. Should I be paranoid? :D
What does it say? Are you defending the DOJ?
Sigaba:
Have you ever seen an absentee ballot?
TRTR--
Yes. Most often, I vote by absentee ballot. Residents of California submit the ballot in an envelope which the voter signs.
The point of my question on absentee ballots is to encourage discussion of unintended consequences. If one political party comes to understand that men and women in the armed services generally cast their ballots for opposing parties, why wouldn't they push the photo ID requirement to make it more difficult for servicepersons to cast absentee votes?
On paper, the requirements could appear to be no big deal--just like those who support Texas's proposed law say--but when it comes time to put the law into practice, it could be enough of an inconvenience to influence disproportionately the voting behavior of servicepersons stationed away from home. Sorry, we need your photo ID checked by someone authorized by the registrar of your county. Or, Sorry, we need an official photo identification from your home state. Oh, you left that back home? Well, the law is the law.
Your basic presumption is flawed. You assume that everyone that presents themselves at the ballot are citizens. Physical presence doesn't equate to citizenship.QP sinjefe--
With respect, that is not my presumption. My assumption is that most who present themselves to vote are citizens. My question centers around the short-, intermediate-, and long-term consequences of making those who belong prove that they do.
You're required to sign your name on the ballots you cast in your locale, Sig?QP Razor--
As noted above, I sign the envelope in which I put my absentee ballot, not the ballot itself. MOO, this is a significant distinction.
Dusty:
It's the "Office of Professional Responsibility" investigation into the NBPP voter intimidation case in 2009. It is unbelievable. They concluded that the case was dropped because of reasonable concerns by two bureaucrats named Rosenbaum and King that there wasn't evidence to make it work, so there was no wrongdoing.
Then it goes for 70 odd pages to describe exactly how there was plenty of evidence, and Rosenbaum and King went against the investigation team's recommendations.
It says this was a sweetheart pitch voter intimidation case, and the team presenting the case and its immediate superiors thought it was not just winnable but uncontroversially so under 11(b).
Then higher superiors in the "front office" named Rosenbaum and King stomped on it till it died. King said she thought the suit should have never been filed. The team responded the concerns from Rosenbaum with answers to each one- he wanted to say it was a 1st amendment issue, wasn't supported by enough case law, needed (more) people to personally complain of being intimidated, on and on. (Around page 35 is where this sequence begins.)
The team head, Coates, started to think Rosenbaum and King just didn't want to prosecute the NBPP, likely due to personal beliefs.
You pretty much know the rest already. Hopefully that saved you from reading it yourself and risking a stroke.
Dusty:
The team head, Coates, started to think Rosenbaum and King just didn't want to prosecute the NBPP, likely due to personal beliefs.
Really? Well, I'll be...
It is unbelievable.
For anyone who actually reads the OPR report, that summary and conclusion you posted certainly is. :eek:
Richard :munchin
For anyone who actually reads the OPR report, that summary and conclusion you posted certainly is. :eek:
Richard :munchin
lol Bro, if I didn't know better, I'd swear you were a liberal.
For anyone who actually reads the OPR report, that summary and conclusion you posted certainly is.
Richard
Dusty:
It's the "Office of Professional Responsibility" investigation into the NBPP voter intimidation case in 2009. It is unbelievable. They concluded that the case was dropped because of reasonable concerns by two bureaucrats named Rosenbaum and King that there wasn't evidence to make it work, so there was no wrongdoing.
Then it goes for 70 odd pages to describe exactly how there was plenty of evidence, and Rosenbaum and King went against the investigation team's recommendations.
It says this was a sweetheart pitch voter intimidation case, and the team presenting the case and its immediate superiors thought it was not just winnable but uncontroversially so under 11(b).
Then higher superiors in the "front office" named Rosenbaum and King stomped on it till it died. King said she thought the suit should have never been filed. The team responded the concerns from Rosenbaum with answers to each one- he wanted to say it was a 1st amendment issue, wasn't supported by enough case law, needed (more) people to personally complain of being intimidated, on and on. (Around page 35 is where this sequence begins.)
The team head, Coates, started to think Rosenbaum and King just didn't want to prosecute the NBPP, likely due to personal beliefs.
You pretty much know the rest already. Hopefully that saved you from reading it yourself and risking a stroke.
Richard:
Which part specifically do you disagree with?
The report explicitly stated the team in charge of the case thought it should be pursued, that they answered the "concerns" of the bureaucrats with reasonable strategies, that King specifically said the case shouldn't have been filed, Coates and Popper asked if it would have been pursued if it were a KKK case, that Becker thought it was a solid case, etc.
I didn't make it up. :confused:
What's your summary?
Maybe the lawyers can do a better job. Tony, RL, 550?
Nothing "self defense" about it.
If it was white dudes in KKK outfits outside a voting station in AL doing the same thing you think Obama's boys would have reached the same conclusion?
Nothing "self defense" about it.
If it was white dudes in KKK outfits outside a voting station in AL doing the same thing you think Obama's boys would have reached the same conclusion?
Ooh! Ooh! (waving hand, scrunched up on one buttcheek in the school chair) I know this one!
No.
I still see no viable argument for not requiring a citizen to prove he is a citizen in order to vote. You have to show picture ID to buy alcohol, cigarettes, rent a hotel room, buy property, open and use bank accounts, get and use welfare services and any number of other things. To me, there is no valid argument to the contrary EXCEPT allowing people to vote who should not be able to.
Totally agree, Jefe. Should be SOP.
The point of my question is...to encourage discussion of unintended consequences.
...Could the unintended consequence of having no ID requirement - result in some dead, convicted felons or illegal immigrants casting ballots that disenfranchise otherwise legal voters - by canceling out the legal voter's duly cast ballots?
With respect to voter IDs - does the benefit of protecting the integrity of our election process (i.e., only legal voters vote) outweigh the minimal burden of presenting a valid photo ID? Particularly, when the use of valid IDs for even relatively mundane matters (a hotel room, cigarette, beer, Sudafed...etc., etc.,) is the norm, not the exception?
The fact of the matter is that while Republicans might exaggerate the threat of in-person voter fraud, the Democrats exaggerate the threat of voter ID laws. But, common sense suggests that the benefits of presenting a valid ID probably outweighs the possible burdens and imagined harm.
I hold out little hope for a common sense solution from this administration and its supporters - IMO, the evidence suggests to me in a number of instances - that the hyper-politicized Holder is not interested in what is best for this country - it is easier to create imagined bogey men that will take note of our ID's at the time of casting our secret ballot...or...are the Dems and Holder telegraphing something?
The Reaper
03-17-2012, 19:27
Nothing "self defense" about it.
If it was white dudes in KKK outfits outside a voting station in AL doing the same thing you think Obama's boys would have reached the same conclusion?
Of course not.
There is no such thing as black racism. Only whitey can do that.
Just ask the POTUS and AG.
This isn't about justice. It is about collecting votes and buying off voters, legal or otherwise.
If those "undocumented" voters were Republicans, voter ID would be required by law in all 50 states already.
If the armed poll-protectors were from a white supremacist group, they would be tried, convicted, and incarcerated by now.
TR
The short video embedded in the story might be worth a look.
NBC2 Investigates: Voter fraud
Excerpts from NBC2
By Andy Pierrotti, NBC2 Investigator
Posted: Feb 02, 2012 2:34 PM EST
Updated:*Feb 02, 2012 6:32 PM EST
Two elections supervisors are taking action after an NBC2 investigation uncovers flawed record keeping and human error allowing people who are not citizens of the United States to vote.
No one knows how widespread this problem is, because county election supervisors have no way to track non-citizens who live here.
So NBC2 did something election officials never thought to do, and found them on our own.
"I vote every year," Hinako Dennett told NBC2.
The Cape Coral resident*is not a*US citizen, yet she's registered to vote.
"It could be very serious. It could change the whole complexion of an election," said Harrington.
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/16662854/2012/02/02/nbc2-investigates-voter-fraud
What's your summary?
The OPR report shows that there was disagreement among the attorneys directly involved in the matter over the validity and strength of some of the evidence obtained, and the decision makers within the civil rights division - all experienced attorneys themselves - decided that the evidence presented, upon review, supported the pursuit of a case against a single individual IAW the existant civil rights legislation but did not support a more generic case against the NBPP and its leadership.
After reading the report and with my limited legal experiences, it seems a logical conclusion to me, too.
Richard :munchin
So the idea of an injunction against a political hate group bringing weapons or thugs within 200 feet of a polling location as a result of clear voter intimidation, announced beforehand and endorsed afterwards by group leadership, seems like... Not a job for the DOJ in your eyes?
Concluding that if two experts disagree the truth must lie in the middle is the gray fallacy, isn't it? It looked to me as though the team was arguing that the group v individual liability question could be solved in court by pointing out that the 'disclaimer' on the NBPP website against individual actions would be no defense when they showed leadership support before and after for their polling thugs.
I read the report while placing myself in the shoes of each individual- I can't conclude that nothing but an appreciation for the fine letter of the law played any part in dismissing the case. Slapping the foot soldier on the wrist isn't relief from the NBPP self proclaimed widespread efforts to send thugs to hundreds of polling locations. One could even imagine a judge inferring that the NBPP stated purpose, to offset all the white supremacists standing around intimidating voters, is an admission to intent of voter intimidation.
It was hard to tell if the law has changed to reflect that in voter intimidation cases actors will be understood to intend the natural consequences of their actions, or if that is a suggested change that hasn't happened.
What would happen if you and I put on SS uniforms and stood near a polling location, say in Texas, and talked about the 4th reich and how much we like being white? How about in Atlanta? what if we got official backing from the local Nazi group?
My mother, an attorney, told me once that the law is not a hard, straight line. It's a loose string, and we pull it this way and that way to put things on one side or the other.
What was the incentive of the DOJ to err deliberately on the dismissal side? Why not let the judge have a peek at it? Does the department feed them less if they lose a case? Can the lawyers in the room say what the repercussions or costs are for pursuing a losing case for DOJ lawyers like Coates?
I'm genuinely interested in your opinion; which part of what I wrote deviated from the findings of the OPR report? I'm very interested in election law and voting issues; the MENA situation is demanding a fair amount of familiarity with precedents and mechanisms.
So the idea of an injunction against a political hate group bringing weapons or thugs within 200 feet of a polling location as a result of clear voter intimidation, announced beforehand and endorsed afterwards by group leadership, seems like... Not a job for the DOJ in your eyes?
So, in your opinion, making a public statement that the NBPP would send 300 or so of its members to monitor polls around the country is some sort of prosecutable "threat"? Apparently the DOJ attorneys, upon review of the situation, the law, and the evidence, felt otherwise.
The report indicates the crux of the issue on whether to pursue the matter IAW legal precedent against the NBPP was that there was no evidence of either the organization or the leadership advocating for its membership to either carry weapons (as the one member with the baton did and was charged) or to intimidate voters, and of the two members at the Philadelphia voting station, the one not charged did not brandish any "weapon," was a registered poll observer who was merely present and observing the process, and was, therfore, allowed to remain after police officers had verified his status and behaviors. He was also in the original charges drawn up by the DOJ attorneys - by all means, let's spend $$ attempting to prosecute him, too.
It seems to me that the DOJ attorneys did what attorneys do all the time when practicing law, and that because of it, politicians, the media, pundits, and the blogosphere have also done what they do all the time when practicing their craft - offer up opinions based on truths, half-truths, and bits and pieces of truth mixed with misperceptions, dated information, personally held beliefs, and downright fabrication that range from acceptance to outrage while drifting to and fro upon the ever-shifting winds of public and political opinion.
The US v. NBPP et al matter is what it is - it was investigated, it was reviewed and the charges modified based upon the review and existant case law, it was investigated by the OPR and found to have been handled within normative guidelines and existant legal proceedings, and now some people feel it was handled appropriately and some people feel it was mishandled. I'm stunned.
To me, it's done...but now the idea that the NAACP is going before the UN for an as yet to be decided internal national matter (which is merely under review pending a requested expansion of evidentiary arguments IAW established precedent) is their right, but IMO it is also a HUGE public relations misstep on their part which will be held against them, their membership, and their cause forever in the always crowded court of national public opinion.
And so it goes...
Richard
David Stone and 8 other goof balls, who may be anti Government White Separatist allegedly discussed killing some local LEO's using explosives and firearms. They never did anything and yet they deserved the full attention of the DOJ, DHS, BATFE, FBI, JTTF and they all are sitting in jail.
On the other hand, the Poll thug King Samir Shabazz head of the Black Separatist New Black Panther Party's Philadelphia chapter is on record threatening to kill white people, teaching children hand to hand combat and there is unequivocal evidence he was at the polls with a bat or baton.
Shabazz got a free pass from the Holder DOJ.
Do you really think that if the Hutaree, let alone the KKK or Aryan Nation had made a public statement saying they were sending members to monitor the polls it would have been taken so lightly?
So, in your opinion, making a public statement that the NBPP would send 300 or so of its members to monitor polls around the country is some sort of prosecutable "threat"? Apparently the DOJ attorneys, upon review of the situation, the law, and the evidence, felt otherwise. The DOJ attorneys Becker, Coates and Popper apparently felt relief in some form could and should be had in court. The other- two of them administration appointed- DOJ lawyers Donsanto, King and Rosenbaum disagreed. Why they did so is the reason for the report. Just off the top of my head, I would guess that if a political hate group that espouses violence announces it intends to send members to polling stations, they show up and act like thugs and witnesses and video are obtained- that it is a job for the DOJ, and that the NBPP retroactively stating "these aren't my pants I'm wearing" shouldn't be as convincing as it apparently was to Rosenbaum, if his motives were purely professional.
The report indicates the crux of the issue on whether to pursue the matter IAW legal precedent against the NBPP was that there was no evidence of either the organization or the leadership advocating for its membership to either carry weapons (as the one member with the baton did and was charged) or to intimidate voters Well, that is/was the question regarding actors being assumed to intend the natural consequences of their actions under 11(b)- like pretending you don't know about and are therefore innocent of the consequences of politicized thug behavior at a polling place. Where else is ignorance of the law an excuse?, and of the two members at the Philadelphia voting station, the one not charged did not brandish any "weapon," was a registered poll observer who was merely present and observing the process, and was, therfore, allowed to remain after police officers had verified his status and behaviors Having a poll card makes his otherwise extremely similar actions just fine for the purposes of an intimidation case? . He was also in the original charges drawn up by the DOJ attorneys - by all means, let's spend $$ attempting to prosecute him, too. Well, yes. Why would he be innocent of voter intimidation if the other guy was guilty? He did the same thing in the same place at the same time as part of the same group with the same message.:confused:
It seems to me that the DOJ attorneys did what attorneys do all the time when practicing law, and that because of it, politicians, the media, pundits, and the blogosphere have also done what they do all the time when practicing their craft - offer up opinions based on truths, half-truths, and bits and pieces of truth mixed with misperceptions, dated information, personally held beliefs, and downright fabrication that range from acceptance to outrage while drifting to and fro upon the ever-shifting winds of public and political opinion.
That's what the media has evolved to do, in our time. But the OPR report is, supposedly, based on an investigation. At some point in reconstructing things in this way, eventually you have to trust someone's narrative over the others, compare their treatments of known facts, question motives. The reasons why a person chooses who to believe necessarily changes his conclusions. I'm not sure why you fall on the side of the 'open and shut case, Johnson' non-event narrative, unless it is for reasons based on a broader perspective about politics and corruption not really mattering in the long run (?).
The US v. NBPP et al matter is what it is - it was investigated, it was reviewed and the charges modified based upon the review and existant case law, it was investigated by the OPR and found to have been handled within normative guidelines and existant legal proceedings, and now some people feel it was handled appropriately and some people feel it was mishandled. I'm stunned.
Normative being the subjective way a person may think things "should be", I agree that it was handled quite normatively.
To me, it's done...but now the idea that the NAACP is going before the UN for an as yet to be decided internal national matter (which is merely under review pending a requested expansion of evidentiary arguments IAW established precedent) is their right, but IMO it is also a HUGE public relations misstep on their part which will be held against them, their membership, and their cause forever in the always crowded court of national public opinion.
Again we differ. Are you implying that the NAACP has a right to make publicity stunts in the UN? I wasn't sure they had the right to do it here, due to their racial focus- it seems more like they're just 'getting away with something I can't do'. It will be forgotten in a week- it isn't even known now- who's going to remember? I type in NAACP into Google news and get a hundred hits about the NAACP image awards. Lastly- why is it a misstep? If it opens a precedent of organization like theirs being able to leverage international partnerships with various parties through the UN, and it works to further their aims of increasing the political power of black people in the US, what's the backlash?
And so it goes...
:munchin
All this may lead to much greater consequences than originally intended.
I'll reserve judgement until it's been decided...but I'd wager not everyone will be happy with those decisions, either.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Is time ripe for challenge?
DMN, 18 Mar 2012
Texas’ push for a tough new voter ID law puts it at the center of a high-stakes battle over a civil rights landmark, just as the Supreme Court grows more receptive to ending decades of automatic federal oversight of local election rules.
The last time the court looked at the Voting Rights Act — three years ago, in a case involving an Austin utility district — only one justice, conservative Clarence Thomas, was ready to toss it out as unconstitutional. But all nine agreed that “serious constitutional questions” hang over the landmark 1965 law, which singles out nine states and parts of seven others for special scrutiny based on their history of discriminating against minorities.
“Even the more liberal justices agreed that there were serious questions,” said Richard Pildes, a professor at New York University School of Law who has written extensively about the election law. “Given the marker they laid down in that earlier case, it’s hard to imagine the court not returning to the issue.”
What’s still unclear, legal experts say, is whether the Texas case — involving photo ID requirements that other states implemented without a need to seek federal permission — will get to the high court before several others that also challenge the federal review process.
In its early years, the Voting Rights Act transformed the electoral landscape, putting a permanent end to poll taxes and more subtle forms of discrimination. As minority voters and politicians have joined the mainstream, legal scholars and lawmakers have argued whether it has outlived its purpose — especially Section 5, the part that puts some jurisdictions under the federal microscope.
Preclearance
Under Section 5, Texas can’t redraw congressional districts and counties can’t even move a polling site from, say, a school to a nearby library until the U .S. Justice Department or a federal court gives the OK.
In 2006, Congress voted overwhelmingly to keep that procedure, called preclearance, for an additional 25 years, and President George W. Bush signed it into law.
But now, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Republican officials in a handful of other states are pressing to overturn the law as a violation of states’ rights.
“States would like to take down Section 5 because they think, and I think they’re right, that it’s fundamentally unfair” to single out certain jurisdictions, said Hans von Spakovsky, a legal scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation who served in the Bush Justice Department and on the Federal Election Commission. “There’s no question the law was constitutional in 1965, because there was a widespread official discrimination. Now, you don’t have widespread official discrimination.”
Minority advocates fear that losing the pre-emptive oversight would unleash all sorts of discriminatory rules, in Texas and elsewhere.
“Texas has earned this kind of treatment,” said Rep. Charlie Gonzalez , D-San Antonio, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. He pointed to the voter ID law itself and congressional redistricting as “exhibits A and B as to why Texas needs scrutiny under Section 5.”
The Justice Department declined to comment on Texas’ legal challenge. But Attorney General Eric Holder has vowed to “vigorously defend the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act,” including the preclearance requirement.
Three weeks ago in a North Carolina case — involving a small town that sought to change from partisan to nonpartisan city council elections — the Justice Department filed a brief arguing that the preclearance requirement is vital to enforcing the 14th and 15th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which protect due process and the right to vote regardless of race.
Law’s requirements
Texas’ law, signed last May by Gov. Rick Perry, requires a voter to present one of seven government-issued photo IDs, including a driver’s license, concealed handgun permit, military ID or passport. The state would offer free IDs.
The Justice Department found that up to 800,000 registered voters in Texas — up to one of every 20 — lack a required ID. Hispanics are more than twice as likely as non-Hispanics to fall in that category.
And for many voters, getting the new ID would be costly, time-consuming and overly onerous. Nearly a third of Texas counties have no Department of Public Safety office at which to obtain the new ID.
“What’s the difference between that and a poll tax?” asked Gonzalez, the San Antonio congressman. “The motive is to suppress voter turnout. If anyone says other than that, they should have to prove it.”
Texas officials deny that, saying fraud is the issue.
“In today’s world, having a photo ID, whether it’s to get on an airplane or cash a check or check a library book out, is pretty standard fare,” Perry said Friday on Fox News.
Eight states have enacted voter ID laws in the last year, including South Carolina, whose law the Justice Department rejected in December.
Texas officials bristle at the fact that its law is hardly different from one the Supreme Court upheld in 2008 in Indiana — a law that went into effect without the need for review, because that state isn’t covered by Section 5. (All states are subject to bias claims after a rule change takes effect, under other parts of the Voting Rights Act.)
Nationwide, the ACLU says, about 21 million people don’t have photo ID; one in four African-American citizens of voting age don’t have a government-issued photo ID, compared with one in 12 whites.
Von Spakovsky, among others, disputes that voter ID laws suppress minority turnout, arguing that such laws do deter fraud, including voting in the name of dead people or under fictitious names, or in more than one state.
Other cases
Texas isn’t the only jurisdiction currently challenging the constitutionality of Section 5. Two other cases are a step away from the Supreme Court, and South Carolina and Arizona are suing as well.
Minority advocates call the pre-emptive oversight essential.
“What President [Lyndon] Johnson knew and what the right wing knows today is that it’s very, very costly to file a lawsuit every time something happens,” said Gary Bledsoe, Texas president of the NAACP.
The last time the Supreme Court looked at Section 5 was in June 2009. That case involved the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District.
The small utilities district was created in 1987 and had no history of racial discrimination, but the Justice Department had refused to let it opt out of federal oversight.
The Supreme Court overruled that. Since then, a few dozen small jurisdictions have bailed out of the law, including the Austin district, which the city later dissolved.
“The historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “Past success alone, however, is not adequate justification to retain the preclearance requirements.”
Even so, he and the rest of the justices sidestepped the burning question: whether that scrutiny remains constitutional. Two liberal justices have since been replaced by Obama appointees, likely leaving the balance on the issue intact.
Austin lawyer Chris Ward, one of the lawyers who represented the Austin utility district, said the court seemed keen to give new “bailout” rules time to shake out but the direction seemed clear enough.
And the fact that Indiana and Texas can enact nearly identical voter ID laws, yet only one of those states can implement the law, cries out for a Supreme Court remedy, he said.
“Section 5’s survival is really in doubt,” said Ward, a partner at Yetter Coleman. “When it comes up before them again they’re going to take a hard skeptical look at it.”
AT A GLANCE
It’s not just the states of the old Confederacy that are subject to scrutiny under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Here’s a look:
Entire states covered: Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginia.
Parts of other jurisdictions covered: California, Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota, New Hampshire and Michigan. Most of New York City also is covered.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20120317-supreme-court-could-be-receptive-to-texas-challenge-of-voting-rights-act.ece?action=reregister
Stargazer
03-18-2012, 11:04
I agree the investigation is closed. The OPR was investigating wrong doing based on the CRT old / new and whether the action of dismissal was politically motivated. That doesn't mean that justice prevailed.
If one goes beyond the OPR and reads the spirit of "The Voting Rights Act of 1965", especially 11(b), and watched the videos, it's hard to see that the defendants were not guilty. I found the history/caselaw interesting which causes more questions in my mind than satisfying answers.
If the DOJ finds the requirement of a photo ID to be discriminatory under "The Voting Rights Act of 1965" why haven't they filed lawsuits against all states that have the requirement? If it's discriminatory as they state in their denials against certain citizens, how is it not so in other states? I can tell you in the state of Indiana, we have hispanics, latinos, african americans, asians, whites, old, poor.... Is it because we are not required to obtain a "preclearance" from them so the burden of proof is not on the State but rather the DOJ?
Richard, I do hope you are right and the NAACP is viewed as you've stated... but I am not as confident as you.
** I guess the questions in my third paragraph are going to be answered... **
ddoering
03-19-2012, 04:30
Another thing I heard on the news. The "concerned people" who say that a photo ID would curtail certain folks from being able to vote say they don't have the means to be able to go get an ID card...
Well, how the hell do they have the means to show up at a voting booth???
Why doesn't the concerned organization round up some vans, bring them to the appropriate agency, and get them issued some damn ID's???
Go figure..
Its hard to round up non-existent and undocumented people and get them to go to a government agency for a photo. It tends to show them as ineligible to vote, receive government assistance, or even be here in the first place.