Will Roberts Save the Voting Rights Act?

[TampaYankee]

It's looking to me like if the Voting Rights Act is to survive it will take an extraordinary position by Roberts to make it so. The other conservatives are a sure vote to kill. Swing vote Anthony Kennedy's questions indicated leaning against the act. That would comport with his 'populist' leanings which can be described about getting government out of the way. Think Rand Paul and the Public Accommodations Act.

News is breaking today that as a lawyer for the Reagan Admin, Roberts worked to undo the Voting Right Act. That was 30 years ago. That does not portend well for saving the Act.

However, his Obama Care vote gives me hope that Mr Roberts has grown in perspective from that of an advocate to that of 'Wise Man' with broader perspective that weighs justice, fairness, history, Congressional Acts and the Constitution in seeking to ensure equal treatment of all people by government institutions.

Time will tell. My hope may be a long shot but it looks like a long shot is exactly what is needed. I don't see where any other long shot exists.

[TampaYankee]

NBC's Pete Williams: 'Safe To Say' Section 5 Of Voting Rights Act Will Be Struck Down

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/pete-williams-voting-rights-act_n_2775338.html

[RA1]

If the Southern states (and others) have not gotten the message after 47 years, they never will. I am positive the message has been received and acted upon. It would be a blessed event if this were not a political vote and situation.

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

Does 'they never will' mean we must then give in to their intransigence. I'm positive they got the message too. It's what they do with it that counts.

When it comes to voting rights abuse I do not see things getting better only different. The have not relented in their targeting of minorities only in there tactics to disenfranchise them. They did not rush to make voting accessible to all. They have had to toe the line because of Federal Jurisdiction. Now they do seem to rush when it comes to invoking new requirements that disproportionately target minorities under the guise of voter integrity. If this was their only objective all such legislation would have mandated readily available easily obtainable no cost ID's to go with stepped up security up front, not as an afterthought and only then in a manner that does not adversely affect the electorate.

It's like when a company wants to get rid of older employees but knows to avoid age discrimination charges they must arbitrarily fire a number of younger employees, their performance and performance reivews notwithstanding. Sacrifices must be made for the company good as they determine that good. There are many ways to observe the law while circumventing its purpose.

[Guest EXPAT]

What will happen though if these are struck down is that there will be massive redistricting in those states to favor the Republicans and to minimize the minorities. They haven't been able to do that up until now.

[RA1]

TN seems to go out of their way to have some silly laws but in the case of voter ID they offered free DL picture ID cards. Many DL stations were open on Saturdays before the last election. A picture ID is required to buy beer in a grocery store and it is enforced, even for those "well over" 21. I would have to opine that some are never satisfied. The South has come a long way from having to be a property owner to vote (an original Consititutional requirement).

Gerrymandering apparently is a time honored political ploy nationwide.

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

Why should any burden be placed on voters other than registration and proof of citizenship in some reasonable form, reasonable being defined in accordance with the circumstance. For example, an 88 yo may not have a birth certificate on file but many other methods for verifying citizenship have been used in the past including testimonials from neighbors, postmen, town clerks etc. These methods have been used to establish qualification for millions of people on social security over the decades. Sure, they are not the best methods but sometime they are the only methods. Our country was not always set up to efficiently enumerate our citizens. For that one has to look to the Germans where every cockroach was accounted for.

If states want to fairly require heightened standards of identity for elections then they should do so without placing burdens on the electorate, particularly when one sector is overly burdened relative to others be they the elderly, the poor, the rural. The government has us all on a myriad of databases. Birth, Death, Social Security, Drivers, Voters, Postal... you name it, they have it. They should integrate the databases for citizenship purposes for voting, work ID, proof of age, etc. Some initial form of this should have been proposed with the Voter ID initiatives rather than requiring some onerous burdens that accompanied some of the original Voter Laws. Several of those laws were delayed because they placed onerous burdens that could not be met in the time frame of the last election.

Yeah, it was all just a simple attempt to rid our election system of all that rampant voter fraud that has plagued us every year over the years as chronicled hundreds of articles about our stolen elections.

True, the South has made progress, some in fits and starts, much grudgingly because of the Voter Rights Act. And yes, much of the younger generations have come to accept even handed practices as right and a matter of course. But clearly there are forces at work who do not, whether for racial reasons or for political reasons that fall along racial lines. It doesn't matter what the reason if it serves to disenfranchise a particular segment of the electorate. If you deny this then just check the gerrymandering of the districts in the South. This has not been done in the name of fairness.

Yes, gerrymandering is done everywhere, and it is just as wrong everywhere too. IMO, one man, one vote is essential to democracy. It is bad enough that it be done along political lines but when those political lines have the despicable effect of disenfranchising a minority then it has far wider social consequences. It takes us right back to the Jim Crow South wherever it happens.

As for the idea that a long-time voter has to meet the government half-way to prove that his right to vote should not be taken away, I think that is absurd. The burden should fall on the government to prove that an established voter of record who is a long time member of the community should have his voting rights rescinded.

That is not to say that there is not a government interest to tighten up the voter rolls and establish a right-to-work basis for individuals. (The latter is essential to ever forestall illegal immigration and it is coming if Immigration Reform is to happen.) But there is a way to do this while minimizing the burden to the public and phasing in the methods over time recognizing that our system was not always set up with preferred records for establishing citizenship.

Some of the recent laws went out of the way to disallow alternative proofs in those circumstances leading one to wonder what the real purpose of those laws were. Wait, oh yes, the PA Speaker of the House did explain the purpose. He said paraphrasing: Voter ID will allow Romney to carry PA. It is on record. The PA Courts delayed implementation of the PA Voter ID pending a more practical schedule for implementing it. The rest is history.

Not to be thwarted, the PA House and Governor are flirting with awarding Presidential Electoral Votes by gerrymandered district vote instead of statewide vote, thus allowing a losing candidate to claim a majority of Electoral Votes. Can their election motivations be any clearer?

[TampaYankee]

TN seems to go out of their way to have some silly laws but in the case of voter ID they offered free DL picture ID cards. Many DL stations were open on Saturdays before the last election. A picture ID is required to buy beer in a grocery store and it is enforced, even for those "well over" 21. I would have to opine that some are never satisfied. The South has come a long way from having to be a property owner to vote (an original Consititutional requirement).

Gerrymandering apparently is a time honored political ploy nationwide.

Best regards,

RA1

BTW, thanks for taking the time to share your views and engage my pent-up frustrations which I spill too frequently on these pages. We often differ, although not always, and not too drastically for the most part. At least I do not find your views to be extreme in any fashion but a well grounded 'conservative with a small c' perspective which I find missing all too much from present day discussion and long for from the Conservative opposition. It is nice to know that some of you are left.

[RA1]

Thanks for not tarring and feathering me and riding me out of town on a rail.

Times are changing. Your 88 year old very likely does have a birth certificate if she was born in the USA. In addition, at least in TN, she has a "permanent" absentee ballot because (hopefully) she doesn't drive any longer and has trouble getting around even with help.

The federal government and state governments have sometimes peculiar ways of dealing with each other. Yes, virtually everyone is in some kind of data base but these are often not shared. This is slowly and sometimes not so slowly changing as the federal government usurps state's rights. And, like so many of the individual citizens, the states are standing in line to give them up.

When I first voted I walked to the precinct, visited a moment with my neighbors (on the election committee) who knew me and pulled my voter registration, got my signature and then voted. In today's urban and suburban lifestyle with many moving every year or so, that is not always possible. And, with today's "instant" registration there is no reason for anyone being disenfranchised. I think a simple government issued picture ID is not an unreasonable requirement.

Personally I think gerrymandering is done by the political parties to develop conclaves of similiar minded voters into what they hope will be a cohesive bloc. I don't think the main or sole purpose is to deny any individual anything. I view them as political ploys to promote a political agendum, likely to elect a partcular party member. If you think the US should elect via strictly one man, one vote on a national basis, then a Constitutional amendment is in order and you have your work cut out for you.

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

Personally I think gerrymandering is done by the political parties to develop conclaves of similiar minded voters into what they hope will be a cohesive bloc. I don't think the main or sole purpose is to deny any individual anything. I view them as political ploys to promote a political agendum, likely to elect a partcular party member. If you think the US should elect via strictly one man, one vote on a national basis, then a Constitutional amendment is in order and you have your work cut out for you.

Best regards,

RA1

IMO gerrymandering is done for one of two reasons, to change the balance of political power or to cement it. Redistricting ought to be done by apolitical courts or commissions overseen by courts. Political entities ought not to be in charge of redistricting geopolitical subdivisions.

Sadly, you are correct that the Constitution obscures one-man one-vote, as it failed to declare that all men are created equal. The Constitution was a balancing act that satisfied differing interests at the birth of the Nation. That was clarified and superseded by the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.

Sometimes we need to look at our other founding documents to provide context within the Constitution. The SOTUS does that all the time in citing the Federalist Papers as well as other documents regarding the intent of our founding fathers.

IMO, the Declaration of Independence and the Fourteenth Amendment should be enough to establish one-man, one vote. While the Constitution is the Law of the Land, the Declaration is the foundation of the governing principles we laid out in the Constitution. Put simply, it justified the Rebellion and it justified the creation of our Constitution. It established the premise that ' all men are created equal' and the 14 Amendment established that everyone should be treated equally under the law, thus by the law. If law says that my vote is not equal to another's vote then the law is giving me unequal treatment. Thus the Declaration of Independence and the 14th Amendment say all that needs to be said about one-man one-vote being the Law of the Land. I know others will not agree.

[RA1]

I think we gave the same definition of gerrymandering but using different words. Ain't English wonderful?

From the beginning it seems this country has had a discussion, at least, between "strict constructionists" and "those who are accused of trying to legislate from the bench". In general, this is likely a good thing. We seem to do much better when one group or one party or one idea is not completely dominant.

Do you think it is "The Ten Commandments" or "The Ten Suggestions"?

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

Do you think it is "The Ten Commandments" or "The Ten Suggestions"?

Best regards,

RA1

LOL