[QUOTE]WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Voting Rights Act - a cherished safeguard for minority voters since 1965 - has been under siege for two years and this week faces one of its toughest tests on an apparent path to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Twenty-five hours of argument, starting on Monday and spread over five days, will help the judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decide whether Texas can require voters to present a photo identification at the polls.
Formulated at a time of racial turmoil, the Voting Rights Act passed 77-19 in the U.S. Senate and 333-85 in the House of Representatives. The votes transcended party lines to protect black voters of all political ideals.
Ever since, it has served as the U.S. government's chief check on the fairness of election rules imposed by local governments.
While it passed with bipartisan support more than 45 years ago, a shift in political preferences along racial lines has turned the landmark piece of civil rights era legislation into a highly charged political issue.
In the 1960s, Democrats held a monopoly of voters in the Southern states. But since then, most white Southern voters have shifted allegiances to the Republican Party, while black and Hispanic voters moved further toward the left.
That shift did not fully manifest itself until congressional redistricting last year, Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Columbia Law School, wrote in a to-be-released article in the Stanford Law & Policy Review. There have been more challenges to the Voting Rights Act in the past two years than in the previous 45 years combined. Among those challenges have been a redistricting case in Alabama and Florida's purging of voter lists of non-citizens earlier this year.
"We're seeing people who previously supported the act and what it stood for are now bringing challenges to it," said Ryan Haygood, director of the Political Participation Group at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
THIS WEEK'S TRIAL
In March, the Obama administration blocked a Texas law passed in 2011 requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls, saying it was unfair to minority voters. Texas sued the U.S. government, saying its measures were fair and the Justice Department had political motives in going after the law.
"I think it's a different Department of Justice than in the past," said Patricia Harless, a Republican who sponsored the voter ID law in the Texas House of Representatives.
Harless said the Texas law was very similar to Georgia's, which the Justice Department did not block. Indiana also has a law requiring voters to have a photo ID and that will be a factor in the court's consideration of the Texas law.
Because of the lawsuit, the U.S. district court in Washington, D.C., will host the first trial challenging the government's power to block a voter ID law since the Democratic Obama administration took office.
Under the blocked Texas measure, voters would be required to show photo identification such as a driver's license or passport in order to cut down on voter fraud.
Existing Texas law says voters have to show a voter registration card - which does not have a photo - or an acceptable alternative, such as a driver's license or a utility bill.
Texas says the new measure will prevent voter fraud. Testimony in committee hearings showed cases of dead people casting ballots for Obama, but estimates on the breadth of voter fraud differ dramatically.
The Justice Department counters that Hispanic voters are up to twice as likely to lack the required form of identification as their Caucasian counterparts. For them, getting a photo ID could be a headache.
Haygood represents a group of black students who want to vote in Texas but were born in other states. The new law allows handgun licenses to serve as voter identification but not student IDs.
Some of the students do not have birth certificates, and under the new law, must contact their home counties and pay for one if they want to vote, Haygood said.
Two of the three judges on the panel were appointed by Democratic presidents so it might seem unlikely the court would overturn the Obama administration.
The Texas voter ID dispute is one of dozens of challenges to the Voting Rights Act aimed not just at defending voting changes but also at getting the Supreme Court to strike down the law for good, Persily said.
The Supreme Court last considered the Voting Rights Act in 2009 in upholding Indiana law but narrowly tailored its judgment to delay ruling on the constitutionality of the entire law.
The new wave of disputes that emerged from the 2011 redistricting cycle likely will force the court to take more definitive action as soon as this spring.
The Voting Rights Act places the burden on Texas to prove that the laws do not leave minority voters in a more difficult position to vote than they were in before the new law.
AN IMPOSSIBLE POSITION
Today, party lines in the South often mirror racial lines, Persily said. Southern whites tend to support Republicans and most minorities favor Democrats.
Record minority turnouts in the 2008 presidential election have helped to make the issue a partisan one.
"Actions and interpretations that previously would not have raised partisan eyebrows are now seen as outrages," Persily wrote.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act allows the federal government to block voting rules changes in certain Southern states with a particularly heavy history of racial repression.
No matter how aggressively the Justice Department invokes that section, at least one side of today's political spectrum will be unhappy. Enforce it often and face Republican accusations of overreaching into the states' sovereignty; Enforce it rarely and face Democratic accusations of shirking minority protections; Enforce it selectively and, ironically, face accusations of playing politics.
"The Voting Rights Act wasn't designed to be enmeshed in partisan politics," Persily told Reuters, "And that's what is happening now."
The Texas lawsuit for approval of the voter identification law is: State of Texas v. Holder in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 12-cv-128. The judicial panel is composed of Appeals Judge David Tatel, District Judge Robert Wilkins and District Judge Rosemary Collyer.[/quote]
Source: [url]http://news.yahoo.com/texas-test-1965-voting-rights-law-court-014642325.html[/url]
You should be required to show photo identification. That's pretty much a given.
Why shouldn't you have to show identification? Voter fraud is very easy when an ID isn't needed.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36685403]Why shouldn't you have to show identification? Voter fraud is very easy when an ID isn't needed.[/QUOTE]
So that the politicians can get people for voter fraud to, well, increase votes
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36685403]Why shouldn't you have to show identification? Voter fraud is very easy when an ID isn't needed.[/QUOTE]
Except voter fraud isn't a problem at all, it's never even come close to being relevant to the outcome of an election.
Republicans would have us believe there's a massive problem with illegal immigrants and felons influencing our elections, but it's just an excuse to pass laws aimed at keeping demographics that vote for Democrats from turning out at the polls. They are the only party in the US that deliberately tries to keep people from voting for the other party.
If you're concerned about compromised elections, maybe you should be spending your time railing against the real problem of corporations and billionaires being given unlimited power to buy elections.
How can you not require a legal photo ID when voting..
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;36689158]They are the only party in the US that deliberately tries to keep people from voting for the other party.
[/QUOTE]
A very minor point, but I love the use of "the only party in the US that..." seeing as how there are really only two parties that matter.
Yeah, I agree with the photo ID bit. We should at least confirm someone is who they say they are.
I don't see how this isn't standard; Whenever you vote over here, you .always. need to ID yourself, no matter what.
I don't see how photo ID requirements infringe on minorities. You need one for pretty much everything else.
Voter Fraud is pretty much nonexistant
[editline]9th July 2012[/editline]
Rolling Stone has a pretty good [url=http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830#ixzz1r5HSfVEp]article[/url] on this.
[editline]9th July 2012[/editline]
Rolling Stone has a pretty good [url=http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830#ixzz1r5HSfVEp]article[/url] on this.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;36689158]Except voter fraud isn't a problem at all, it's never even come close to being relevant to the outcome of an election. [/quote]
So if it isn't relevant to the outcome we shouldn't worry about it? We shouldn't worry about the fabric of a democratic society being subverted through criminal actions that are easily accomplished through faulty laws...Then what should we be worried about?
[quote]Republicans would have us believe there's a massive problem with illegal immigrants and felons influencing our elections, but it's just an excuse to pass laws aimed at keeping demographics that vote for Democrats from turning out at the polls. They are the only party in the US that deliberately tries to keep people from voting for the other party.[/quote]
1) The Democrats are JUST as guilty as the Republicans. It's called Gerrymandering and I suggest you read up on it.
2) If what they are doing prevents criminal action, then I don't really care WHY they are doing it. If Democrats don't have IDs, maybe they should get them.
[quote]If you're concerned about compromised elections, maybe you should be spending your time railing against the real problem of corporations and billionaires being given unlimited power to buy elections.[/QUOTE]
So I can't do both? It's just one or the other these days?
Oh wait, you are a Democrat Ideologue, of course you have to take a hard stance against anything a Republican tries to do.
[editline]10th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;36694114]Voter Fraud is pretty much nonexistant
[editline]9th July 2012[/editline]
Rolling Stone has a pretty good [url=http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830#ixzz1r5HSfVEp]article[/url] on this.
[editline]9th July 2012[/editline]
Rolling Stone has a pretty good [url=http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830#ixzz1r5HSfVEp]article[/url] on this.[/QUOTE]
"The GOP War on Voting"
Nope.
I'm not reading through an article in an entertainment magazine that has such a partisan title.
I skimmed it and didn't see any citations, so the article is worthless to me.
For those complaining and bitching, to be able to vote, you have to sign up through the state when you get a State ID to say which part you're in(Or atleast in some states). Your State ID acts as your ID, there have been similar attempts where some areas have tried forcing people to show up with birth certification or their passports.
And Yawman, you constantly complain about voter fraud when most voter fraud doesn't work on a person by person basis, its just inefficient. Most voter fraud takes place during counting, not during the actual voting.
This is a hardline smack to minorities because to obtain any sort of photo ID, you have to pay money. And minorities are not willing to spend or have the ability to spend about 15 dollars per ID and up.
[QUOTE=Swilly;36699136]For those complaining and bitching, to be able to vote, you have to sign up through the state when you get a State ID to say which part you're in(Or atleast in some states). Your State ID acts as your ID, there have been similar attempts where some areas have tried forcing people to show up with birth certification or their passports.
And Yawman, you constantly complain about voter fraud when most voter fraud doesn't work on a person by person basis, its just inefficient. Most voter fraud takes place during counting, not during the actual voting.[/quote]
This doesn't make it alright to commit the crime. Should we not work to diminish crime when it is very easy to do so?
[quote]This is a hardline smack to minorities because to obtain any sort of photo ID, you have to pay money.[/QUOTE]
$20, that doesn't have a big effect on almost anyone's wallet. My family is on disability making a couple hundred a month and I am able to get my ID.
[QUOTE=teh pirate;36693953]I don't see how photo ID requirements infringe on minorities. You need one for pretty much everything else.[/QUOTE]
Many states have large populations that lack driver's licenses. South Carolina requires a birth certificate, which also happens to have a large population of blacks who where born at home.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36698990]So if it isn't relevant to the outcome we shouldn't worry about it? We shouldn't worry about the fabric of a democratic society being subverted through criminal actions that are easily accomplished through faulty laws...Then what should we be worried about?
1) The Democrats are JUST as guilty as the Republicans. It's called Gerrymandering and I suggest you read up on it.
2) If what they are doing prevents criminal action, then I don't really care WHY they are doing it. If Democrats don't have IDs, maybe they should get them.
So I can't do both? It's just one or the other these days?
Oh wait, you are a Democrat Ideologue, of course you have to take a hard stance against anything a Republican tries to do.
[editline]10th July 2012[/editline]
"The GOP War on Voting"
Nope.
I'm not reading through an article in an entertainment magazine that has such a partisan title.
I skimmed it and didn't see any citations, so the article is worthless to me.[/QUOTE]
So? Someone votes once, maybe twice if they have enough time. To have a large enough impact you'd have to have millions doing that.
The real problem here is that people like me can't vote. I don't live in my home-state, and my ID says I don't live here either. My student ID is not enough.
[QUOTE=Foda;36699200]South Carolina requires a birth certificate, which also happens to have a large population of blacks who where born at home.[/QUOTE]
What do they do when they apply for a job? You need some form of ID for that.
[quote]The real problem here is that people like me can't vote. I don't live in my home-state, and my ID says I don't live here either. My student ID is not enough.[/QUOTE]
It should be enough. I don't dispute that. If you have a photo ID that proves you are who you say you are, you should be able to vote.
However, that isn't an argument against making it so ID is required for voting.
[editline]10th July 2012[/editline]
And by the way, very few people rob banks but we still take steps to prevent and prosecute bank robbers. It doesn't matter if it makes an impact or not, it matters if someone is easily able to commit crime, especially one that has [i]potential[/i] to hurt an election.
[QUOTE=Ardosos;36699219]What do they do when they apply for a job? You need some form of ID for that.[/QUOTE]
I have no idea what they do. Maybe they're farmers or something? I believe you can apply for a job with a SS number and not have a birth certificate. Keep in mind you then have to go get a voter ID from the DMV (a 4hr process in a state that takes 2hrs to drive anywhere).
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36699226]It should be enough. I don't dispute that. If you have a photo ID that proves you are who you say you are, you should be able to vote.
However, that isn't an argument against making it so ID is required for voting.
[editline]10th July 2012[/editline]
And by the way, very few people rob banks but we still take steps to prevent and prosecute bank robbers. It doesn't matter if it makes an impact or not, it matters if someone is easily able to commit crime, especially one that has potential to hurt an election.[/QUOTE]
While I don't live in Wisconsin, they do require that if a student ID is used, that it must have a birthdate, home address, etc.
Another problem is that most people don't know they have to go get a voter ID. In regards to the law, there seems to be a lack of studies showing that voter fraud even exists in the first place/has an impact.
I live in a Southern Voter ID state and didn't get asked for it in the last election I voted in, though I'd imagine if I was a black person they'd hassle me
As mentioned before this is just a move for Republicans to block more Democrat votes and it isn't even an issue at all, the dozen cases that would pop up each year in a state are usually just felons who didn't know they can't vote. This also effects senior citizens who don't hold a drivers license either making it just a hassle.
"Wah, Republicans are blocking Democrat votes"
Shut the fuck up, Democrats do this just as much as Republicans.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;36700252]"Wah, Republicans are blocking Democrat votes"
Shut the fuck up, Democrats do this just as much as Republicans.[/QUOTE]
Except instead of actually blocking votes, Democrats just make it so Republican votes are absolutely worthless by mixing them into predominately Democratic districts.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36700310]Except instead of actually blocking votes, Democrats just make it so Republican votes are absolutely worthless by mixing them into predominately Democratic districts.[/QUOTE]
Both parties are guilty of doing that actually
see: Texas
It sounds good an all on paper but what people forget is not everyone really has easy access to government buildings. The whole process of getting a photo ID ready could take awhile and can place additional financial barriers. Believe it or not, the bureaucratic grind is even worse in underserved areas. That is if there's even a relevant office nearby to handle it, if not then a drive is in order.
It may be easy for someone like me, with a DL already that can be considered a photo ID. This is pretty much taken for granted for people living in comfortable lifestyles where it seems everyone has a driver's licence. For people without a car, they may not want to go through the process of getting a lisence, or even the state issued photo IDs. By putting up these things, you tend to discourage turn out, and seeing how apathetic people already are about these things, it will only benefit a party with a strong presence in a district to begin with.
If this was as major an issue as it is being made out to be, both parties would have been passing these sort of laws. The fact that this has been done on solely partisan lines should be raising red flags even to those who think this is a good idea. This isn't being coupled with means to make acquiring IDs easier or even waiving fees, so really what we're getting is another obstacle to vote for some people. Again, with apathy as it is, what is the benefit of throwing up more barriers to vote?
It's unAmerican because if I walk into a polling place to vote, and my name is on the list since I registered, it is up to someone who challenges my right to vote to prove I'm not eligible.
This 'show a photo ID' crap is basically saying everyone is committing fraud, unless you prove you aren't. That is stupid not least of all because photo IDs can be forged or otherwise obtained illegally.
This is an obvious attempt to put obstacles in people's way so they get discouraged from voting.
All adults are supposed to carry ID with them at all times anyway as far as i know
[QUOTE=AugustBurnsRed;36700973]All adults are supposed to carry ID with them at all times anyway as far as i know[/QUOTE]
We're not 'suppose' to.
It helps, but we're by no means required by law.
[QUOTE=Saxon;36700867]Both parties are guilty of doing that actually
see: Texas[/QUOTE]
My point is that no party holds a monopoly on de-valuing the votes of the other party.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36699191]This doesn't make it alright to commit the crime. Should we not work to diminish crime when it is very easy to do so?
$20, that doesn't have a big effect on almost anyone's wallet. My family is on disability making a couple hundred a month and I am able to get my ID.[/QUOTE]
I paid $12 for my ID
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36698990]"The GOP War on Voting"
Nope.
I'm not reading through an article in an entertainment magazine that has such a partisan title.
I skimmed it and didn't see any citations, so the article is worthless to me.[/QUOTE]
Let me cut out some relevant bits if you're gonna act like that.
[QUOTE]Photo IDs By far the biggest change in election rules for 2012 is the number of states requiring a government-issued photo ID, the most important tactic in the Republican war on voting. In April 2008, the Supreme Court upheld a photo-ID law in Indiana, even though state GOP officials couldn't provide a single instance of a voter committing the type of fraud the new ID law was supposed to stop. Emboldened by the ruling, Republicans launched a nationwide effort to implement similar barriers to voting in dozens of states.
The campaign was coordinated by the American Legislative Exchange Council, which provided GOP legislators with draft legislation based on Indiana's ID requirement. In five states that passed such laws in the past year – Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin – the measures were sponsored by legislators who are members of ALEC. "We're seeing the same legislation being proposed state by state by state," says Smith of Rock the Vote. "And they're not being shy in any of these places about clearly and blatantly targeting specific demographic groups, including students."
In Texas, under "emergency" legislation passed by the GOP-dominated legislature and signed by Gov. Rick Perry, a concealed-weapon permit is considered an acceptable ID but a student ID is not. Republicans in Wisconsin, meanwhile, mandated that students can only vote if their IDs include a current address, birth date, signature and two-year expiration date – requirements that no college or university ID in the state currently meets. As a result, 242,000 students in Wisconsin may lack the documentation required to vote next year. "It's like creating a second class of citizens in terms of who gets to vote," says Analiese Eicher, a Dane County board supervisor.
The barriers erected in Texas and Wisconsin go beyond what the Supreme Court upheld in Indiana, where 99 percent of state voters possess the requisite IDs and can turn to full-time DMVs in every county to obtain the proper documentation. By contrast, roughly half of all black and Hispanic residents in Wisconsin do not have a driver's license, and the state staffs barely half as many DMVs as Indiana – a quarter of which are open less than one day a month. To make matters worse, Gov. Scott Walker tried to shut down 16 more DMVs – many of them located in Democratic-leaning areas. In one case, Walker planned to close a DMV in Fort Atkinson, a liberal stronghold, while opening a new office 30 minutes away in the conservative district of Watertown.
Although new ID laws have been approved in seven states, the battle over such barriers to voting has been far more widespread. Since January, Democratic governors in Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire and North Carolina have all vetoed ID laws. Voters in Mississippi and Missouri are slated to consider ballot initiatives requiring voter IDs, and legislation is currently pending in Pennsylvania.
One of the most restrictive laws requiring voter IDs was passed in South Carolina. To obtain the free state ID now required to vote, the 178,000 South Carolinians who currently lack one must pay for a passport or a birth certificate. "It's the stepsister of the poll tax," says Browne-Dianis of the Advancement Project. Under the new law, many elderly black residents – who were born at home in the segregated South and never had a birth certificate – must now go to family court to prove their identity. Given that obtaining fake birth certificates is one of the country's biggest sources of fraud, the new law may actually prompt some voters to illegally procure a birth certificate in order to legally vote – all in the name of combating voter fraud.
For those voters who manage to get a legitimate birth certificate, obtaining a voter ID from the DMV is likely to be hellishly time-consuming. A reporter for the Tri-State Defender in Memphis, Tennessee – another state now mandating voter IDs – recently waited for four hours on a sweltering July day just to see a DMV clerk. The paper found that the longest lines occur in urban precincts, a clear violation of the Voting Rights Act, which bars states from erecting hurdles to voting in minority jurisdictions.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]A major probe by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 failed to prosecute a single person for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter, which the anti-fraud laws are supposedly designed to stop. Out of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud – and many of the cases involved immigrants and former felons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility. A much-hyped investigation in Wisconsin, meanwhile, led to the prosecution of only .0007 percent of the local electorate for alleged voter fraud. "Our democracy is under siege from an enemy so small it could be hiding anywhere," joked Stephen Colbert. A 2007 report by the Brennan Center for Justice, a leading advocate for voting rights at the New York University School of Law, quantified the problem in stark terms. "It is more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning," the report calculated, "than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls."[/QUOTE]
[editline]10th July 2012[/editline]
since when did a news article need citations? News articles are citations.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
