General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe VRA loss is an opportunity.
For people still smarting about the VRA decision yesterday, this is an opportunity.
As much as I hate to say it, the majority had a point: it's ridiculous that states still had to seek prior approval based on what was happening there in 1965. So Virginia has to submit to Federal scrutiny while Ohio gets a free pass.
We can come up with a much better system, and we need to, but we need a different House than we have now. And the fact that the old provisions were overturned before new ones were enacted means that will be harder to do. But that's why doing it is so important.
uponit7771
(91,151 posts)...when the criteria was made if the logic to uphold it still is true.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)How is it possibly reasonable for Virginia to have a stronger inspection process than Ohio?
Because Ohio doesn't have the same history as Virginia, the South, and Arizona!
So, with no way for the federal government to insure that the people's right to vote isn't supressed...do you really believe that Republican controlled states are not going to be passing oppressive voter ID laws?
Texas and North Carolina are putting their laws into effect now...but how many election cycles will we have to wait before it becomes obvious that white Republicans have made it next to impossible for minorities and the poor to be able to vote?
uponit7771
(91,151 posts)...job should be seen equal...it shouldn't
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's like saying the guy who's stealing from petty cash today doesn't need to be watched as much as the guy who did years ago.
uponit7771
(91,151 posts)...therefore the rules are being applied unequally ... the five hacks said VA didn't steal today like it stole 40 years ago therefore there's no theft happening.
That is crazy
LeftInTX
(29,072 posts)We need a different House, but it ain't gonna happen cuz voter suppression is gonna prevent it
JustAnotherGen
(33,035 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,374 posts)I don't see how this is a gain for that.
JustAnotherGen
(33,035 posts)You are correct. That's what folks aren't getting.
They aren't flipping the house next year.
They aren't flipping the house because some of these laws went into place immediately yesterday. And without oversight - they can bring back poll taxes, literacy tests, purity tests, etc. etc. They can now do whatever they want.
Which means they can flip the Senate and the White House too. . .
All it takes is Philadelphia and Southern Ohio.
Starry Messenger
(32,374 posts)This just kneecapped us. I think of all the people lined up for hours to vote already. Don't people remember 2004? It wasn't that long ago and that was before VRA was overturned. AA voters denied their rights to vote.
This is a gut wound.
JustAnotherGen
(33,035 posts)Voted for the first time in Florida this past election. It took her HOURS. What a difference between voting there and in Central NJ.
And let's not forget how they got away with it in Ohio in 2004. It was deliberate. There is nothing to stop them from doing it again.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)That's not really accurate.
They cannot "do whatever they want". Any unconstitutional voting requirement is subject to being overturned. The difference is that it will have to be challenged upon enactment, instead of being barred from enactment in the first instance.
It's going to soak up a lot of DoJ and other resources to fight these things as one-offs, which provides an opportunity for mischief, but the unqualified assertion "they can now do whatever they want" is not accurate.
JustAnotherGen
(33,035 posts)Harsh Texas Voter ID Law 'Immediately' Takes Effect After Voting Rights Act Ruling
With todays decision, the States voter ID law will take effect immediately," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in a statement. "Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.
In blocking those redistricting maps last year, a separate panel of federal judges ruled that the government "provided more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space, or need, to address" in their opinion. Attorney General Eric Holder cited the Texas redistricting case in his statement criticizing the Supreme Court's ruling.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed into law the voter ID measure and redistricting maps in question. Abbott took to Twitter to celebrate the death of the Voting Rights Act provision:
Understand - this is not something from long ago. My dad - a Green Beret and Army Captain - could not vote while home on leave in Talladega, Alabama for two weeks in 1964. He'd already been shot twice for this 'Federal Republic'.
That is how bad it can get. It's personal. It's direct flesh and blood.
But keep in mind - you will see if you search my posts/responses - I don't believe that America has ever absolved itself of the stain of Jim Crow. It is our burden. It has permeated everything. Right down to blacks in the eye of Hurricane Katrina being described as refugees.
This to me - was a public shaming.
I truly respect your optimistic view of the country. But I have less faith in my fellow citizens than you do . . . And you have to accept that perception. The one where I thought that sweet pea John Lewis was going to cry last night. That's this Federal Republic. That man's face and voice - that's what American REALLY is when we drop the ball.
And with THIS house - it's not going to happen. I'm sorry - but it's not.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Now, given that it was thrown out when it was pre-emptively challenged, just what do you think is going to be the outcome of the suit filed the day after it was enacted?
JustAnotherGen
(33,035 posts)Is going to be the outcome?
I'm a cynic.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)JustAnotherGen
(33,035 posts)You I get the feeling you are an expert (perhaps a concentration of study?) on Civil Rights and the personal histories of black Americans so - tell me. What do you think will be the outcome?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)But I am a lawyer, and I can read the court decision from the last time this provision was struck down. Since that case is pending appeal, the VRA decision doesn't matter:
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/06/texas-officials-have-no-legal-authority-to-unilaterally-implement-voter-id-law-supreme-court-scholar-says/
You seem to have gotten the impression that because the preliminary review that was required of certain states was struck down, that it follows "they can do anything". That's not what happened in this decision. It remains illegal to impose certain measures. The difference is that they have to be challenged after they are enacted instead of before. That makes the job more difficult and expensive, but by no means impossible.
It's sort of like saying, "Now that I have a driver's license instead of a learner's permit, I can drive as fast as I want and run red lights." No, it doesn't work that way.
JustAnotherGen
(33,035 posts)Credentials are important to me on certain subjects.
So - that said - do you think we should completely discount Lewis's response to the decision?
Since it's not that big of a deal in the long run? I.E. - Who is going to put him in his place on this?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I did not say it was not a "big deal". In fact, if you read what I actually wrote:
"That makes the job more difficult and expensive"
Can I walk up a flight of stairs in my house? Yes.
Can I walk up the flight of stairs in the Washington Monument? Yes.
Is there a substantial difference between those two tasks? Yes.
Now, take a look at Ohio. Ohio was not required to pre-clear their voting procedures with the DoJ. Did that mean Ohio got to do "anything they wanted"? No. But it did take a lot more effort to undo what Ohio was trying to do, than it did to prevent Texas from doing what they wanted to do.
What it means is that some states will find ways to nibble around the edges in order to enact restrictions which are enough to have an impact, but not enough to trigger the expense and difficulty of a court action to stop it. Additionally, they will keep at it like Whack-a-Mole.
But "in the long run" there will be no "majority race" in this country, and certainly not in Texas. That's what the "long run" looks like.
There is a huge difference between your statement to the effect of "they can do whatever they want" and my statement to the effect of "No they can't do whatever they want, but stopping them has become more difficult".
JustAnotherGen
(33,035 posts)The next question - does anyone really trust them to NOT do whatever they like? I don't. I've never seen a Reagan Republican and beyond that had my best interests - hell - ANY - of my interest at heart! I don't trust them. I don't like them. And this was a 'Riley Freeman Quote Towards Santa' on the Republican appointed justices part.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Sure, they'll try.
But that is no different from anything else. If you are looking for "the ultimate triumph of good over evil", then you have a long wait in store.
With the oversight provisions of the VRA in place, did that stop them from trying? No.
But the post where I came in was where you suggested they could bring back poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. Things like that are easy to get an injunction against.
They will try more subtle things. They will be challenged in court on them. At some point it becomes a question of who has more resources, the Texas AG or the DoJ and other plaintiff organizations.
This decision did not "make legal" any illegal restrictions on voting rights. It made them harder to fight. That's the upshot.
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)this just means they aren't prescrutinized.
If they do something wrong the courts will deal with it
Solly Mack
(91,745 posts)eissa
(4,238 posts)that voters in states where voter suppression is most likely to occur will hopefully galvanize and make sure their voices are heard on election day.
atreides1
(16,285 posts)Their voices will be heard in the gerrymandered districts that were created just for them...so taking back the House isn't even likely...now if enough are able to vote it may have an affect on the US Senate...but that would be it, at least until enough people move into the districts that were created by Republican legislatures.
JustAnotherGen
(33,035 posts)I'm diminished in the eyes of the law and less of a human being in America this morning - than I was yesterday. That simple.
Opportunity? We shouldn't have to fight anything again. But that said . . .
It's going to take white democratic voters going to the polls and voting, voting, voting, until there is a Democratic House, Senate, and President again. Until that happens - this is insurmountable.
Texas' laws went into place the minute (to quote John Lewis) that "dagger went into the heart" of the VRA. What else is out there?
And have no fears - this is going to go beyond Voter ID. It's going to get much uglier than that.
We've seen what 'they' are capable of. We know they would love nothing more than to 'look away' if they could.
I trust John Lewis - http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/courts-decision-puts-dagger-in-heart-of-voting-rights-act/
He's the Real Deal. He took a head bashing for me. He's been there and done that.
I trust him and only him on this issue . . .
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I don't want to give the appearance that I think this was a good decision.
JustAnotherGen
(33,035 posts)Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)There will have to be a MAJOR fight all over again for voting rights.
This could take years, and in the meantime, states will restrict voting in any way they can.
They should use a new formula, but instead of leaving rules intact until one can be developed, they have thrown many voters to he wolves.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)They should have said "Congress has until X date to re-write this". But then again the Court can't really mandate Congress do something (Marbury v. Madison)
AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)The problem is, we still have to deal with the party of "No". Republicans have tried to prevent or block each bit of legislation that has come though congress, and I think this will be no different. The Racists may have won this, but it isn't over yet.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The Court said "the VRA has to be nationwide and can't just be about the South".
In principle, I actually agree with that, which was kind of my point.
In practice, this is a very bad decision for us.
AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)I wouldn't be surprised if plans were already in the works.
JustAnotherGen
(33,035 posts)Reach out to John Lewis' office today and ask. We've all done it in my circle. Especially if you are not in a Former Clear Cut Jim Crow state - it might warm his heart to know that we've got his back and will be there.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)are we even on the same side?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The decision was a disaster, but the framework of the law is still in place. With a better House we can use this as the impetus to rewrite the VRA for the facts of 2013 rather than 1965.