The Gutting of the Voting Rights Act Could Decide the 2016 Election

[babylonsister]

The Gutting of the Voting Rights Act Could Decide the 2016 Election
States with new voting restrictions have 70 percent of the electoral votes needed to win the presidency.
By Ari Berman
Yesterday 10:40 am


NC Voter ID rules are posted at the door of the voting station at the Alamance Fire Station on March 15, 2016, in Greensboro, North Carolina. (Andrew Krech / News & Record via AP)


snip//

“Today, rather than using murder, unscrupulous people have found new disenfranchisement tactics to prevent whole communities from voting in order to retain political advantage,” writes David Goodman, Andrew Goodman’s younger brother.

North Carolina is the most striking example of the devastating impact of the Shelby County decision. A month after the ruling, the state passed a sweeping rewrite of its election laws, including requiring strict voter ID to cast a ballot, cutting early voting, and eliminating same-day registration, out-of-precinct voting, and pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds.

These restrictions were upheld in April by federal district court Judge Thomas Schroeder, a conservative George W. Bush-appointee. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will hear a new challenge to the case today.

Schroeder’s 485-page opinion ignored the many stories of voters who were turned away from the polls because of the new restrictions, like the elimination of same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting in 2014, and the new voter-ID law in the 2016 primary.

Dale Hicks, a 40-year-old former marine sergeant, was one of those voters. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights recently profiled him:

Dale Hicks, an African-American man who served in the Marine Corps for five years, including one year in Afghanistan, has been an active voter for close to 20 years. After being honorably discharged and transitioning to the IT field, he moved to Raleigh in June 2014. He had started hearing about the negative impacts of House Bill 589 around his community and decided to check his registration to ensure his address was up to date before voting in November. At his local precinct, he was informed that his registration information contained his old Jacksonville, N.C., address. Hicks assumed that, worst-case scenario, he’d just have to drive two hours to Jacksonville to vote. But he was told that because of the discrepancy in his address, he would not be able to vote at all because of the suspension of same-day registration. Stories like Hicks’ are likely all too common among veterans, who change addresses often because of the nature of their service. “You know, you finish serving your country and you come back and to be told no, you can’t, your voice will not be heard because your address says 9th street and you live on 7th street,” Hicks said. “It’s not right.”

In 2014, Democracy North Carolina documented 2,300 cases like Hicks’s of voters disenfranchised by the new restrictions. By comparison, there were only two cases of voter impersonation in the state from 2000 to 2012, out of 35 million votes cast.

more...

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gutting-of-the-voting-rights-act-could-decide-the-2016-election/

[merrily]

1. THREE YEARS AGO, the SCOTUS held that the Voting Rights Act could not

be used against certain states--and only those states-- because the information on which the 1965 Act had been based was too old (48 years old as of 2013). At least, that is my understanding of that case. In any event, Congress has plenty of power under the the Constitution to pass voting bills to protect the voting rights of groups that get discriminated against, starting with, but not limited to, African Americans (though probably not women).

By now, Congress could have updated the information and passed new voting rights legislaton. It hasn't. I don't know which organizations, if any, have been putting pressure on Congress to update the information.

[edhopper]

4. Except it was re-authorized in 2006

and there had been new information included.
Justice Ginsberg estimated it had turned back over 700 changes that would hurt minority voters.

The SCOTUS decision was of the plan we see taking shape now to keep the GOP in power by locking out minority voters.

[SheriffBob]

2. voter racism

These laws are racist aimed against the poor and minorities who vote for democrats.

These laws have led to a republican dictatorship.

[kairos12]

3. Voter suppression and dark money are key Reich Wing strategies for 2016.