• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court raises doubts about Voting Rights Act

Deuce said:
I think Republican efforts regarding voter ID laws are sufficient proof the law is still required.

Yes, let's require ID's to "secure the election." And just by pure coincidence, we'll scale back services at the facilities where you'd get these ID's in heavily minority/Democrat districts. Surely they wont need the office open more than 5 days a year, right? Closing down at 4pm?

Meanwhile, we'll completely ignore absentee ballots, which result in the majority of actual voter fraud but happen to lean slightly Republican.
Click to expand...

You would probably get those ID's at the DMV. I doubt the DMV is going anywhere, anytime soon.
 
Fiddytree said:
I'm leery of the argument that "times have changed." I see it as a potential excuse for dramatic alterations against minority rights. I don't raise that argument for gun rights, I won't raise that argument for voting rights.
Click to expand...
The onus should not be on those to prove "time have changed" but on those who suggest conditions continue to be so much worse in eight states that they need to jump through hoops that other states do not. Simply assuming it to be the case is not justifiable.
 
apdst said:
You would probably get those ID's at the DMV. I doubt the DMV is going anywhere, anytime soon.
Click to expand...

That office I referred to was a DMV. Open 5 days a year. (5th Wednesday of an month)

coincidentally in a blue district of a state with a red legislature.
 
Deuce said:
I think Republican efforts regarding voter ID laws are sufficient proof the law is still required.
Click to expand...
Got one here in Georgia. Minority turnout has vastly improved since the law went into effect (contrary to all of the doomsday "modern day poll tax" predictions). Higher among Blacks. Higher among Hispanics. Higher in elections where Obama was a factor, and higher in elections were he wasn't. Next.
 
I am watching this very closely as it has me worried. If this goes through and Section 5 is struck down, then that will allow for Republican politicians to do away with early voting, put up insane voter ID laws, and the like. Not only will that hurt black people, it will hurt other racial minorities, poor people, and students.
 
Deuce said:
That office I referred to was a DMV. Open 5 days a year. (5th Wednesday of an month)

coincidentally in a blue district of a state with a red legislature.
Click to expand...

Linky?.......
 
Deuce said:
That office I referred to was a DMV. Open 5 days a year. (5th Wednesday of an month)

coincidentally in a blue district of a state with a red legislature.
Click to expand...

So you mean this conveniently anonymous state pays for the upkeep of a building and leaves it unoccupied 360 days a year?
 
apdst said:
Linky?.......
Click to expand...

Pilot said:
So you mean this conveniently anonymous state pays for the upkeep of a building and leaves it unoccupied 360 days a year?
Click to expand...

https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/cscfinder/cscsearch.do
edit3: Swapped out dmv.org link for the official DMV site before anybody complains dmv.org (a private entity) might have incorrect data.
8:15am to 4pm on the 5th wednesday of any month.

edit: edit2: site not operated by correct entity. Laughter retracted.

Another Wisconsin DMV was only open on tuesdays and alternating wednesdays. The one in Phillips, WI is only open one wednesday every other month. Alabama and Mississippi have some offices only open one day a month.

Voters living in the black belt in Georgia and Mississippi may face similar hurdles. As in Alabama, there
are 21 contiguous counties in Georgia and 13 contiguous counties in Mississippi — all within the black belt — that do not have a single full-time driver’s license office.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
never could get to grips with those things.
01.jpg
28.jpg
03.jpg
05.jpg
24.jpg
 
Article I, Section 2, Clause 1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States?
 
From what I can see, the Sauk City location is inside a community center and only provides renewal services. It is definitely not a full service location.

I'll look into the others, but my guess is that they are similarly small and limited locations.

The 4 days a year sounds strange, but considering it doesn't even have a dedicated location, I think there is more to this than meets the eye.
 
Pilot said:
From what I can see, the Sauk City location is inside a community center and only provides renewal services. It is definitely not a full service location.

I'll look into the others, but my guess is that they are similarly small and limited locations.

The 4 days a year sounds strange, but considering it doesn't even have a dedicated location, I think there is more to this than meets the eye.
Click to expand...

Being poor enough to need a free voter ID generally means transportation to a further location can be problematic. There are entire counties in Mississippi and Alabama without a full-time DMV. Coincidentally, they are counties with the highest percentages of black people living in them.
 
Deuce said:
Being poor enough to need a free voter ID generally means transportation to a further location can be problematic. There are entire counties in Mississippi and Alabama without a full-time DMV. Coincidentally, they are counties with the highest percentages of black people living in them.
Click to expand...

Unless those DMV locations were established with or after the voter ID legislation, I don't see how they could possibly be connected. Overall population is far more likely.
 
Deuce said:
https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/cscfinder/cscsearch.do
edit3: Swapped out dmv.org link for the official DMV site before anybody complains dmv.org (a private entity) might have incorrect data.
8:15am to 4pm on the 5th wednesday of any month.

edit: edit2: site not operated by correct entity. Laughter retracted.

Another Wisconsin DMV was only open on tuesdays and alternating wednesdays. The one in Phillips, WI is only open one wednesday every other month. Alabama and Mississippi have some offices only open one day a month.
Click to expand...
I bet everyone that wants a DL has one. Huh?
 
Deuce said:
Being poor enough to need a free voter ID generally means transportation to a further location can be problematic. There are entire counties in Mississippi and Alabama without a full-time DMV. Coincidentally, they are counties with the highest percentages of black people living in them.
Click to expand...

How do you expalin them being registered to vote, in the first place?
 
Deuce said:
Being poor enough to need a free voter ID generally means transportation to a further location can be problematic. There are entire counties in Mississippi and Alabama without a full-time DMV. Coincidentally, they are counties with the highest percentages of black people living in them.
Click to expand...

They are going to have to get transportation to a further location anyway. From the WI DMV website:
Sauk City - DL/ID Renewal Office (Sauk County)
This service center offers RENEWALS ONLY of driver licenses, ID cards, and instruction permits.
They also issue disabled parking ID cards.
Click to expand...

If you don't already have an ID this center can't help you at all. It looks like it might just be there to assist the elderly and/or disabled citizens at community center with renewals and handicap permits.
 
Fiddytree said:
I'm leery of the argument that "times have changed." I see it as a potential excuse for dramatic alterations against minority rights. I don't raise that argument for gun rights, I won't raise that argument for voting rights.
Click to expand...

What the hell is "minority rights?"

The right to vote or the right to vote 10 times?
 
Anyone catch Scalia's incredibly ridiculous argument against the voting rights act? Un****ing real.

Basically he said that each subsequent renewal of the act got more votes for and less votes against and therefore he has to step in and go against it because the senators are too scared to vote the way they want. Flat out admitting that he thinks he knows better than our representatives and therefore intends to override our representations' votes.

The guy is out of control.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, maybe it was making
that judgment, Mr. Verrilli. But that's -- that's a
problem that I have. This Court doesn't like to get
involved in -- in racial questions such as this one.
It's something that can be left -- left to Congress.

The problem here, however, is suggested by
the comment I made earlier, that the initial enactment
of this legislation in a -- in a time when the need for
it was so much more abundantly clear was -- in the
Senate, there -- it was double-digits against it. And
that was only a 5-year term.

Then, it is reenacted 5 years later, again
for a 5-year term. Double-digits against it in the
Senate. Then it was reenacted for 7 years. Single
digits against it. Then enacted for 25 years, 8 Senate
votes against it.

And this last enactment, not a single vote
in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much
the same.

Now, I don't think that's attributable to the
fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this.
I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to
a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial
entitlement. It's been written about. Whenever a
society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult
to get out of them through the normal political
processes.

I don't think there is anything to be gained
by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act.
And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in
perpetuity unless -- unless a court can say it does not
comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when
you are treating different States differently, that
there's a good reason for it.

That's the -- that's the concern that those
of us who -- who have some questions about this statute
have. It's -- it's a concern that this is not the kind
of a question you can leave to Congress. There are
certain districts in the House that are black districts
by law just about now. And even the Virginia Senators,
they have no interest in voting against this. The State
government is not their government, and they are going
to lose -- they are going to lose votes if they do not
reenact the Voting Rights Act.

Even the name of it is wonderful: The
Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in
the future?

link...​

Less people are voting against this act that I want them to vote against therefore I will use my lifetime appointement to overrule them. Unbelievable.
 
poweRob said:
Anyone catch Scalia's incredibly ridiculous argument against the voting rights act? Un****ing real.

Basically he said that each subsequent renewal of the act got more votes for and less votes against and therefore he has to step in and go against it because the senators are too scared to vote the way they want. Flat out admitting that he thinks he knows better than our representatives and therefore intends to override our representations' votes.

…

Less people are voting against this act that I want them to vote against therefore I will use my lifetime appointement to overrule them. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...
Much of his queries sounded of 'devil's advocate' and the portion you posted was quite cogent when considered unbiased and in origination. I heard/saw no reference to him indicating his intention…except maybe this:

JUSTICE SCALIA: We looked behind it in Boerne. I'm not talking about dismissing it. I'm -I'm talking about looking at it to see whether it makes any sense.
Click to expand...

What am I missing?
 
Dickieboy said:
Much of his queries sounded of 'devil's advocate' and the portion you posted was quite cogent when considered unbiased and in origination. I heard/saw no reference to him indicating his intention…except maybe this:



What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Devil's advocate would explain it reasonably but he called it a problem when referring the to voting patterns as indicated in the 2nd paragraph of the quote. Even more specifically in the first paragraph where he indicated that he himself had a problem with it. Which would seem that its not a devil's advocate position he's taking but rather his own position.
 
Pilot said:
I'm not saying that there aren't places that would still discriminate, just that it is wrong to only apply a law to people you suspect might do something. I see it as the equivalent of creating a law that all Middle Eastern airline passengers must go through a body scanner, but everyone else is not enough of a risk to be forced to undergo the same oversight. I'm not against the act, only the way it is currently applied.
Click to expand...

The foregoing is a bad analogy.
 
poweRob said:
Devil's advocate would explain it reasonably but he called it a problem when referring the to voting patterns as indicated in the 2nd paragraph of the quote. Even more specifically in the first paragraph where he indicated that he himself had a problem with it. Which would seem that its not a devil's advocate position he's taking but rather his own position.
Click to expand...

I too think the voting patterns are a problem. IMO, there are many issues that are currently considered 'political suicide'; a Republican voting for tax increases/marriage equality, a Democrat voting for SS/medicare 'adjustments', etc. Does this enforce the legitimacy of the legislation?

Consider this portion of the hearing:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: May I ask you a question? Assuming I accept your premise, and there's some question about that, that some portions of the South have changed, your county pretty much hasn't.
Click to expand...

Does this not sound like her mind is made up as to whether the South is still racist? And why would she say such when states like Alaska and Arizona (non-South states) and many counties (in CA, NY, SD, MI and NH) are included in the preclearance?

Note she interupts the openning within the FIRST SENTENCE to say this...the mold was cast for this hearing to be 'raucous'
 
Dickieboy said:
I too think the voting patterns are a problem. IMO, there are many issues that are currently considered 'political suicide'; a Republican voting for tax increases/marriage equality, a Democrat voting for SS/medicare 'adjustments', etc. Does this enforce the legitimacy of the legislation?

Consider this portion of the hearing:



Does this not sound like her mind is made up as to whether the South is still racist? And why would she say such when states like Alaska and Arizona (non-South states) and many counties (in CA, NY, SD, MI and NH) are included in the preclearance?

Note she interupts the openning within the FIRST SENTENCE to say this...the mold was cast for this hearing to be 'raucous'
Click to expand...

She is directing that to someone specifically and I'd have to know what she is referring to when she is stating that his county hasn't changed. She'd have to be doing that based on something that happened recently. I don't know what she is referring to on that.

But to you other point about voting patterns... do you see it as the SCOTUS' position to do what Scalia is inferring? The judicial branch overthrowing the decisions of the legislative branch when it is NOT a matter of constitutionality? But rather just a preference?
 
poweRob said:
She is directing that to someone specifically and I'd have to know what she is referring to when she is stating that his county hasn't changed. She'd have to be doing that based on something that happened recently. I don't know what she is referring to on that.
Click to expand...

It came from the hearing. Copied directly from the link you provided. She was questioning the solicitor representing Shelby Co. Didn't you read the transcript fully?

But to you other point about voting patterns... do you see it as the SCOTUS' position to do what Scalia is inferring? The judicial branch overthrowing the decisions of the legislative branch when it is NOT a matter of constitutionality? But rather just a preference?
Click to expand...

IMO, no it is not their purpose or intention nor do I believe they will overthrow the law. The question here is about preclearance which can certainly be a matter of constutionality especially considering it is not evenly applied to all the states. A few years back (2005 i think) this came up and it was stated that Congress would need to take up some 'trigger' to alleviate the requirements...or not. I believe Kagen brought it up again in this hearing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom