• 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 rejects Michigan straight-ticket voting appeal

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday rejected a bid by Michigan to reinstate its Republican-backed ban on straight-ticket voting for the Nov. 8 general election.
The justices left in place a decision by a federal district judge in Michigan who in July suspended a law that abolished straight-ticket voting, the practice of using one mark to vote for all candidates from one party, finding that it would disproportionately affect black voters.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court held that the purpose of the Republican passed law was to make it take much longer for African Americans to vote, thus creating longer lines and making it more difficult for blacks to vote. The vote was 6-2 in favor of striking down the law, which included Chief Justice John Roberts.

Article is here.
 
Straight ticket is perfect for semi sentient voters. They just do what they are told and pick up their $20.00 on the way out the door.
 
danarhea said:
The Supreme Court held that the purpose of the Republican passed law was to make it take much longer for African Americans to vote, thus creating longer lines and making it more difficult for blacks to vote. The vote was 6-2 in favor of striking down the law, which included Chief Justice John Roberts.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Wait so the Supreme Court ruled that race is a factor in party line voting? Thier might be other reasons to strike this law down, such as the state have no compelling reason for the restriction on the right to vote. But this ruling seems very offensive to blacks.
 
Crovax said:
Wait so the Supreme Court ruled that race is a factor in party line voting? Thier might be other reasons to strike this law down, such as the state have no compelling reason for the restriction on the right to vote. But this ruling seems very offensive to blacks.
Click to expand...

The law itself was offensive to blacks who, according to the court, might not all get a chance to vote before the polls closed.
 
danarhea said:
The law itself was offensive to blacks who, according to the court, might not all get a chance to vote before the polls closed.
Click to expand...

But why wouldnt it affect white people as well?
 
i'm not a fan of voting a straight ticket for one of the two gerrymandered superparties without even looking at the candidates who are running, so i don't agree with this decision.

i also feel, however, that states which limit early voting / polling places and have long lines as a result should have control of their elections taken away from them until they correct course.
 
In theory I do not like straight-ticket voting. I want voters to be able to have as much individual choice as possible.

However, the right of citizens of the United States to vote is sacred and cannot be abridged in any way. It sounds like this was a panacea to long voter lines in Black communities, and if it's the only one, then it must not be infringed.

Maybe there's some sort of compromise for states who do electronic voting, such as the option for across-the-board Democratic or Republican tickets, with the option to customize individual choices?
 
Crovax said:
Wait so the Supreme Court ruled that race is a factor in party line voting? Thier might be other reasons to strike this law down, such as the state have no compelling reason for the restriction on the right to vote. But this ruling seems very offensive to blacks.
Click to expand...

The whole blacks is dumber than whites and should not have to do exactly the same thing as whites would be offensive to me if I were black, but it forms the basis for present liberal racial thinking
 
danarhea said:
The law itself was offensive to blacks who, according to the court, might not all get a chance to vote before the polls closed.
Click to expand...

I don't get it. Did the precincts let whites go first, or what?
 
Crovax said:
But why wouldnt it affect white people as well?
Click to expand...

What the courts did what to look at the reason Republicans attempted to eliminate straight-ticket voting, which has been in place for more than a century in Michigan. They determined that the motive was to make it harder for blacks to vote. Even John Roberts sided with the plaintiffs on this one. This case will be presented in more depth next year, but for this year, Michigan gets to keep straight-ticket voting.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
The Supreme Court held that the purpose of the Republican passed law was to make it take much longer for African Americans to vote, thus creating longer lines and making it more difficult for blacks to vote. The vote was 6-2 in favor of striking down the law, which included Chief Justice John Roberts.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

They think the black population would have more difficulties checking boxes on paper? Why, that's racist.
 
danarhea said:
What the courts did what to look at the reason Republicans attempted to eliminate straight-ticket voting, which has been in place for more than a century in Michigan. They determined that the motive was to make it harder for blacks to vote. Even John Roberts sided with the plaintiffs on this one. This case will be presented in more depth next year, but for this year, Michigan gets to keep straight-ticket voting.
Click to expand...

Are you saying you think is would be more difficult for blacks than whites? That is not very polite.
 
jimbo said:
I don't get it. Did the precincts let whites go first, or what?
Click to expand...

Blacks will probably need special compensation as long as they are black. If we are to believe the rationale for every racially tainted decision by our esteemed Supreme Court is that blacks need to be excused from 21st century realities on the grounds that blackness requires special consideration, then it is likely that blacks will be demanding and receiving preferential treatment for the next 1000 years. They seem particulary gifted at accessing and using their EBT cards. Perhaps one of our bleeding heart liberals can explain why a Voting ID Card is such a stretch. Poll closing times are, at least for those who possess any common sense at all, blind to the color of a voter's skin. With the statistically high level of black unemployment, they could easily get to the polls by 10:00 AM which would obviously facilitate ample opportunity for working blacks to have plenty of time at the end of the day to vote. Besides, don't most states keep their polling places open until the last voter is served?

God damn you, Antonin Scalia. You picked a fine time to leave us.
 
joG said:
They think the black population would have more difficulties checking boxes on paper? Why, that's racist.
Click to expand...

Well, that right there is a stupid friggin' comment.

On topic, I don't like the idea of banning straight ticket voting. If someone wants to, that's their right.
 
joG said:
Are you saying you think is would be more difficult for blacks than whites? That is not very polite.
Click to expand...


Ask yourself why Roberts was on the side of the plaintiffs. Forcing people to take longer in the voting booth extends wait times in underserved, understaffed areas, which nearly always happen to be in places where minorities vote. Funny how that works.
 
Quazimodo said:
Blacks will probably need special compensation as long as they are black. If we are to believe the rationale for every racially tainted decision by our esteemed Supreme Court is that blacks need to be excused from 21st century realities on the grounds that blackness requires special consideration, then it is likely that blacks will be demanding and receiving preferential treatment for the next 1000 years. They seem particulary gifted at accessing and using their EBT cards. Perhaps one of our bleeding heart liberals can explain why a Voting ID Card is such a stretch. Poll closing times are, at least for those who possess any common sense at all, blind to the color of a voter's skin. With the statistically high level of black unemployment, they could easily get to the polls by 10:00 AM which would obviously facilitate ample opportunity for working blacks to have plenty of time at the end of the day to vote. Besides, don't most states keep their polling places open until the last voter is served?

God damn you, Antonin Scalia. You picked a fine time to leave us.
Click to expand...

True, everyone standing in line at closing time gets to vote. I don't know about those voter ID cards though. I thought whites got a pass having to show your driver's license or welfare card. Just blacks had to do it.

As to voting times, I am retired, which makes me statistically unemployed. I hate lines. So I go vote at 10:00 or 2:00. Either way, the line is short.
 
Kobie said:
Ask yourself why Roberts was on the side of the plaintiffs. Forcing people to take longer in the voting booth extends wait times in underserved, understaffed areas, which nearly always happen to be in places where minorities vote. Funny how that works.
Click to expand...

Long waiting lines in the middle of nowhere? That stretches my imagination and makes me wonder, why the election stations are underserved and underserviced, where long lines of black voters are waiting. There is something extremely odd in that explanation and doesn't seem to justify reducing the vote to one of one party or the other. It sounds like political bankruptcy.
 
joG said:
Long waiting lines in the middle of nowhere? That stretches my imagination and makes me wonder, why the election stations are underserved and underserviced, where long lines of black voters are waiting. There is something extremely odd in that explanation and doesn't seem to justify reducing the vote to one of one party or the other. It sounds like political bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

What.
 
joG said:
Long waiting lines in the middle of nowhere? That stretches my imagination and makes me wonder, why the election stations are underserved and underserviced, where long lines of black voters are waiting. There is something extremely odd in that explanation and doesn't seem to justify reducing the vote to one of one party or the other. It sounds like political bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

You should educate yourself on the topic.

Voting booths in Michigan's black neighborhoods are noticeably different.

The ban on straight ticket voting was an effort to further obstruct the bandaid on an already obstructed democratic process.
 
danarhea said:
The Supreme Court held that the purpose of the Republican passed law was to make it take much longer for African Americans to vote, thus creating longer lines and making it more difficult for blacks to vote. The vote was 6-2 in favor of striking down the law, which included Chief Justice John Roberts.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Good ruling, It's almost like some people aren't even reading the article or any info on this ruling they can fine. I read about 5 articles including yours and it seems like a good ruling to me. Guess people will make up whatever they want.
 
Kobie said:
Well, that right there is a stupid friggin' comment.

On topic, I don't like the idea of banning straight ticket voting. If someone wants to, that's their right.
Click to expand...

You would. It is the easy way to trick voters into not thinking about alternatives and discourages voting mindfully.
 
Absentglare said:
You should educate yourself on the topic.

Voting booths in Michigan's black neighborhoods are noticeably different.

The ban on straight ticket voting was an effort to further obstruct the bandaid on an already obstructed democratic process.
Click to expand...

I was responding to the answer I had received. It was not internally consistent and seemed to indicate that the problem was not a method of voting that encourages thinking about candidates vs voting only between parties. To give into "Forcing people to take longer in the voting booth extends wait times in underserved, understaffed areas, which nearly always happen to be in places where minorities vote. Funny how that works" instead of correcting the real problem seems to me to be an attempt to utilize presumed negative attributes of black voters. That is as racist as anything that the law was being accused of.
 
LaylaWindu said:
Good ruling, It's almost like some people aren't even reading the article or any info on this ruling they can fine. I read about 5 articles including yours and it seems like a good ruling to me. Guess people will make up whatever they want.
Click to expand...

I personally think it better that people should think about each vote they cast. Maybe, if I were less ambivalent to the parties, I would want to trick people into taking the simple way of ticking one box instead of individualizing it.
 
joG said:
I personally think it better that people should think about each vote they cast.
Click to expand...
I agree it is better, but that has nothing to do with this ruling.

joG said:
Maybe, if I were less ambivalent to the parties, I would want to trick people into taking the simple way of ticking one box instead of individualizing it.
Click to expand...

Again, nothing to do with the ruling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom