Section 4 of VRA struck down

[RandFan]

Turzai: Voter ID Will Allow Romney to Win Pa

Pennsylvania admits it: no voter fraud problem

I'm not sure how it could be any clearer. The GOP has serious concerns with the demographics.

One more thing:

source When asked at a meeting of Texas Republicans “what can Republicans do to get black people to vote,” a Texas Tea Party leader, Ken Emanuelson, gave the following answer:

“I’m going to be real honest with you, the Republican Party doesn’t want black people to vote if they’re going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats.”

Is anyone really surprised that the GOP is passing voter ID laws? Seriously?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I would support any law that made a good faith effort to ensure that no one who is a citizen is denied the right to vote. That includes voter ID laws. I'm not opposed to them in principle.

Is even that a problem, though? I wouldn't support such a law unless we knew it was a significant enough problem to worry about. I might or might not oppose such a law (depending on the particulars), but I wouldn't support it without there being good evidence of a significant problem.

(Funny that proponents of these intrusions of state authority into individual lives are generally the ones who are ideologically opposed to increasing the role of the government in people's lives.)

But again, that's a matter of politics, not constitutional law.

 

[Dymanic]

Even the dissenting opinion referred to it as "extraordinary".

You know something else that's extraordinary? The overwhelming majority in both Houses of Congress in voting to renew the non-permanent provisions of the VRA in 2006. Far in excess of what would be required to override a presidential veto, or add an Amendment to the Constitution. Five guys get to trump that? On what basis again? I get that it's "extraordinary". What I'd like to know is: Exactly what is the Constitutional basis for declaring the coverage formula to be out of date?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Now, take those 3 facts, shifting demographics, admission by PA that there is no evidence of voter fraud and the admission that the law was to ensure victory for Romney, what do you have? Voter suppression.

Not really. It could be--and I think it is the case--that it's a matter of political ideology. There needn't be any attempt or effect of voter suppression. It could be that they're just capitalizing on misperceptions of voter fraud (a kind of political scapegoating). Think of it as trying to make political hay by exploiting fear.

It's pretty much the same with "get tough on crime" legislation. I don't think it's ever hurt any politician to support that sort of thing, whether or not it was shown to be needed or at all effective.

You haven't shown that anyone is attempting voter suppression. I certainly could use a big stack of money right now, but that fact is not evidence that I intend to commit a bank robbery.

 

[RandFan]

Is even that a problem, though? I wouldn't support such a law unless we knew it was a significant enough problem to worry about. I might or might not oppose such a law (depending on the particulars), but I wouldn't support it without there being good evidence of a significant problem.

(Funny that proponents of these intrusions of state authority into individual lives are generally the ones who are ideologically opposed to increasing the role of the government in people's lives.)

But again, that's a matter of politics, not constitutional law.

Well, I won't argue that point. I'm far from an expert. I agree with you on the rest.

 

[RandFan]

Not really. It could be--and I think it is the case--that it's a matter of political ideology. There needn't be any attempt or effect of voter suppression. It could be that they're just capitalizing on misperceptions of voter fraud (a kind of political scapegoating). Think of it as trying to make political hay by exploiting fear.

It's pretty much the same with "get tough on crime" legislation. I don't think it's ever hurt any politician to support that sort of thing, whether or not it was shown to be needed or at all effective.

You haven't shown that anyone is attempting voter suppression. I certainly could use a big stack of money right now, but that fact is not evidence that I intend to commit a bank robbery.

If you made arrangements to get dynamite, blueprints and information about the local bank then that would be a much better example.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You know something else that's extraordinary? The overwhelming majority in both Houses of Congress in voting to renew the non-permanent provisions of the VRA in 2006. Far in excess of what would be required to override a presidential veto, or add an Amendment to the Constitution.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Amending the Constitution requires ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

Constitutional questions are not decided by any majority of Congress. [ETA: And overriding a presidential veto is also irrelevant. That doesn't involve the question of constitutionality at all.]

Five guys get to trump that? On what basis again?

The Article 3 judicial authority. The judiciary has the authority to settle disputes over the law including the Constitution itself.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If you made arrangements to get dynamite, blueprints and information about the local bank then that would be a much better example.

But that's the stuff you haven't shown here, I think. You'd have to find evidence of an intention to suppress votes. What you've shown can best be construed as evidence to exploit misinformation and fears. I think it's about an attempt to motivate their "base" to vote for them more than anything.

And the quote about not wanting black people to vote if they're going to vote Democratic should point to the question, "What if they're going to vote Republican?" I'll bet the GOP would want them to vote if they'd vote Republican.

 

[maxpower1227]

And the quote about not wanting black people to vote if they're going to vote Democratic should point to the question, "What if they're going to vote Republican?" I'll bet the GOP would want them to vote if they'd vote Republican.

But they won't so they don't. It's a moot point.

I honestly don't see how anyone can see this as anything other than an attempt to suppress the vote of certain demographics which are known to overwhelmingly vote against Republicans.

 

[RandFan]

But that's the stuff you haven't shown here, I think. You'd have to find evidence of an intention to suppress votes. What you've shown can best be construed as evidence to exploit misinformation and fears. I think it's about an attempt to motivate their "base" to vote for them more than anything.

And the quote about not wanting black people to vote if they're going to vote Democratic should point to the question, "What if they're going to vote Republican?" I'll bet the GOP would want them to vote if they'd vote Republican.

Thanks. I think that is exactly what I've shown. It's a circumstantial case but given the very serious problem they have with an ever shrinking base I think it is by far the most parsimonious explanation. We can disagree. Firing up the base cannot forever solve the problem of shifting trends. Further, I think they are a bit smarter than you give them credit. They know based on historical figures how much they are likely to fire up their base. They know that's not enough to compensate for losing in every major demographic other than old white men.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But they won't so they don't. It's a moot point.

Not wrt to the topic of this thread. That's a far different thing than not wanting blacks to vote at all. A Democrat might say of the 1% wealthiest people, "If they're going to vote Republican, I don't want them to vote," without it being evidence of an attempt to suppress votes.

I honestly don't see how anyone can see this as anything other than an attempt to suppress the vote of certain demographics which are known to overwhelmingly vote against Republicans.

What's the evidence that it is an attempt to suppress the vote of certain demographics? What argument do you have against the explanation I've offered? (That they're making political hay with people who share some portion of their ideology rather than trying to suppress votes.)

Back to the topic, if it is so obviously an attempt to suppress the vote of certain demographics (one that reasonable minds cannot disagree on), then what need is there for federal pre-authorization since such laws could easily be enjoined before they take effect?

It can't be both something that is such a slam dunk that reasonable minds can't possibly take it any other way, and something that would be difficult to block by injunction.

Remember, the VRA is not gone.

It is still and always will be illegal for states to enact laws that have the purpose or effect of denying people the right to vote based on race or color.

 

[Dymanic]

Sorry, but you're wrong. Amending the Constitution requires ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

I believe I correctly stated the requirement insofar as Congress is concerned: a two-thirds majority.

Constitutional questions are not decided by any majority of Congress. [ETA: And overriding a presidential veto is also irrelevant. That doesn't involve the question of constitutionality at all.]

The Article 3 judicial authority. The judiciary has the authority to settle disputes over the law including the Constitution itself.

Perhaps you didn't understand the question. The SCOTUS ruled Section 4 of the VRA unconstitutional. What I'm asking is, other than the whole thing being so extraordinary and all, what's unconstitutional about it?

 

[SezMe]

You haven't shown that anyone is attempting voter suppression.

Read Section 2 of this. Here's some tidbits (my highlight):

Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections Jean Jensen concluded that incidents of voter suppression appeared widespread and deliberate.

Note that is the Secretary of State, not some yahoo off the street.

In the Maryland gubernatorial election in 2010, the campaign of Republican candidate Bob Ehrlich hired a consultant who advised that "the first and most desired outcome is voter suppression", in the form of having "African-American voters stay home."

A Florida law passed in 2011 by the Republican-controlled Florida legislature which reduced the days available for early voting, barred voter-registration activities of groups like the League of Women Voters, and made it more difficult to vote for voters who since the last election had moved to a different county within the state was part of a voter suppression effort, according to several former senior GOP officials.

From the horse's mouth.

Now, Joe, can we move beyond the need for evidence of deliberate voter suppression?

 

[maxpower1227]

Thank you. I didn't have the motivation to bother answering, but come on, what possible other reason could there be. A multitude of voter ID laws are being pushed in numerous red states, to solve a problem that doesn't exist? When we have people actually saying out loud that they don't want black people voting? You should go to some conservative message board some time. They all still believe that poor black people voting multiple times (and dead people, of course) is the only reason Obama won his elections.

 

[RandFan]

12 Very Real Voter-Suppression Tactics Experts Now Worry Will Come Back

 

[theprestige]

Here's Alabama's current Voter ID requirement

Do they have anything for casting provisional ballots just in case of unforeseen circumstances?

Dude.

The link is right there.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

12 Very Real Voter-Suppression Tactics Experts Now Worry Will Come Back

Here's my confusion with gerrymandering tactics:

5. Packing majority-minority districts. Election maps drawn to push all of a community's minorities in one or a handful of districts can dilute their voting power.

6. Dividing minority districts. Similarly, election maps can slice minority communities into multiple districts so that they have no cumulative influence in any one place. The line between these two tactics is a fine one (and also illustrates why the VRA was useful for assessing facts on the ground).

So how the heck should we draw borders? Especially given that there has been a lot of self-segragation.

 

[Dymanic]

So how the heck should we draw borders? Especially given that there has been a lot of self-segragation.

Well, we could just let incumbents draw the borders and then wait to see if litigation reveals that they did so in ways that violated the Sections of the VRA that still stand. Of course, that would almost surely be years after the fact, but we could remedy that with a full system restore. Put the maps back the way they were and hold the elections over again. Oh, and: undo everything those incumbents did while bogusly holding office (as well as all of the results of their actions, both direct and indirect). Sounds complicated, I know, but hey -- it's complicated now, right?

We need to start setting up some restore points.

 

[Brown]

The SCOTUS ruled Section 4 of the VRA unconstitutional. What I'm asking is, other than the whole thing being so extraordinary and all, what's unconstitutional about it?

I asked a similar question in post number 4.

Judge Richard Posner was also puzzled:

Shelby County v. Holder, decided Tuesday, struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act (the part requiring certain states with a history of racial discrimination in voting to obtain federal permission in advance to change their voting procedures—called "preclearance") as violating the "fundamental principle of equal sovereignty" of the states. This is a principle of constitutional law of which I had never heard—for the excellent reason that ... there is no such principle.
...
Ordinarily however a federal statute is not invalidated on the ground that it’s dated. I hardly think the Supreme Court justices believe ... that "desuetude" is a constitutional doctrine. And the criticisms of the statute in the majority opinion are rather tepid. That's why the court's invocation of "equal sovereignty" is an indispensable prop of the decision. But, as I said, there is no doctrine of equal sovereignty. The opinion rests on air.

Scholarly defenses of the Supreme Court opinion have been extraordinarily lame. It is interesting to speculate how the "fundamental principle of equal sovereignty" will be raised in future litigation, as well as how it may be based in the Constitution. Since the Voting Right Act itself purportedly HAS a clear constitutional basis (it was enacted pursuant to the Fifteenth Amendment), one might conclude that the "fundamental principle of equal sovereignty" must be even more constitutionally entrenched ....

 

[Kestrel]

So how the heck should we draw borders? Especially given that there has been a lot of self-segragation.

California turned the entire process over to an independent board.

Texas went the other way. They redraw district lines every few years, whenever they see an advantage to doing so. This assures that Republicans will keep control of the state legislature even if they nomiate candidates who can't win a debate with a tossed salad.