What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
52 Comments
- one504, on 06/13/2009, -4/+23Next up: Incumbent Finance Reform
- FlaG8r, on 06/14/2009, -2/+18I wish the article explained which part of the law they think is likely to get struck down and on what grounds.
- MooseOfReason, on 06/14/2009, -0/+12By the way, if anyone else was confused what part the Court was striking down, like I was:
" In a 5-4 decision, the court said officials need not consider race when drawing districts for state legislatures, county boards, city councils and school districts, so long as blacks do not make up a voting majority in a particular area.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, speaking for the court, said the law can "hasten the waning of racism in American politics" by making race less of factor in drawing electoral districts."
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/10/nation/na- ... - taylorhayward, on 06/13/2009, -3/+14I have a feeling this is going to be critical in the 2012 elections with a very contentious incumbent ballot.
- beccabob, on 06/14/2009, -0/+10From what I read in the article, the Justice Department really has no idea of what will happen, outside that the position the federal government endorses is likely to lose. I did not see anything about exactly why it was ruled wrong before, and am rather curious. I most certainly think that every eligible voter needs to be given the chance to vote, and very much agree that too many times voters have been disenfranchised for racist reasons. I think that in most cases now, that is how it is. I think that rules against felons voting is a tricky one, as I think that is the cause of some minority voting problems. I know that many of the crimes are for drugs, and I think that some of the drug laws are really stupid and outdated. However, meth, heroin, and many of the "hard" drugs should not be available, even if others are, such as marijuana. As a middle class white male, it is easy to say, just get an education and work and educate your way out of poverty, and to stay clean, but for many of those people, that option is frowned upon, if not next to impossible to achieve. Permanently denying their voting rights for doing drugs heavily embedded in their culture does not make sense, regardless if they know it is against the law. . Let them know that they can be a part of society with at least a little influence..
- pilot3033, on 06/14/2009, -0/+7Right, it's called reporting. "Debating the pros and cons" is something that was invented for recent news in order to create controversy. One could argue that its a result of the oft hated "fairness doctrine" but really, its just a result of competing cable news networks trying to fill up 24 hours of content that will keep people watching.
This article doesn't take a stance, it tells you what's going on and lets you decide what this could mean. It presents the issue in a simple, easy-to-understand way, but not at a huge cost in terms of content, or leaving out crucial parts.
And, if you do read the ***** incredibly easy article, you'd notice that it mentions several times the supreme court is supposedly looking at the parts that require certain counties to ask the Federal Government before they can change their voting laws and procedures. - lordmike, on 06/14/2009, -0/+6Considering that many states are finding new and ingenious ways to disenfranchise voters, a negative ruling would be horrible for democracy in America...
- pilot3033, on 06/14/2009, -2/+8WTF are you on about? ACRON? Really? And why should I need a photo ID? I thought you wanted less government, not more?
- kolobcreek, on 06/14/2009, -3/+9Weak article it doesn't debate the merits, pro or con, of what ever if any is needed or does other than mentioning discrimination. Nor does it mention any specific parts of the act that will be abolished.
- Chaotyk, on 06/14/2009, -3/+8It doesn't? Thanks for saving me the time I would have spent reading this article; I think I'm gonna skip it.
- MooseOfReason, on 06/14/2009, -1/+615th Amendment
"Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--
Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Seems pretty clear to me. What's the problem in striking down part of the Voting Rights Act? - deathandtaverns, on 06/14/2009, -2/+7show me one, just one small bit of proof that ACORN did that. If they did this in large enough numbers that it would have made a difference somebody would have noticed.
- inactive, on 06/14/2009, -0/+5The part that requires southern counties and states to get Fed approval to change their voting policies. And it does mention it.
- treas, on 06/14/2009, -0/+5half is probably a bit too generous.
- norman619, on 06/14/2009, -0/+5While you are in prison I agree you should not have a right to vote. Once you have served your time and are released you should have the right to vote restored. You paid your debt to society. Not restoring the right to vote constitutes continued and unjust punishment.
- Lamadave222, on 06/14/2009, -0/+4Vitriol. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has nothing to do with BushCo. It has to do with unequal application of the law, Seattle can change to optical ballots tomorrow and next year to computer-only voting without DOJ approval. Something about the powers not specifically assigned to the federal government..blah...blah...blah. But if you live in Birmingham, Alabama, and want to switch to optical ballots (generally viewed as race neutral) you can't without DOJ approval. Apparently that violates some equal protection thingie in the Constitution.
- JDLamb88, on 06/14/2009, -0/+4Guess what, 100 percent of all voters voted for white men before the recent election. Racism indeed.
- zephyear, on 06/14/2009, -2/+6IN A 5-4 DECISION
- gbudavid, on 06/13/2009, -16/+19about time
- robdiggity, on 06/14/2009, -0/+3Then shouldn't the legislative body take appropriate action to adjust the law for the times?
- Barackalypse, on 06/14/2009, -0/+2People who want the Government stripped of power aren't fascists, the fascists are the ones who want it to have the power.
- Railz, on 06/14/2009, -0/+2I liked the Video and fits well with one of Churchill's more famous quotes about Voters in Democratic lands. Information is valuable. Half the people probably don't even know what the Voting Right Act is.
- amoirae, on 06/14/2009, -2/+4Why is it about time?
- robdiggity, on 06/14/2009, -0/+2Unconstitutionally? Certainly not. And no one would suggest that it does. Taht said, consider the 15th Ammendment to the Constitution:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
As a Constitutional Ammendment, this is not statutory law. It is Consitutional law. It *is* the Constitution. Are you suggesting he statutory Act being reviewed is not in line with Section 2 of the Ammendment? - Flytrap, on 06/14/2009, -0/+2Summed up a view that I think many people will entertain positively in a few succinct words. Very well put, sir.
- robdiggity, on 06/14/2009, -0/+2Although it doesn't use the term "southern."
- ridusoftyranny, on 06/14/2009, -0/+1I'm sure if ACORN was a radical right-wing extremist goupd they'd all feel differently. And if photo id's were not required to access bank accounts and take out loans they would be screaming for some regulation.
Good for you Typical, you struck a nerve by using logic and reasoning! - robdiggity, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1I planned on giving you a digg if you came back with scrutiny on "appropriate." Addressing the language of the Ammendment as the foundation for attacking the Act really is the only viable argument. Just curious, where did the "emergency" argument come from, and where did it just go?
- VitriolAndAngst, on 06/14/2009, -0/+1We still have too many fascists on the supreme court willing to sell out their country for a Winnebago.
- Midtowner, on 06/14/2009, -0/+1I'm all for change here. In 1965, the South was a very different place. Racism was openly practiced and it was rampant. Voting districts were drawn up in such a way that minority areas were divided up to become meaningless. For example, this description of one of those districts from North Carolina v. Gingles:
"The populations of the Eleventh are centered around four discrete, widely spaced urban centers that have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and stretch the district hundreds of miles across rural counties and narrow swamp corridors. Two-thirds of the population of the district is concentrated in urban DeKalb, Richmond and Chatham Counties. These communities are so far apart that DOJ's insistence that they are "compact" renders the term meaningless. The hooks, tails and protrusions of these counties reveals the true "shape" of the district: if it were graphically depicted and sized according to the density of population, the miniature polyp of south DeKalb County would become a large bulbus affair accounting for about 35 percent of the district's size; the narrow hook into Richmond County would be a rather uncouth polygon sporting about 16 percent of the district's girth; and the tuft attached to the tail extending to Chatham County would represent 12.4 percent of the district. Finally, the proboscis extending into Baldwin County would be another distant repository of Eleventh District population.”
The question before the Court is essentially whether the need still exists for the Justice Department to have to approve the voting district decisions of the southern states. It is widely speculated that the Court will do something because, essentially, they have the votes, and because by and large this sort of overt racial discrimination doesn’t really happen anymore. - Midtowner, on 06/14/2009, -0/+1Yes it does.
- MichaelCorleone, on 06/14/2009, -2/+3Thought this was funny and worth adding here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUP9Jm9SqvY - MicrosoftBob, on 06/14/2009, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_ ...
- VitriolAndAngst, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1Oh, you mean back when the Voting Rights Act was meant to protect the Voting Rights of Americans?
Well of course the Supreme Court will have no choice in destroying it to ensure that the rights of Electronic Voting Machines do not get infringed.
>> There's nothing wrong with my timeline -- just the /sarcasm detectors. - deathandtaverns, on 06/14/2009, -0/+1none of that puts forward any evidence to the assertion that ACORN bussed people from county to county voting under false names. These were people who were working in Ohio, registered to vote and were informed that what they were doing was illegal. They had photo IDs and did not register under false names. Also this was only 17 people and even if you said that only these 17 got caught and took it to the extreme, if all of the Obama workers did this it would only have been a few hundred votes at most. What the ACORN people are asserting is that there was an organized effort to enter thousands of false votes and that is what cost McCain Florida, Ohio, etc.
- deathandtaverns, on 06/14/2009, -0/+1so it's logical to make accusations of voter fraud without one bit of proof? Anyways Obama preformed as expected according to the polls, or did ACORN get to those as well? At least the Bush conspiracy theories had the means to do so without anyone noticing and the results didn't match up against the pre-election and exit polls.
- Midtowner, on 06/14/2009, -1/+2The word "appropriate" is key here. That's a movable target -- it means that what might be "appropriate" in 1965 isn't appropriate in 2009. That's essentially the test here and most folks think that the target has moved enough to invalidate the Act or parts thereof.
- frygar, on 06/14/2009, -0/+1YOU STILL LOST. Get over it. For your own sake.
- RoflCoptah, on 06/14/2009, -1/+2maybe because many of the people who would benefit from Democrats being in power would be black?
i'm just saying, black people have more to gain from obama than mccain. - Midtowner, on 06/14/2009, -0/+1The Voting Rights Act of 1965...somehow, I think your time line is flawed.
- Lamadave222, on 06/14/2009, -0/+1Go to National Review Online (nationalreview.com) it has a discussion of the problem. Take your pick...the Constitution says that determining how voting is done is left to the states, or parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution, treating one group of voters differently than others.
- Midtowner, on 06/14/2009, -1/+1No, because the legislature doesn't have the power to unconstitutionally deprive the states of their own innate powers without some sort of emergency. The emergency has passed, thus what justified the law previously, no longer exists.
- inactive, on 06/14/2009, -0/+0Here's some from my other comment:
http://www.palestra.net/blogs/read/17609
http://www.palestra.net/news/ohio-voting/17691
http://www.palestra.net/blogs/read/17433 - VitriolAndAngst, on 06/14/2009, -1/+1Wait a second, is the "Voting Rights Act" a typical BushCo named edict that actually does the opposite of what it promises?
*smacks forehead*
It's a full time job trying to figure out if the fascists are winning or losing. - scottknick, on 06/14/2009, -3/+3It is. So the question is, does Congress really have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation? Or will the States Rightsers have their revenge with the Bush Court?
- frygar, on 06/14/2009, -2/+1Shut up, fascist.
- bubbadigg, on 06/15/2009, -1/+0I think that we should go back to the times when only "Land owners" were allowed to vote. This way we aren't putting people into office that will take our maoney and give it to someone that has nothing and won't work to own anything.
It would take out the race issue because anybody can own land if they work for it. (Of couse, we would exclude people that were given land by the government because some politician thought that it wasn't fair if everybody doesn't own land) - Midtowner, on 06/14/2009, -2/+1Because the need to have the justice department approve voting districts in certain southern states has passed.
- inactive, on 06/14/2009, -10/+6Yeah, like requiring a photo ID. How dare a state require voters be US citizens and residents of the state. It's not fair to all the illegals. What about their right to vote? What about ACORN? How are they going bus people into a key swing states to vote if they're forced to prove the voters are residents?
-
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is