Poll: Most Americans disapprove of SCOTUS decision on Voting Rights Act

[Busybody]

In which states....EXACTLY....are voters being suppressed?

did you see the question the "poll" axed?

c. striking down a key part of the federal law overseeing voting rights for minorities

how deceiving is THAT????????????

 

[Busybody]

Morsi won more of a % in voting then Obama did

Based on the OP, then Obama should be deposed

 

[julybaby04]

did you see the question the "poll" axed?

c. striking down a key part of the federal law overseeing voting rights for minorities

how deceiving is THAT????????????

I think the only state where voter's rights are being "suppressed" are those in which there is dishonestly going on.

Honest elections do not need laws to make them honest. I would be more concerned about those who feel there is a need for laws like this.

 

[julybaby04]

Morsi won more of a % in voting then Obama did

Based on the OP, then Obama should be deposed

Wishful thinking!

 

[Busybody]

I think the only state where voter's rights are being "suppressed" are those in which there is dishonestly going on.

Honest elections do not need laws to make them honest. I would be more concerned about those who feel there is a need for laws like this.

the US does not have HONEST ELECTIONS

Kenya does.....paid for by the US

 

[Sean Renaud]

I think the only state where voter's rights are being "suppressed" are those in which there is dishonestly going on.

Honest elections do not need laws to make them honest. I would be more concerned about those who feel there is a need for laws like this.

Of course honest elections need laws to make them honest. Do you really not understand how life works?

 

[RobDownSouth]

In which states....EXACTLY....are voters being suppressed?

Texas.
South Carolina.
Florida.
Ohio.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I think you left out Ohio where the Republican flat out said "these changes will allow Romney to win." I remember being floored and thinking you're supposed to lie when you cheat. Everybody knows you're lying but you owe us the respect of telling us it's raining when you piss on our heads. Not laughing and asking can you taste the asparagus you had for lunch.

 

[jeninflorida]

jesus, you people are stupid

 

[julybaby04]

Of course honest elections need laws to make them honest. Do you really not understand how life works?

Oh I do very well understand it.

I also know that elections work very well and are very honest for those who are honest in the first place.

Says alot about who is wanting an election that is not honest........seems to be those who are upset about the SCOTUS decision.

 

[julybaby04]

Texas.
South Carolina.
Florida.
Ohio.

LOL.....funny how those states, Florida and Ohio, in particular are always the states that are the "swing" states.

I would just bet that if left to a free and honest election, that would not be considered "swing" any longer.

Perhaps those states are problems because the Democrats do not have the control they think they have.....and HAVE to cheat to win them.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Oh, right Democrats need to cheat to win despite outnumbering Republicans. No, Republicans not only need to cheat to win they do so openly.

Oh I do very well understand it.

I also know that elections work very well and are very honest for those who are honest in the first place.

Says alot about who is wanting an election that is not honest........seems to be those who are upset about the SCOTUS decision.

Nobody wants a dishonest election. That's why there are rules in place. Rules that you want to do away with so which of us wants a dishonest election?

 

[RobDownSouth]

LOL.....funny how those states, Florida and Ohio, in particular are always the states that are the "swing" states.

I would just bet that if left to a free and honest election, that would not be considered "swing" any longer.

I absolutely agree with you. In a perfect world, with no Republican "block the vote" initiatives, I suspect that these states would vote comfortably Democratic.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I don't know shit about Florida other than I like it there, Ohio is where my family comes from though. I suspect that they'd either remain a swing state or go Red. They never really got the memo that they aren't part of the South. (Course if Republicans could manage to spend a few years without circling the wagons when some racist shows up they'd likely get decent chunks of the minority votes.)

 

[hotmama80]

Firstly.. the original Act of '64 was pushed through by Republicans.. and opposed by Democrats. It's a historical fact.

Secondly.. at the time it was passed America was in the middle of an "equality war".. and we'd just lost JFK .. and been stuck with Johnson...

At the time.. Minority voters in the south WERE being harrassed.. and encouraged not to vote.. and bullied and kept from voting any way possible..

Does that happen now??? It may.. to some extent but not like then.. I've actually witnessed it go the other way.. the white population being harrassed by the minority population.. be they black, hispanic, asian, etc..

GA is one of those states that has had to have preclearance from the DOJ in Washington DC... having these specific laws thrown out.. makes my job SO much easier! Reduces cost for the state and the federal govt...

Think about this..

We have a polling place.. that has become to small for the number of people that vote there..

we have to options to fix this problem.. we can either split the precinct and create a second polling place sending half the voters to the new one.. and reducing the number of people voting at hte first polling place.. which makes the day run smoother for all concerned..

OR.. we can move the original polling place to a larger building that can handle the volume of voters that vote there...

Either way we choose to do this.. previously .. we would FIRST have to advertise ALL of this locally.. so that any complaints on a local level can be made.. usually there are none.. but there are some occasionally... the last time we had to split a precinct.. there were no complaints adn 100% support..

Then.. a letter and maps containing the number of voters registered to the current polling place.. along with potential maps of the new suggested precincts and the number of voters each new prectint will have.. have to be submitted to the DOJ in Washington DC.
The voter numbers that have to be submitted have to show the race and age of the voters.. as well as whether they are male or female..

All this paperwork is turned over to a group of people that don't know anything about the area.. and frankly they don't care.. all they are looking at is numbers on a report..

Then.. it can take 6 months to either get simple changes like this approved or not.. If the approval isn't given.. then we have to start all over again..

re-draw maps.. refigure reports... resubmit to the local population... then resubmit to the DOJ..

it's an exhausting, time consuming, tax doller eating, pain in the ass process..

Now that we no longer have to jump through all these hoops.. it will take much less time.. be handled on a local level... and will cost us and the federal govt. less money.

there are still rules in effect... things that we must do before making changes... numbers that must be crunched and approved of....
Dropping these rules just makes the process local.. faster and the people making the changes.. actually KNOW the area and care about the voting population.. because we KNOW them..

Now does that mean that some people won't try to take advantage of this.. no.. some will... but for the most part.. racial descrimination in elections is a thing of the past..

 

[Sean Renaud]

Oh look it's our new Republican fool.

 

[julybaby04]

I absolutely agree with you. In a perfect world, with no Republican "block the vote" initiatives, I suspect that these states would vote comfortably Democratic.

Thought this was an interesting article.... (especially the part I put in bold)...


Don’t believe Ohio’s ‘voter suppression’ numbers
June 21, 2013
The Marietta Times
Save |
A report by two Democrat legislators that there were nearly 60,000 cases of "voter suppression" in Ohio last November would be cause for concern but for one fact: There weren't.

In general, the general election last fall went well from the standpoint of votes being cast and counted in an orderly manner and Ohioans being able to vote by convenient methods, Secretary of State Jon Husted reported this spring. After asking for information from all 88 county election boards, Husted said he had heard of just 135 cases of voter fraud and none of real vote suppression.

Then, earlier this month, state Sen. Nina Turner, whose district includes Cuyahoga County, and state Rep. Kathleen Clyde of Kent released their own report. Both are Democrats. They insist there were nearly 50,000 cases of voter suppression in Ohio last November.

That might lead some people to believe nearly 60,000 Buckeye State voters were told they could not vote - but that simply is not the case.

Turner and Clyde's calculation included 34,299 provisional ballots not counted, 13,190 absentee ballots rejected, 9,483 people who tried to vote at the wrong polling places and were told they could not and 2,188 complaints by Democrat Party attorneys - not voters themselves.

Provisional ballots are, by definition, suspected of not being cast properly, so it is no surprise many of them were rejected after examination. It also is no surprise that 13,190 absentee ballots were rejected because they were not filed legally. As for the 9,483 people who went to the wrong polling places, the franchise carries with it some responsibilities - including knowing where to vote.

And, as Husted noted, thousands of rejected absentee ballots came from people not registered to vote in Ohio.

As for whether there was suppression of absentee voters, consider this: During the 2008 general election, 1,733,579 absentee ballots were cast. Last fall the total was up to 1,876,174.

And in 2008, 69.97 percent of registered voters in Ohio cast ballots. Last fall the percentage was up to 70.51. That hardly suggests much of an effort at voter suppression.

Were some Buckeye State residents who wanted to vote unable to do so last fall? Undoubtedly. That is unfortunate, and something Husted and the county boards need to address.

But was there anything approaching the massive amount of suppression claimed by Turner and Clyde? Absolutely not.

http://www.mariettatimes.com/page/c...o-s--voter-suppression--numbers.html?nav=5004

 

[RobDownSouth]

Firstly.. the original Act of '64 was pushed through by Republicans.. and opposed by Democrats. It's a historical fact.

Welcome to Lit. You're a Goddamned liar.

When the Voting Rights Act hit the floor in 1965, the vote results mirrored those of the Civil Rights Act. In the House, the measure passed by a 333-85 margin, with 78 percent of Democrats backing it (221 yeas and 61 nays) and 82 percent of Republicans backing it (112 yeas to 24 nays).

In the Senate, the measure passed by a 77-19 vote, with 73 percent of Democrats and 94 percent of Republicans supporting the bill.

LINK

It's also worth noting that back in the 1960s there were such creatures as "conservative Democrats" and "liberal Republicans".

 

[Sean Renaud]

78<82
73<94

Just sayin that's not so much a lie as it is misrepresenting the facts.

 

[RobDownSouth]

78<82
73<94

Just sayin that's not so much a lie as it is misrepresenting the facts.

78% and 73% percent support is not "opposing" something, and no amount of spin can change that.

It's an outright lie, in my opinion.

 

[about_average]

78<82
73<94

Just sayin that's not so much a lie as it is misrepresenting the facts.

I would say it's an implied lie, since it was opposed by some republicans, just like it was opposed by some democrats, and it was pushed through by a majority of democrats, just like it was pushed through by a majority of republicans.
It sounds incredibly like a bipartisan effort.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I would say it's an implied lie, since it was opposed by some republicans, just like it was opposed by some democrats, and it was pushed through by a majority of democrats, just like it was pushed through by a majority of republicans.
It sounds incredibly like a bipartisan effort.

Twas the halycon era of a bygone age, when conservatives were willing to put the needs of their country above the needs of their party.

Those days, sadly, are gone.

 

[julybaby04]

Twas the halycon era of a bygone age, when conservatives were willing to put the needs of their country above the needs of their party.

Those days, sadly, are gone.

...and sadly the democrats have NEVER been willing to put the needs of their country above their own needs....

.....they just steal the things they want from others who have more!

 

[Sean Renaud]

...and sadly the democrats have NEVER been willing to put the needs of their country above their own needs....

.....they just steal the things they want from others who have more!

LOL. Even though we just presented you with evidence of the Democrats putting country first. Either that or you think blacks are inferior. Take your pick.

And Democrats willingness to put coutnry ahead of party is their great weakness. They are unwilling to use the power that we have granted them. Someday they may learn that there is no honor in losing while playing by the "rules" but that day isn't today. I'll be lucky if I live to see that day.

 

[julybaby04]

LOL. Even though we just presented you with evidence of the Democrats putting country first. Either that or you think blacks are inferior. Take your pick.

And Democrats willingness to put coutnry ahead of party is their great weakness. They are unwilling to use the power that we have granted them. Someday they may learn that there is no honor in losing while playing by the "rules" but that day isn't today. I'll be lucky if I live to see that day.

...too young to know better....