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

[Colonel Hogan]

So do something about it.

SCOTUS Voting Rights Act Decision Means We Need 'Right to Vote' Amendment

John Nichols on June 25, 2013 - 11:13 AM ET

What the US Supreme Court has done, with its decision to strike down essential elements of the Voting Rights Act, is wrong.

But the Court has not gone so rogue as might immediately seem to be the case in a nation that our civics teachers tell us is committed to democratic values.

Rather, the Court’s conservative majority has taken advantage of a gap in the Constitution that must be addressed.

Neither you nor John Nichols can possibly be this stupid. What "gap" did the language of the 15th and 19th Amendments leave open?

How would the language of his needless "Right to Vote" amendment close it?

Jeezus H. Christ on a rubber crutch.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Neither you nor John Nichols can possibly be this stupid. What "gap" did the language of the 15th and 19th Amendments leave open?

The Constitution says you cannot be denied the vote for certain enumerated reasons, but nowhere positively affirms voting as a constitutional right.

How would the language of his needless "Right to Vote" amendment close it?

From FairVote:

A Constitutional Right to Vote

The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy. Yet most Americans do not realize that we do not have a constitutionally protected right to vote. While there are amendments to the U.S. Constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th), no affirmative right to vote exists.

The 2000 Presidential Election was the first time many Americans realized the necessity of a constitutional right to vote. The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore (2000), wrote, "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." The U.S. is one of only 11 other democracies in the world with no affirmative right to vote enshrined in its constitution.

Because there is no right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal.

In November 2004:
•At least 1.2 million Americans voted incorrectly because of poor ballot design.
•Due to inconsistent and unequal provisional ballot counting policies, 500,000 votes or 30% of all provisional ballots cast were never counted. In Delaware only 6% were counted while 97% of those cast in Alaska were counted.
•Americans did not receive absentee ballots in time to return them on Election Day. In Broward County, Florida 58,000 absentee ballots were not delivered on time.
•Hundreds of thousands had difficulties registering to vote. Partisan voter registration organizations "lost" voter registration forms, leaving an untold number of eligible voters unregistered.
•Minorities and students experienced higher levels of voter intimidation and harassment than other groups.
•Over 1,100 voting machines malfunctioned. In North Carolina a voting machine lost 4500 votes, which should have required a revote in one state election; however, partisan politics prevented citizens from having an opportunity to make their voices heard.
•In Washington, the governor's race required three recounts and was decided by less than 200 votes. Questions remain regarding votes that were lost and then discovered. Provisional ballots may have been counted as normal ballots and potentially ineligible voters cast ballots.
•More than nine million American citizens are denied the same right to vote that they would enjoy if living in another part of the country. Several states deny voting rights for life to anyone once convicted of a felony. Children of American families living abroad often cannot vote when they reach voting age. American citizens living in Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands can be drafted into the military but are unable to vote for their Commander in Chief. Congress governs the District of Columbia more directly than any other state, yet the more than a half million citizens living in the District have no voting representation in Congress.

The addition of a Right to Vote Amendment to the U.S Constitution would:
•Guarantee the right of every citizen 18 and over to vote
•Empower Congress to set national minimum electoral standards for all states to follow
•Provide protection against attempts to disenfranchise individual voters
•Ensure that every vote cast is counted correctly

Many reforms are needed to solve the electoral problems we continue to experience every election cycle. The first is providing a solid foundation upon which these reforms can be made. This solid foundation is an amendment that clearly protects an affirmative right to vote for every U.S. citizen.

Support H.J. Res. 28, the proposed amendment to add a right to vote.

[ Read the Amendment ]

Text of House Joint Resolution Res. 28, The Right to Vote Amendment

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right to vote.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article --

`SECTION 1. All citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, shall have the right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides. The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, any State, or any other public or private person or entity, except that the United States or any State may establish regulations narrowly tailored to produce efficient and honest elections.`SECTION 2. Each State shall administer public elections in the State in accordance with election performance standards established by the Congress. The Congress shall reconsider such election performance standards at least once every four years to determine if higher standards should be established to reflect improvements in methods and practices regarding the administration of elections.`SECTION 3. Each State shall provide any eligible voter the opportunity to register and vote on the day of any public election.`SECTION 4. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The Constitution says you cannot be denied the vote for certain enumerated reasons, but nowhere positively affirms voting as a constitutional right.

So the Constitution specifies in two separate amendments that certain persons cannot be denied a right that is otherwise unspecified in the Constitution.

And yet that language has not prevented us from exercising the unspecified right.

Neither has the language in the two amendments where denial of the unspecified right is prohibited for two specific enumerated reasons effectively prevented discrimination on the basis of the reasons enumerated.

Neither has either of the two existing amendments authorized or prevented statutory administration of the unspecified right (including passage of the Voting Rights Act itself).

For all of the above reasons, a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote is a colossal waste of time which would remedy no substantive threat which the right to vote currently faces.

All such threats may be adequately addressed by "appropriate legislation." That's why those words were added.

This assumes, of course, that the voting right you are truly most interested in protecting is not that of fat, white guys.

Good. I thought so.

 

[Busybody]

is THAT what I asked for......based on what YOU said?


you said, So when Democrats created Medicare and Social Security they were putting their own needs over the country? Even though the people who actively use these programs are overwhelmingly Republicans?

LINK PLEASE

But you knew that!......unless you are a complete FOOL!


I also want answers to THIS

are you gonna give us the BREAKDOWN on the poll to see if (as Im sure we all know) is skewed?

and

will you acknowledge that question is misleading?

tell us

WE

WILL

W

A

I

T

WHERE THEFUCK IS THE ANSWER, CURRY?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

deerrrpo.

 

[John Doe]

So the fuck what? Last time I checked constiutional law wasn't a popularity contest.

 

[about_average]

The Constitution says you cannot be denied the vote for certain enumerated reasons, but nowhere positively affirms voting as a constitutional right.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Not all rights have to be enumerated in the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Women did not have the right to vote until 1920 and were not otherwise enslaved.

You might want to think twice about that.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Not all rights have to be enumerated in the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

True. At least in theory. In practice if the Constitution doesn't mention it then it's not a right in the strictest sense of the word.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Did anyone happen to catch exactly which clause and/or amendment the Supreme Court cited as a justification for overturning the pre-clearance portion of the Voting Rights Act?

I know Uncle Slappy's one-off concurrence simply called the whole VRA "unconstitutional", but my admittedly cursory reading of the opinion could find no Constitutional clause or amendment violation.

In the absence of such citation, how can anyone deny they were simply legislating from the bench?

 

[jeninflorida]

the obama people will not be happy till their people can vote 3-10 times

long live the welfare



we all should wear burka's and when someone requires us to take it off, or show an ID screams "RACIST BASTARDS"

 

[julybaby04]

Did anyone happen to catch exactly which clause and/or amendment the Supreme Court cited as a justification for overturning the pre-clearance portion of the Voting Rights Act?

I know Uncle Slappy's one-off concurrence simply called the whole VRA "unconstitutional", but my admittedly cursory reading of the opinion could find no Constitutional clause or amendment violation.

In the absence of such citation, how can anyone deny they were simply legislating from the bench?

The SCOTUS does that all the time. Roberts had to find a way to make Obamacare legal as it was not legal to force citizens of the US to buy anything. Making it a tax (which obama continuously said it was not) was the only way to pass it.

This type of legislating is done all the time.....

 

[RobDownSouth]

The SCOTUS does that all the time. Roberts had to find a way to make Obamacare legal as it was not legal to force citizens of the US to buy anything. Making it a tax (which obama continuously said it was not) was the only way to pass it.

This type of legislating is done all the time.....

Declaring Obamacare's mandatory coverage to be a tax is precisely WHY Roberts said was Constitutional, under the Constitutional provision that allows Congress near-unlimited authority to set, raise, lower and discontinue taxes.

I'll ask again...what makes the VRA provision "unconstitutional".

 

[Boxlicker101]

Only 33% approve of the decision, 51% disapprove. Also most Americans agree with the same sex marriage decisions... And the GOP slips even further out of touch with America.

http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1144a24SCOTUSDecisions.pdf

his is interesting, because I have a link from the same source that agrees with the "approve" figure on the VRA but is less than half of the "disapprove."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-decisions-on-gay-marriage-voting-rights-act/

 

[Liar]

[ Read the Amendment ]

One thing there:

`SECTION 3. Each State shall provide any eligible voter the opportunity to register and vote on the day of any public election.`

...Doesn't this presume a system in which manual registration to voter rolls is neccesary?

 

[jeninflorida]

One thing there:



...Doesn't this presume a system in which manual registration to voter rolls is neccesary?

and how insane America requires people to show a ID to vote. just nuts

 

[Sean Renaud]

and how insane America requires people to show a ID to vote. just nuts

No, America doesn't require people to show and ID to vote. Very few people are against that though, make ID's free to all legal voters and you won't get much argument from people.

The SCOTUS does that all the time. Roberts had to find a way to make Obamacare legal as it was not legal to force citizens of the US to buy anything. Making it a tax (which obama continuously said it was not) was the only way to pass it.

This type of legislating is done all the time.....

Who told you this lie? The US government can force citizens to buy things. Probably anything they like. It was done by George Washington for crying lout loud. If it was illegal I think the men who founded the country would have known it.

There is of course a gulf between things you don't want the government doing and things it actually can't do.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Did anyone happen to catch exactly which clause and/or amendment the Supreme Court cited as a justification for overturning the pre-clearance portion of the Voting Rights Act?

I know Uncle Slappy's one-off concurrence simply called the whole VRA "unconstitutional", but my admittedly cursory reading of the opinion could find no Constitutional clause or amendment violation.

In the absence of such citation, how can anyone deny they were simply legislating from the bench?

If you read the syllabus of the case (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf), you will see that only the Sec. 4 formula was ruled unconstitutional.

(b) Section 4’s formula is unconstitutional in light of current conditions.

(1) In 1966, the coverage formula was “rational in both practice and theory.” Katzenbach, supra, at 330. It looked to cause (discriminatory tests) and effect (low voter registration and turnout), and tailored the remedy (preclearance) to those jurisdictions exhibiting both. By 2009, however, the “coverage formula raise[d] serious constitutional questions.” Northwest Austin, supra, at 204.
Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices. The formula captures States by reference to literacy tests and low voter registration and turnout in the 1960s and early 1970s. But such tests have been banned for over 40 years. And voter registration and turnout numbers in covered States have risen dramatically. In 1965, the States could be divided into those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turn out and those without those characteristics. Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the Nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were.​

Sec. 5 remains in effect in theory should there ever again be conditions like the Sec. 4 formula targeted.

Since you obviously refuse to believe any of the five or six comments I've posted on this subject, I will once again refer you to the statement in the above syllabus, to wit: Section 4’s formula is unconstitutional in light of current conditions. "In light of current conditions" simply means that discriminatory literacy tests and the low voter registration and turnouts by minorities which were the two elements at the heart of Sec. 4 no longer exist.

Since these two primary elements no longer exist, it is "unconstitutional" to use them as the current basis for invoking the enforcement mechanism popularly known as "preclearance." This is precisely what Congress was doing each time it "renewed" the VRA while keeping the Sec. 4 formula intact.

The reason the Court did not reference a specific Amendment or other language within the Constitution is because the "presumption of innocence" and the "burden of proof" required to reverse that very presumption is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. Only a fool, however, would deny their centrality to our system of jurisprudence.

It is a principle steadfastly affirmed by the remaining sections of the VRA itself. In all other alleged violations of the Act (other than those states covered by Sec. 4 and 5), the Department of Justice files suit in federal court and therein assumes the role of plaintiff encumbered with the burden of proof against the accused state or political subdivision in its role as defendant.

That is the way our legal process is supposed to work.

 

[RobDownSouth]

If you read the syllabus of the case (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf), you will see that only the Sec. 4 formula was ruled unconstitutional.



Sec. 5 remains in effect in theory should there ever again be conditions like the Sec. 4 formula targeted.

Since you obviously refuse to believe any of the five or six comments I've posted on this subject, I will once again refer you to the statement in the above syllabus, to wit: Section 4’s formula is unconstitutional in light of current conditions. "In light of current conditions" simply means that discriminatory literacy tests and the low voter registration and turnouts by minorities which were the two elements at the heart of Sec. 4 no longer exist.

Since these two primary elements no longer exist, it is "unconstitutional" to use them as the current basis for invoking the enforcement mechanism popularly known as "preclearance." This is precisely what Congress was doing each time it "renewed" the VRA while keeping the Sec. 4 formula intact.

The reason the Court did not reference a specific Amendment or other language within the Constitution is because the "presumption of innocence" and the "burden of proof" required to reverse that very presumption is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. Only a fool, however, would deny their centrality to our system of jurisprudence.

It is a principle steadfastly affirmed by the remaining sections of the VRA itself. In all other alleged violations of the Act (other than those states covered by Sec. 4 and 5), the Department of Justice files suit in federal court and therein assumes the role of plaintiff encumbered with the burden of proof against the accused state or political subdivision in its role as defendant.

That is the way our legal process is supposed to work.

So you're saying the preclearance provision no longer met the burden of proof?

 

[julybaby04]

Declaring Obamacare's mandatory coverage to be a tax is precisely WHY Roberts said was Constitutional, under the Constitutional provision that allows Congress near-unlimited authority to set, raise, lower and discontinue taxes.

I'll ask again...what makes the VRA provision "unconstitutional".

Only certain states are included. I would think that feeling like everyone should be created equal, the LAST thing you would want was laws not equal for every state.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Only certain states are included. I would think that feeling like everyone should be created equal, the LAST thing you would want was laws not equal for every state.

There were provisions in the law to end preclearance if certain standards were met. Some states met them, the majority of the Old Confederacy chose not to do so. The Supreme Court basically rewarded bad behavior.

 

[julybaby04]

There were provisions in the law to end preclearance if certain standards were met. Some states met them, the majority of the Old Confederacy chose not to do so. The Supreme Court basically rewarded bad behavior.

Sounds like a normal day for the government in general.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So you're saying the preclearance provision no longer met the burden of proof?

Correct, although to be more precise, it is the absence of the Sec. 4 specific conditions that fail to justify the application of the extreme remedy which preclearance represents. In theory, no state should be forced to submit proposed state statutes to the Department of Justice for prior approval. That's outrageous.

But the systematic and determined state efforts to disenfranchise black voters from emancipation until the latter quarter of the past century was even more outrageous. Thus, the formula and thus, the remedy. The "punishment," we might say (and the Court DID), certainly fit the "crime."

If, as some alarmists have predicted, states should regress to the blatantly discriminatory devices characteristic of the late 50s and early 60s, the Court now has precedence for setting a new formula appropriate to any revived evils and using the preclearance vehicle once again.

But the nature of any such new offenses would truly have to rival the hatred of the 60s in order to justify the preclearance enforcement tool. Where the fight is going to start is if the race lobby twists itself into a pretzel trying to find any lame excuse to reinstate the preclearance mechanism simply to exploit a political agenda.

King Orfeo posted an article yesterday that serves notice that some of these folks intend to do exactly that. http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=46563146&postcount=84

 

[Colonel Hogan]

There were provisions in the law to end preclearance if certain standards were met. Some states met them, the majority of the Old Confederacy chose not to do so. The Supreme Court basically rewarded bad behavior.

NO, IT DIDN'T!!

The "bad behavior" were the literacy tests and specific discriminatory devices such as poll taxes and good character references. The proof of that bad behavior was the lower than average minority voter registration and participation.

At some point Congress outlawed literacy tests and the other devices. When the minority voting stats eventually matched or in several cases exceeded the national average, that was evidence that the once shameful states had finally accepted the inevitable and were finally resigned to displaying civilized behavior.

You don't keep punishing people for transgressions they have long ago abandoned.

 

[Bill_S]

Blacks should not be allowed to vote until they act like whites, that is to say until forever. All they vote for are bigger welfare checks.