Supreme Court: Section 4 of Voting Rights Act Unconstitutional

[Jacob]

1.  I don't know.  Everyone has heard the jokes about dead people voting in Chicago.  Are they true?  Are they a thing of the past?  I have certainly not seen a lot of evidence to suggest it is a major, current problem.

So in the last election they found 135 cases of possible fraud in Ohio out of more than 5.6 million votes cast:

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2013/05/23/ohio-election-fraud-report-released.html
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2013/05/investigations_recommend_135_c.html

Seems to me that the stories you hear bandied around are not true; or at the very least that there is zero evidence for them.

2.  I don't know.

What sort of evidence would convince you?

Now my question for you: how are these questions related to my post and/or this thread?  Certainly you're not operating under the assumption that the USSC ruled that voter suppression is a wonderful thing, are you?

It seems to me that the USSC have ruled that voter suppression is not a big deal. To quote the link in my previous post:

In 2012, the Justice Department blocked these measures under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Federal courts agreed that both the strict voter ID law and the redistricting map would disproportionately target the state's fast-growing minority communities. Still, Texas filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court over the Voting Rights Act case complaining that the DOJ had used "abusive and heavy-handed tactics" to thwart the state's attempts at voter suppression.

In the case of the new electoral map, a panel of federal judges found that "substantial surgery" was done to predominantly black districts, cutting off representatives' offices from their strongest fundraising bases. Meanwhile, white Congress members' districts were either preserved or "redrawn to include particular country clubs and, in one case, the school belonging to the incumbent's grandchildren." The new map was also drawn in secret by white Republican representatives, without notifying their black and Latino peers. After the court blocked the map, the legislature approved small changes to appease Democratic lawmakers last week. Now that they are free to use the old maps, however, Gov. Rick Perry (R) could simply veto the new plan and use the more discriminatory maps.

The strict photo ID requirement blocked by the DOJ and a federal court would require Texans to show one of a very narrow list of acceptable photo IDs. Expired gun licenses from other states are considered valid, but Social Security cards and student IDs are not. If voters do not have an ID — as many minorities, seniors, and poor people do not — they must travel at their own expense, produce their birth certificate, and in many cases pay a fee to get an ID.

That seems to fit the criteria for voter suppression by any reasonable definition, and it is an immediate result of the USSC ruling.

So not "wonderful" no, but evidently "actionable".

[Jacob]

Ah, never mind. Liberal Fox News basically.

The fact that it was reported by a liberal site does not change the reality that Texas is going ahead with a redistricting plan that a panel of Federal judges has deemed to "disproportionately target the state's fast-growing minority communities".

[11B4V]

Ah, never mind. Liberal Fox News basically.

The fact that it was reported by a liberal site does not change the reality that Texas is going ahead with a redistricting plan that a panel of Federal judges has deemed to "disproportionately target the state's fast-growing minority communities".

Yes it does.

[Jacob]

Yes it does.

Your counter argument is not very convincing.

[11B4V]

Yes it does.

Your counter argument is not very convincing.

Your liberal link isnt.

[Admiral Yi]

What sort of evidence would convince you?

Convince me, as in make me metaphysically certain?  I suppose something ridiculous such as a statement to that effect by everyone who ever voted for the legislation.

That seems to fit the criteria for voter suppression by any reasonable definition, and it is an immediate result of the USSC ruling.

So not "wonderful" no, but evidently "actionable".

That's not how the Supreme Court is supposed to operate Jake.  They're not supposed to answer the question "which outcome would I prefer."  They're not supposed to say do I want this particular guy to live or be executed, or to say I would really like to see these houses seized under eminent domain and a nice shopping mall built, or anything like that.  They're supposed to ask themselves if the law under review conflicts or not with the Constitution.

Although as a minor semantic quibble i don't think gerrymandering falls under voter suppression.

[Jacob]

Your liberal link isnt.

I assume you consider the ACLU to be liberal and thus suspect as well?

Following a wave of voter suppression laws over the last few years, Texas passed a restrictive voter identification law, which unfairly burdened communities of color all across the state. The new law was rejected as discriminatory under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/shelby-itca-and-congress-role-protecting-voting-rights

[Jacob]

Convince me, as in make me metaphysically certain?  I suppose something ridiculous such as a statement to that effect by everyone who ever voted for the legislation.

I don't really care for metaphysics. I was wondering more in the context of day to day politics and the governing of your nation.

I assume that you agree that it is theoretically possible for someone to want to suppress votes. I also assume that you agree that "in theory" that someone might have incentives to do so.

So what I'm wondering is what kind of evidence would be convince you - metaphysically or not - that voter suppression was happening to such a degree that something should be done to prevent or counter it.

Presumably you agree that the various Jim Crow laws were exercises in voter suppression. Now thinking of our modern context, presume for a moment that the terribly biased liberal link I posted earlier is straight up correct that there's a deliberate effort to minimize the impact of minority voters in Texas; what sort of evidence would convince you that they were right?

That's not how the Supreme Court is supposed to operate Jake.  They're not supposed to answer the question "which outcome would I prefer."  They're not supposed to say do I want this particular guy to live or be executed, or to say I would really like to see these houses seized under eminent domain and a nice shopping mall built, or anything like that.  They're supposed to ask themselves if the law under review conflicts or not with the Constitution.

Although as a minor semantic quibble i don't think gerrymandering falls under voter suppression.

And neither does gerrymandering plus voter ID laws clearly impacting minority groups disproportionately?

[11B4V]

So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?

[Jacob]

So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?

Well... when the state government start shutting down DMVs in predominantly Democratic neighbourhoods, it does look like they're trying to make it as hard as possible for some people.

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/31/the-gop-and-voter-disenfranchisement/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/25/walker-to-close-10-dmv-offices-after-passing-voter-id-law/

Then of course, there's the logistics of processing time - how many people are lacking proper ID and how long will it take them to actually get it given current processing time?

[garbon]

So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?

[11B4V]

So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?

What is wrong with getting the ID?

[Admiral Yi]

Presumably you agree that the various Jim Crow laws were exercises in voter suppression. Now thinking of our modern context, presume for a moment that the terribly biased liberal link I posted earlier is straight up correct that there's a deliberate effort to minimize the impact of minority voters in Texas; what sort of evidence would convince you that they were right?

If i presume your link is correct i don't need any evidence. 

Look, I think the whole question of motivation and intent is just a dead end.  I assume that if by some magic trick we were to find out that the motivations of the Texas legislature were pure as the driven snow, but the effect of the law was to keep half of black and Latino voters from voting, you'd still be against it.  We should evaluate laws by their effects, not by what law makers hoped to achieve.  Just like we should evaluate wars by their effects, not by what our Ouija Board tells us about W's desire to avenge his father.

[Jacob]

If i presume your link is correct i don't need any evidence. 

So if what my link says is correct - and corroborated by a source that's not compromised in your eyes by being too liberal - then you accept that voter suppression is happening?

Look, I think the whole question of motivation and intent is just a dead end.  I assume that if by some magic trick we were to find out that the motivations of the Texas legislature were pure as the driven snow, but the effect of the law was to keep half of black and Latino voters from voting, you'd still be against it.  We should evaluate laws by their effects, not by what law makers hoped to achieve.  Just like we should evaluate wars by their effects, not by what our Ouija Board tells us about W's desire to avenge his father.

Sure, for the sake of argument lets disregard intent and focus on effects.

The effects of the voter ID laws and gerrymandering (and assorted administrative decisions such as closing DMVs or shortening their hours in minority areas) is to disproportionately minimize the votes of black and latino voters. Thus we have voter suppression regardless of intent, agreed?

[11B4V]

So, your saying black people are too lazy to get a picture ID card?

Well... when the state government start shutting down DMVs in predominantly Democratic neighbourhoods, it does look like they're trying to make it as hard as possible for some people.

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/31/the-gop-and-voter-disenfranchisement/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/25/walker-to-close-10-dmv-offices-after-passing-voter-id-law/

Then of course, there's the logistics of processing time - how many people are lacking proper ID and how long will it take them to actually get it given current processing time?

So your saying it's just too hard, so dont do it.

The ID is no big deal. It should be required.