Supreme Court: Section 4 of Voting Rights Act Unconstitutional

[11B4V]

Ah, those are still ineffect then, eh? Has nothing to do with the ID.

Has everything to do with voter ID as it's simply a different method for the same end.  Yi claims to be uninterested in motives, but you have to ask yourself, if the sponsors of a bill for voter ID said, "We wish to pass this law so that blacks and Latinos will vote less and we can get elected more often", would you still support it?

Liberal spin and hysterics.

[Razgovory]

Ah, those are still ineffect then, eh? Has nothing to do with the ID.

Has everything to do with voter ID as it's simply a different method for the same end.  Yi claims to be uninterested in motives, but you have to ask yourself, if the sponsors of a bill for voter ID said, "We wish to pass this law so that blacks and Latinos will vote less and we can get elected more often", would you still support it?

Liberal spin and hysterics.

I didn't say they did say that, I said if they said that would you still support it?

[garbon]

Seedy, see that - I have liberal frothing*.

*or is that frosting?

[katmai]

Frothing a frosting?

[11B4V]

Ah, those are still ineffect then, eh? Has nothing to do with the ID.

Has everything to do with voter ID as it's simply a different method for the same end.  Yi claims to be uninterested in motives, but you have to ask yourself, if the sponsors of a bill for voter ID said, "We wish to pass this law so that blacks and Latinos will vote less and we can get elected more often", would you still support it?

Liberal spin and hysterics.

I didn't say they did say that, I said if they said that would you still support it?

So, if they didnt say that, then why post it? Therefore you dont believe in the bolded.

[mongers]

Ah, those are still ineffect then, eh? Has nothing to do with the ID.

Has everything to do with voter ID as it's simply a different method for the same end.  Yi claims to be uninterested in motives, but you have to ask yourself, if the sponsors of a bill for voter ID said, "We wish to pass this law so that blacks and Latinos will vote less and we can get elected more often", would you still support it?

Liberal spin and hysterics.

I didn't say they did say that, I said if they said that would you still support it?

So, if they didnt say that, then why post it? Therefore you dont believe in the bolded.

Because some* politicians think like that way, but what they say and do maybe be different to that; one of the basic skills in politicking. 



* for a value of 0.01-0.99 of 1.

[11B4V]

Ah, those are still ineffect then, eh? Has nothing to do with the ID.

Has everything to do with voter ID as it's simply a different method for the same end.  Yi claims to be uninterested in motives, but you have to ask yourself, if the sponsors of a bill for voter ID said, "We wish to pass this law so that blacks and Latinos will vote less and we can get elected more often", would you still support it?

Liberal spin and hysterics.

I didn't say they did say that, I said if they said that would you still support it?

So, if they didnt say that, then why post it? Therefore you dont believe in the bolded.

Because some* politicians think like that way, but what they say and do maybe be different to that; one of the basic skills in politicking. 



* for a value of 0.01-0.99 of 1.

Again you are assuming if they didnt say that. Have they (Texas politicians) said that about the ID's?

[Razgovory]

So, if they didnt say that, then why post it? Therefore you dont believe in the bolded.

Because I argue that motive counts, while detractors like Yi say they don't.  What do you think?

[Admiral Yi]

If Democratic opponents of the bill admitted their opposition was based on their desire to subjuct the US to UN black helicopter domination and to adulterate our precious bodily fluids, would that change your opinion about the bill?

[11B4V]

So, if they didnt say that, then why post it? Therefore you dont believe in the bolded.

Because I argue that motive counts, while detractors like Yi say they don't.  What do you think?

I think there is nothing wrong with the ID as I said several time before.

[Razgovory]

If Democratic opponents of the bill admitted their opposition was based on their desire to subjuct the US to UN black helicopter domination and to adulterate our precious bodily fluids, would that change your opinion about the bill?

Yeah, probably, but that doesn't seem likely.

[Razgovory]

So, if they didnt say that, then why post it? Therefore you dont believe in the bolded.

Because I argue that motive counts, while detractors like Yi say they don't.  What do you think?

I think there is nothing wrong with the ID as I said several time before.

But why have it?

[Fate]

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

What is wrong with getting the ID?

What part of the constitution allows infringement upon voting rights on those grounds?

[OttoVonBismarck]

In response to the sidecar about Voter ID laws and gerrymandering:

1. Voter ID laws don't appear to meaningfully suppress vote. Black voter turnout was very high in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and they voted overwhelmingly for the black candidate/free money party as they always will. When 20% of the votes cast in Ohio are black and 15% of the population is, I'll say if the goal was to suppress black Democrat votes someone fucked up really, really bad.

FWIW I do think the goal was to make voting more difficult under the theory that the right kind of people are good at going through government hoops and the wrong kind of people aren't. But it did not work, so to me those laws while unfortunate just don't rate much interest. They aren't at all like random poll tests and such that were impossible to ever pass and resulted in less than 7% of blacks in many Southern states being registered to vote.

2. Democrats to some degree self-gerrymander. If a political group is disproportionately geographically concentrated then they will tend to be "gerrymandered" even by "neutrally drawn" geographic districts. Take a State like Ohio and make it more extreme. Say Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati all vote 80% Democrat, the rest of the State is 60/40 Republican. What you end up with is a lot of farm counties with a Republican lean. Ohio is big enough that that is still a lot of people, but in absolute numbers maybe not as much as the 80% Democrat populations in the three really big cities. But because you try to draw Congressional districts to some standard of geographic compactness, I don't see how you avoid the fact that a lot of Democrats have chosen to live in three concentrated areas. Do you artificially split cities like Columbus into 1/3rds and Cincy/Cleveland into 1/2s and pair them with rural farm counties so the Democrats in the big city and just barely beat the rest of the people in their district, and get two seats out of the city instead of winning 80% in the city limits and only getting one Congressman?

Either way you answer that question you're making some preferential choice about an outcome you want, and that's definitely something like gerrymandering. Of course on top of all that we don't actually draw districts with maximum geographic compactness, since we intentionally gerrymander. But I'm just pointing out that even without intentional gerrymandering you can have 60% of a State vote Democrat but a majority of its Congressmen end up being Republican.

At least in part, some of the gerrymandering that happens is actually because of Civil Rights legislation. There are requirements in place in the South to maintain and create "minority-majority districts." The most gerrymandered district in South Carolina for example isn't about disenfranchising blacks, it's about drawing a funky district because of a requirement to guarantee a minority-majority district. The liberals involved in the scheme to mandate such districts felt that by guaranteeing (essentially) several black Congressmen in an era when they were unknown you were building black political leadership and etc. They were not prescient enough to realize that lumping everyone in to a gerrymandered district means the rest of the districts are going to be disproportionately white and probably Republican (in the South.)

3. As a point as to how dumb the NRA had gotten, most of what Jacob is talking about has been going on in States without preclearance requirements, while the states that were under the interminable preclearance (as it was never that straight forward, despite what people say, to get out from under preclearance) had very high rates of black voter participation. What that suggests to me is the States under preclearance over many years have proven they're serious about letting minorities vote. Is it possible they'll do bad stuff without preclearance? Sure it is, but why should they be subject to preclearance when States that aren't hypothetically doing stuff, but really are doing bad stuff (Ohio, Pennsylvania) aren't subject to preclearance? Finally, everything else in the VRA and the amendments abolishing poll taxes and all that are still parts of the Constitution as is the Barnett decision that banned voting tests and etc. None of that has gone away, and just like the Federal government busted down Arizona's law, it can continue to go after other laws it has a problem with. Maybe it should start with Ohio and Pennsylvania since that's where everyone whines the most about the Voter ID stuff.

[CountDeMoney]

for the black candidate/free money party as they always will.

Shame you made me stop reading right there, as I'm sure the rest of your post was just as lucid.