If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Voting Rights Act: "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated"   (salon.com) divider line 15
    More: Cool, Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican, Voting Rights Act, suffrages  
•       •       •

3369 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jun 2013 at 2:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-27 02:17:02 PM
3 votes:

gnosis301: A conservative Republican?  What's the catch?


Couple options.

One, they can load it down with poison pill amendments (abortion restrictions, ACA repeal, etc.).

Two, they can write up a bill that severely restricts voting rights and name it "the Voting Rights Act".

In either case, they get to blame the Democrats for not voting for "the Voting Rights Act".

/in all likelihood, they'll do both
2013-06-27 03:52:42 PM
2 votes:

Serious Black: Any thoughts on what it should include?


My wishlist for a new Voting Rights Act?

First and foremost, nationalize federal elections. If a House, Senate, or Presidential candidate is on the ballot, it's subject to federal voting laws. That means standardized registration paperwork and deadlines, ballots, ballot machines, early and absentee voting, paper trails, counting methods, and recount triggers. If I move from my home of Indiana to, say, Iowa, I should be able to register with the same paperwork and deadlines, go to the polls to see the same ballot and machines, and have my vote counted in the same way. Institute a federal mandate for standardized voter ID's that come at  zero cost to citizens, and  zero undue burden -- no more of this "we're going to allow AARP membership cards and CCW permits, but not student ID's!" garbage.

Second, allow citizens to file suit, or better yet file a petition with a federally-standardized threshold, for FEC supervision of an election within a certain district. State and local governments have  zero say: if a certain percentage of a district or state feels an election may be suspect, FEC supervision automatically triggers. If there's so much as a  perception, based upon the reasonable judgment of those supervisors, of criminal activity, an injunction to block inauguration is filed pending FBI investigation and grand jury impaneling.

Third, strengthen enforcement of electoral law and increase penalties for infraction. No bail and mandatory minimums, with the establishment of an electoral law offender database, are a start. This extends to violations of conflict of interest: FEC personnel or law enforcement officers empowered to investigate allegations of voter or electoral fraud are strictly banned from engaging in lobbying or political activity, and cannot have previously been a lobbyist or a political activist; additionally, indictments for voter or electoral fraud automatically trigger a change of venue to out-of-district, and no judge which even has a perception of CoI can rule upon the case under penalty of criminal sanction. This extends to not only  de jure violations of electoral law, but  de facto violations such as engaging in erroneous communication (like circulating fliers or starting call banks that tell the wrong dates and places of elections). If you commit electoral fraud, you get the goddamn library thrown at you; end of story.

Fourth, standardize primaries and caucuses. Block out five groups of ten states each (equally representing region and population) to hold caucuses and primaries on the same day. One group votes the first Tuesday in March, the next the first Tuesday in April, then May, June, and July respectively. These groups rotate on a four-year basis, such that no single state enjoys preference in selecting candidates longer than one presidential term.
2013-06-27 02:21:09 PM
2 votes:
If I were President, I'd have my lawyers draw up a legal rationale to ignore this ruling.   The 15th Amendment is unequivocal.  Congress has the power to regulate elections as it sees appropriate to ensure racial equality.  SCOTUS can't just invalidate that based on a gut feeling.
2013-06-27 03:50:07 PM
1 votes:

rewind2846: clkeagle: catmandu: Sensenbrenner actually saying something positive? Who'd a thunk it?

Someone showed him the projections that whites will be the future minority?

When is this supposed to happen? I learned in 2nd grade that 49% is not a minority when dealing with three or more groups or quantities, and it's going to be a long long time before that happens to non-hispanic white people. The problem is that your math, and the math of the people who push this stupid meme, is wrong - that is, unless you're only counting two groups - non-hispanic white persons, and "everyone else".

If all four major racial/ethnic groups were evenly represented in this country (Asian, African, European, Hispanic) they would each be about 23%, with the discrepancy to include pacific islanders and those who identify as biracial. If one of those groups were more than 23%, then the others would be "minorities".

Remember, "majority" means "a number higher than the next largest group", not "a number larger than all the other groups combined".

Wake me when white people are less than one fourth of the total population, wealth and power base. Till then, cut the bullsh*t.


These are important points. I don't remember the exact proportions, but during Apartheid in South Africa, whites made up something like 10% of the population and were in essentially complete control of the country. Just because Caucasians in America are on the downslope in terms of raw numbers does not mean that they lack money or power, and I'd expect that will stay the same unless we have an even more cataclysmic change than what happened in the wake of the Civil War and the introduction of the 13th-15th amendments.
2013-06-27 03:42:59 PM
1 votes:

clkeagle: catmandu: Sensenbrenner actually saying something positive? Who'd a thunk it?

Someone showed him the projections that whites will be the future minority?


When is this supposed to happen? I learned in 2nd grade that 49% is not a minority when dealing with three or more groups or quantities, and it's going to be a long long time before that happens to non-hispanic white people. The problem is that your math, and the math of the people who push this stupid meme, is wrong - that is, unless you're only counting two groups - non-hispanic white persons, and "everyone else".

If all four major racial/ethnic groups were evenly represented in this country (Asian, African, European, Hispanic) they would each be about 23%, with the discrepancy to include pacific islanders and those who identify as biracial. If one of those groups were more than 23%, then the others would be "minorities".

Remember, "majority" means "a number higher than the next largest group", not "a number larger than all the other groups combined".

Wake me when white people are less than one fourth of the total population, wealth and power base. Till then, cut the bullsh*t.
2013-06-27 03:02:16 PM
1 votes:

blastoh: gnosis301: A conservative Republican?  What's the catch?

They are willing to scream about the Courts overturning VRA so they can justify screaming about the courts overturning DOMA.
They'd rather black people vote than gay people marry.


No farking way. That makes sense for the voting base (and the media who tells them how to vote), but  not to the conservatives who are actually in office.

The gay marriage issue just fires up the base - ensures that crusty old (and/or poor sheltered rural) whites will keep voting. It's just a failsafe to maintain power, but is genuinely low on the priority list of a conservative politician's agenda.  Voting rights, on the other hand, encourage minorities to vote in the same numbers as their base. Which will almost certainly lead to a loss of power. So the elected conservatives will fight with every fiber of their being to disenfranchise minority voters.
2013-06-27 02:58:17 PM
1 votes:

DarnoKonrad: If I were President, I'd have my lawyers draw up a legal rationale to ignore this ruling.   implement this ruling by discarding the data modelling based upon outdated methodology for application to selected states and counties and do as the SCOTUS requests and implement section 5 of the VRA equally to all 50 states. No act from congress is needed. The 15th Amendment is unequivocal.  Congress has the power to regulate elections as it sees appropriate to ensure racial equality.  SCOTUS can't just invalidate that based on a gut feeling.


Fixed for America.

/I take paypal.
2013-06-27 02:52:39 PM
1 votes:

catmandu: grumpfuff: Does anyone know anything about this guy besides this quote? Like is he one of those RINOs that would actually do something like this, or is he just pandering?

Not a RINO but not a Tea Partier either. A few highlights:

- one of the heirs to the Kimberly-Clark fortune

- elected to the Wisconsin State Assembly in 1968, the same year he graduated from law school. There until 1975, Wisconsin State Senate from 1975 to early 1979, US House of Representatives 1979 to today

- From Wisconsin's 5th congressional district. The district is the state's richest and includes many of Milwaukee's northern and western suburbs

- important role in the impeachment of former President Clinton

- introduced the USA PATRIOT Act

- Sensenbrenner was the main sponsor of H.R. 4437, a bill passed by the House in 2005 that would provide additional criminal penalties for aiding and abetting illegal immigration to the United States

- voted against a bill to provide $50 billion in emergency aid to victims of Hurricane Katrina

- the only Republican to join House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Congressional delegation to meet the Dalai Lama


In other words, he's a douchebag, but the GOP has gone so batshiat crazy these past four years, both here in Wisconsin and nationally, that he can almost sound normal.
2013-06-27 02:30:59 PM
1 votes:

grumpfuff: Does anyone know anything about this guy besides this quote? Like is he one of those RINOs that would actually do something like this, or is he just pandering?


Not a RINO but not a Tea Partier either. A few highlights:

- one of the heirs to the Kimberly-Clark fortune

- elected to the Wisconsin State Assembly in 1968, the same year he graduated from law school. There until 1975, Wisconsin State Senate from 1975 to early 1979, US House of Representatives 1979 to today

- From Wisconsin's 5th congressional district. The district is the state's richest and includes many of Milwaukee's northern and western suburbs

- important role in the impeachment of former President Clinton

- introduced the USA PATRIOT Act

- Sensenbrenner was the main sponsor of H.R. 4437, a bill passed by the House in 2005 that would provide additional criminal penalties for aiding and abetting illegal immigration to the United States

- voted against a bill to provide $50 billion in emergency aid to victims of Hurricane Katrina

- the only Republican to join House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Congressional delegation to meet the Dalai Lama
2013-06-27 02:22:57 PM
1 votes:

king of vegas: gnosis301: A conservative Republican?  What's the catch?

Yeah. I think this is one of those don't throw me in the briar patch situations. I don't trust it.

I'm about as libby lib that ever libbed and I actually don't hate yesterdays ruling. I think it'll lead to dirty fights in the courts with the ACLU, NAACP, and SPLC contesting bigoted laws and could fire up minorities even more and could even lead to a bigger turnout in midterm elections. I could see yesterday's ruling as being a net positive for Democrats in the future.


I think when Dems try to fix it and the R's block progress, it'll end up being a political mess for the R's.
2013-06-27 02:22:03 PM
1 votes:

king of vegas: gnosis301: A conservative Republican?  What's the catch?

Yeah. I think this is one of those don't throw me in the briar patch situations. I don't trust it.

I'm about as libby lib that ever libbed and I actually don't hate yesterdays ruling. I think it'll lead to dirty fights in the courts with the ACLU, NAACP, and SPLC contesting bigoted laws and could fire up minorities even more and could even lead to a bigger turnout in midterm elections. I could see yesterday's ruling as being a net positive for Democrats in the future.


Yep.  Fire up the old civil rights advocates by taking away their vote.  Do it, and watch them turn out in RECORD numbers.  At least, one can hope.

//election day should be a goddamned government-mandated holiday
2013-06-27 02:20:25 PM
1 votes:

king of vegas: gnosis301: A conservative Republican?  What's the catch?

Yeah. I think this is one of those don't throw me in the briar patch situations. I don't trust it.

I'm about as libby lib that ever libbed and I actually don't hate yesterdays ruling. I think it'll lead to dirty fights in the courts with the ACLU, NAACP, and SPLC contesting bigoted laws and could fire up minorities even more and could even lead to a bigger turnout in midterm elections. I could see yesterday's ruling as being a net positive for Democrats in the future.


This, and I have a similar stance on Affirmative Action. I'm perfectly open to the idea that these things may have served their purpose, and it's time to see how things work in the 21st century without them.

And I'm not SO sure that voter ID is anything more than a wash.
2013-06-27 02:20:07 PM
1 votes:
Any advantage conferred upon the GOP by the SCOTUS ruling will be immediately squandered in the inevitable Republican overreach.

The backlash will end up hurting them more than if they had just not been whiny pricks about the issue in the first place.
2013-06-27 02:12:30 PM
1 votes:

rogue49: Now THIS is the way to get "minority" groups to support your party...


Only if you follow through
2013-06-27 02:08:53 PM
1 votes:
A conservative Republican?  What's the catch?
 
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report