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.

(Huffington Post)   Congress introduces legislation to replace Voting Rights Act provision gutted by SCOTUS last year   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 90
    More: Hero, Voting Rights Act, U.S. Supreme Court, suffrages, Bloody Sunday for Congress, John Conyers, Time Off to Vote Act, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, humans  
•       •       •

1924 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jan 2014 at 2:31 PM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



90 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-16 02:33:25 PM
about freaking time. Does it actually fix what was scrapped?
 
2014-01-16 02:34:03 PM
FTA:
Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the cosponsors of the House version of the bill,


/does not compute
 
2014-01-16 02:34:14 PM
Watch the Right freak out in 3...2...1...
 
2014-01-16 02:34:52 PM
Yeah, I bet the House will be in a tremendous rush to pass this.
 
2014-01-16 02:35:10 PM

somedude210: about freaking time. Does it actually fix what was scrapped?


It seems to fix a lot, yes. The ACLU is pretty pleased with it. I haven't found the text yet to examine the formula myself though.
 
2014-01-16 02:35:12 PM
You mean the Congress is doing what the Congress was supposed to do rather than use 50 year old data?  Amazing.
 
2014-01-16 02:35:30 PM
...that will die a quiet death in the House.

You forgot that part,  Overlyoptimisticmitter
 
2014-01-16 02:36:08 PM
He also noted that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) made some remarks about the issue "that were certainly not hostile."
"'Not hostile' is a great place to start," Conyers said.


So this is where we are in 2014, where someone not being hostile to what should be a slam dunk is seen as a hopeful sign.
 
2014-01-16 02:36:10 PM

blastoh: /does not compute


The article also says that Senator Leahy can't find any Republican in the Senate willing to co-sponsor the bill with him.

Isn't that telling...
 
2014-01-16 02:36:36 PM
If only the House didn't exist whatsoever. This country might be functional (and pass measures like this one).
 
2014-01-16 02:37:25 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: ...that will die a quiet death in the House.

You forgot that part,  Overlyoptimisticmitter


There is a sad irony in the fact that the house of US Congress meant to most directly represent The People is the least representative thanks to gerrymandering and other electoral skulduggery.
 
2014-01-16 02:37:33 PM

RevLovejoy: So this is where we are in 2014, where someone not being hostile to what should be a slam dunk is seen as a hopeful sign.


Have you seen the farkers in the GOP House? If we can get them to agree to anything without dropping the N-word or drowning a sack full of puppies in the Potomac, we're doing something good.
 
2014-01-16 02:37:43 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: ...that will die a quiet death in the House.

You forgot that part,  Overlyoptimisticmitter


And we are done here.
 
2014-01-16 02:37:52 PM

blastoh: FTA:
Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the cosponsors of the House version of the bill,


/does not compute


Not really. He said back in September that he wants to make a fix to the law "immune to court challenges."
 
2014-01-16 02:38:28 PM

sprgrss: You mean the Congress is doing what the Congress was supposed to do rather than use 50 year old data?  Amazing.


Is this the part of the thread where we pretend that the VRA didn't have provisions to take new data into consideration?
 
2014-01-16 02:39:15 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: ...that will die a quiet death in the House.

You forgot that part,  Overlyoptimisticmitter


Yeah, yeah, I know there's still a slog to get it through Congress. I can dream though, can't I?

/subby
 
2014-01-16 02:39:41 PM

blastoh: FTA:
Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the cosponsors of the House version of the bill,


/does not compute


Sensenbrenner is a cock in many ways, but he's an old school corporatist, not a tea party nut bag.
 
2014-01-16 02:41:14 PM
Sure, you can have parts of the Voting Rights Act back. But we'll also pass more backdoor ways to enact Voter ID laws. Great bill.

FARK OFF
 
2014-01-16 02:41:49 PM

sprgrss: You mean the Congress is doing what the Congress was supposed to do rather than use 50 year old data?  Amazing.


Pretty interesting that the fifty year old data cluster still proved to be accurate when the Voter ID laws came into practice in those states after the Supreme Court ruling.
 
2014-01-16 02:42:37 PM

qorkfiend: sprgrss: You mean the Congress is doing what the Congress was supposed to do rather than use 50 year old data?  Amazing.

Is this the part of the thread where we pretend that the VRA didn't have provisions to take new data into consideration?


The VRA made it tough for minorities to vote in the Confederacy, but it didn't do shiat about the devious assholes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Arizona.
 
2014-01-16 02:42:48 PM
"Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.  The Party of Science should be able to comprehend the rationale for rejecting that.  The entirety of the VRA apparatus, and particularly its post-facto enforcement mechanisms, remains in place.  But by all means, use this as an excuse to pursue your Christmas list of fantasy "reforms."
 
2014-01-16 02:42:59 PM

Serious Black: The RIchest Man in Babylon: ...that will die a quiet death in the House.

You forgot that part,  Overlyoptimisticmitter

Yeah, yeah, I know there's still a slog to get it through Congress. I can dream though, can't I?

/subby


NO.

NO DREAMING.

NOT YOURS.
 
2014-01-16 02:44:03 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: Serious Black: The RIchest Man in Babylon: ...that will die a quiet death in the House.

You forgot that part,  Overlyoptimisticmitter

Yeah, yeah, I know there's still a slog to get it through Congress. I can dream though, can't I?

/subby
'www.dirtandseeds.com


NO.

NO DREAMING.

NOT YOURS.

/forgot the picture
 
2014-01-16 02:44:52 PM
Wow, I'm kinda impressed.  This sounds good.

What's the catch?
 
2014-01-16 02:46:04 PM

palelizard: Wow, I'm kinda impressed.  This sounds good.

What's the catch?


i.cdn.turner.com
 
2014-01-16 02:48:02 PM
It's amazing that still today politicians can oppose a bill that makes it so you can't discriminate against minorities  voting.
 
2014-01-16 02:48:19 PM
But now that there's legislation on the table, members of Congress face a choice: Do you want to make it easier or harder for people to vote? The question, and answer, is really that simple.
 
2014-01-16 02:48:36 PM

Garet Garrett: "Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.  The Party of Science should be able to comprehend the rationale for rejecting that.  The entirety of the VRA apparatus, and particularly its post-facto enforcement mechanisms, remains in place.  But by all means, use this as an excuse to pursue your Christmas list of fantasy "reforms."


It's incredibly hard to bail a jurisdiction into preclearance because Section 3 of the law requires disparate treatment, i.e. intentional discrimination. When almost nobody is walking around saying "ni-BONG, ni-BONG, ni-BONG" anymore, how do you prove intentional discrimination?
 
2014-01-16 02:48:40 PM

palelizard: Wow, I'm kinda impressed.  This sounds good.

What's the catch?


Voter ID laws will be coming if this is passed. Sorry,  more voter ID laws.
 
2014-01-16 02:48:51 PM

qorkfiend: sprgrss: You mean the Congress is doing what the Congress was supposed to do rather than use 50 year old data?  Amazing.

Is this the part of the thread where we pretend that the VRA didn't have provisions to take new data into consideration?


Or pretend that it wasn't renewed in 2006.
 
2014-01-16 02:49:56 PM

Serious Black: When almost nobody is walking around saying "ni-BONG, ni-BONG, ni-BONG" anymore, how do you prove intentional discrimination


use code switching?
 
2014-01-16 02:50:03 PM

Garet Garrett: "Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.  The Party of Science should be able to comprehend the rationale for rejecting that.  The entirety of the VRA apparatus, and particularly its post-facto enforcement mechanisms, remains in place.  But by all means, use this as an excuse to pursue your Christmas list of fantasy "reforms."


This is from the guy when when caught in a making up lies about climate change said he was doing so "to make a point".
 
2014-01-16 02:51:03 PM
The preamble should read something like this:

"We find non-white people decent, intelligent, caring and in all ways at least equal to our pasty-white selves..."
 
2014-01-16 02:51:36 PM
Just so long as it is not too popular.
 
2014-01-16 02:51:46 PM

Garet Garrett: "Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.  The Party of Science should be able to comprehend the rationale for rejecting that.  The entirety of the VRA apparatus, and particularly its post-facto enforcement mechanisms, remains in place.  But by all means, use this as an excuse to pursue your Christmas Holiday list of fantasy "reforms."


There we go. That should drive a few people nuts.
 
2014-01-16 02:52:59 PM
There are some things Democrats may not like, he said. For instance, the bill includes a carve-out for voter identification laws that was added to secure GOP support.

Oh look.  They're trying to fix the Voting Rights Act, but to do so they have to agree to ignore the most common and egregious instances today of peoples rights to vote being taken away.
 
2014-01-16 02:53:37 PM

Garet Garrett: "Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.


No, this is not correct. Being added or removed from the preclearance list was based on contemporary data.
 
2014-01-16 02:57:14 PM

Serious Black: It's incredibly hard to bail a jurisdiction into preclearance because Section 3 of the law requires disparate treatment, i.e. intentional discrimination. When almost nobody is walking around saying "ni-BONG, ni-BONG, ni-BONG" anymore, how do you prove intentional discrimination?


It should be difficult.  Are you comfortable interfering with the democratic process on the basis of your prejudices?  Because that's the alternative.

Disparate impact analysis, which this proposal embraces, invalidates the result of the ballot on the basis of expected results, effectively displacing the franchise with expert opinion.  That's very, very dangerous.

This is a sop to those on the hard left and their most trusted allies, the trial bar.  It will be sold to those on the less hard left and in the center as modest reforms, and unfortunately there's never been a "reasonable reform" that those folks haven't thought to be a good idea.  So unless somebody stands in the way, we'll further erode our democracy in favor of a regulatory state.  Yay.
 
2014-01-16 02:57:16 PM

Garet Garrett: "Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.  The Party of Science should be able to comprehend the rationale for rejecting that.  The entirety of the VRA apparatus, and particularly its post-facto enforcement mechanisms, remains in place.  But by all means, use this as an excuse to pursue your Christmas list of fantasy "reforms."


Yes, removing the one part of the law which kept people from restricting the right to vote until after the election did in fact gut the whole thing.  What's your recourse today if some court decides that your rights were denied in the last election?  Do they have a do-over election?  Does the guy you voted for automatically win?  Or does the team that cheated keep it's guy seated in office?

And that does count as 'gutting'.  Much like the surgical removal of one part of your body, the digestive tract, would count as 'gutting'.
 
2014-01-16 02:57:49 PM

qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: "Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.

No, this is not correct. Being added or removed from the preclearance list was based on contemporary data.


Examples, please.
 
2014-01-16 02:58:06 PM

palelizard: What's the catch?


From the link I posted:

Voting rights supporters will argue, justifiably, that the new Section 4 formula does not apply to enough states and wrongly treats voter ID laws differently than other discriminatory voting changes.

It is a bill and the final outcome could certainly be different than what we're talking about now so there are reasons to be optimistic but this is Congress we're talking about and it is a bill so the final outcome could certainly be different than what we're talking about now so there are reasons to be pessimistic.
 
2014-01-16 03:00:06 PM

blastoh: FTA:
Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the cosponsors of the House version of the bill,


/does not compute


Sensenbrenner has been out in front on this issue since the court ruling. Unfortunately, his sense of shame is not shared by the rest of his party.
 
2014-01-16 03:01:16 PM

Garet Garrett: qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: "Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.

No, this is not correct. Being added or removed from the preclearance list was based on contemporary data.

Examples, please.


Here you go: Between 1975 and 2010, numerous local governments and the states of Arkansas and New Mexico were bailed in; several of them, such as New Mexico, have since had their bail-in status lifted
 
2014-01-16 03:02:15 PM
 
2014-01-16 03:04:32 PM
Can't foresee spin that would not backlash against them if anyone (read: republicans) were to fight this.
 
2014-01-16 03:06:42 PM

Garet Garrett: qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: "Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.

No, this is not correct. Being added or removed from the preclearance list was based on contemporary data.

Examples, please.


Or, if you prefer, the entire list, straight from the Justice Departments website.
The successful "bailout" applicant must demonstrate that during the past ten years:
No test or device has been used within the jurisdiction for the purpose or with the effect of voting discrimination;
All changes affecting voting have been reviewed under Section 5 prior to their implementation;
No change affecting voting has been the subject of an objection by the Attorney General or the denial of a Section 5 declaratory judgment from the District of Columbia district court;
There have been no adverse judgments in lawsuits alleging voting discrimination;
There have been no consent decrees or agreements that resulted in the abandonment of a discriminatory voting practice;
There are no pending lawsuits that allege voting discrimination; and
Federal examiners have not been assigned;
There have been no violations of the Constitution or federal, state or local laws with respect to voting discrimination unless the jurisdiction establishes that any such violations were trivial, were promptly corrected, and were not repeated.

It then goes on to list every jurisdiction which has been bailed out, starting in 1967 all the way up to 2012.
Basically, to get lifted out of the preclearance list, just about all a city, county, or state had to do was show that in the last ten years they didn't try to restrict anyone's right to vote.  NOT THE 40 YEARS YOU PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS.
 
2014-01-16 03:06:47 PM

MadCat221: The RIchest Man in Babylon: ...that will die a quiet death in the House.

You forgot that part,  Overlyoptimisticmitter

There is a sad irony in the fact that the house of US Congress meant to most directly represent The People is the least representative thanks to gerrymandering and other electoral skulduggery.


It represents old racists just fine.
 
2014-01-16 03:07:29 PM

Garet Garrett: Serious Black: It's incredibly hard to bail a jurisdiction into preclearance because Section 3 of the law requires disparate treatment, i.e. intentional discrimination. When almost nobody is walking around saying "ni-BONG, ni-BONG, ni-BONG" anymore, how do you prove intentional discrimination?

It should be difficult.  Are you comfortable interfering with the democratic process on the basis of your prejudices?  Because that's the alternative.

Disparate impact analysis, which this proposal embraces, invalidates the result of the ballot on the basis of expected results, effectively displacing the franchise with expert opinion.  That's very, very dangerous.

This is a sop to those on the hard left and their most trusted allies, the trial bar.  It will be sold to those on the less hard left and in the center as modest reforms, and unfortunately there's never been a "reasonable reform" that those folks haven't thought to be a good idea.  So unless somebody stands in the way, we'll further erode our democracy in favor of a regulatory state.  Yay.


You sound an awful lot like the judge in Sweden that recently acquitted a guy of rape because he thought the girl yelling "no" a minimum of six times was simply behaving in a kinky manner and that he never really meant to rape the girl.

If I hypothetically pass a law that effectively bars black people from voting while letting white people vote with no hindrances, I think it is 100% irrelevant whether I intended to bar black people from voting while letting white people vote with no hindrances. I still did it. Black people's rights to vote are still being crushed into oblivion even though I never intended to do it in this counterfactual scenario.
 
2014-01-16 03:07:46 PM

qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: "Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.

No, this is not correct. Being added or removed from the preclearance list was based on contemporary data.


It was difficult and expensive to get off the list, and seemingly way too hard to get on.

Hopefully this new bill fixes that.
 
2014-01-16 03:08:08 PM

Garet Garrett: qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: "Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.

No, this is not correct. Being added or removed from the preclearance list was based on contemporary data.

Examples, please.


You want examples of the "bail out" provisions of the VRA?
 
2014-01-16 03:08:59 PM

Karac: Basically, to get lifted out of the preclearance list, just about all a city, county, or state had to do was show that in the last ten years they didn't try to restrict anyone's right to vote.


Which is why the VRA was such a well written law, because it was self-regulating. Smart and effective. So of course it had to be gutted.
 
2014-01-16 03:09:25 PM

Lord_Baull: Can't foresee spin that would not backlash against them if anyone (read: republicans) were to fight this.


Would not surprise me in the least to see them try anyway.
 
2014-01-16 03:18:14 PM

Garet Garrett: qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: "Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.

No, this is not correct. Being added or removed from the preclearance list was based on contemporary data.

Examples, please.


Hey I know maybe next time you should actually learn what you are talking about before running your mouth off in here and stop lying to "prove a point" which you feel is ok.
 
2014-01-16 03:19:33 PM

Karac: Basically, to get lifted out of the preclearance list, just about all a city, county, or state had to do was show that in the last ten years they didn't try to restrict anyone's right to vote. NOT THE 40 YEARS YOU PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS.


last time I caught him in a similar lie he said "well I was trying to prove a point". He thinks making stuff up that is not true id ok, if it helps to win your argument.
 
2014-01-16 03:22:29 PM

Soup4Bonnie: From the link I posted:

Voting rights supporters will argue, justifiably, that the new Section 4 formula does not apply to enough states and wrongly treats voter ID laws differently than other discriminatory voting changes.

It is a bill and the final outcome could certainly be different than what we're talking about now so there are reasons to be optimistic but this is Congress we're talking about and it is a bill so the final outcome could certainly be different than what we're talking about now so there are reasons to be pessimistic.


Under current write-up, could "unintentional" discrimination against minorities be used to challenge the voter ID laws?
 
2014-01-16 03:23:30 PM
Introduced is a long way from becoming law, especially with this Congress.
 
2014-01-16 03:26:18 PM
I'll eat the crumbs in my keyboard if this is even brought to a vote in the house
 
2014-01-16 03:31:05 PM
40-year-old data

lies and the lying liars who tell them

oops i mean posters and their "opinions"
 
2014-01-16 03:34:14 PM

Serious Black: It seems to fix a lot, yes. The ACLU is pretty pleased with it. I haven't found the text yet to examine the formula myself though.


Then why the hell would any Republicans vote for it?
 
2014-01-16 03:34:34 PM

Corvus: Garet Garrett: qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: "Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.

No, this is not correct. Being added or removed from the preclearance list was based on contemporary data.

Examples, please.

Hey I know maybe next time you should actually learn what you are talking about before running your mouth off in here and stop lying to "prove a point" which you feel is ok.


Is that Fark for "let's take it outside, buddy?"  Great arguing.
 
2014-01-16 03:39:49 PM

palelizard: Under current write-up, could "unintentional" discrimination against minorities be used to challenge the voter ID laws?


I do not know.
 
2014-01-16 03:41:42 PM

Garet Garrett: Corvus: Garet Garrett: qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: "Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.

No, this is not correct. Being added or removed from the preclearance list was based on contemporary data.

Examples, please.

Hey I know maybe next time you should actually learn what you are talking about before running your mouth off in here and stop lying to "prove a point" which you feel is ok.

Is that Fark for "let's take it outside, buddy?"  Great arguing.


My favorite thing is that you responded to this post and not the 4 or 5 that actually, you know, gave you examples.
 
2014-01-16 03:41:53 PM

flondrix: Serious Black: It seems to fix a lot, yes. The ACLU is pretty pleased with it. I haven't found the text yet to examine the formula myself though.

Then why the hell would any Republicans vote for it?


Because they're good, decent, caring people who genuinely believe everyone should okay, I gotta stop there. I can't finish that sentence without cracking up. Sorry. Go back to whatever you were doing before I distracted you.
 
2014-01-16 03:55:38 PM

Garet Garrett: "Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.  The Party of Science should be able to comprehend the rationale for rejecting that.  The entirety of the VRA apparatus, and particularly its post-facto enforcement mechanisms, remains in place.  But by all means, use this as an excuse to pursue your Christmas list of fantasy "reforms."


You are ignoring the fact that on day 1 GOP controlled states used the lack of preclearance to disenfranchise portions of the populace. Looks like that 40 YO data might have had some validity.
 
2014-01-16 03:57:52 PM
No reason to celebrate yet.  Good luck getting the Grand Racist Party to vote on it.
 
2014-01-16 03:58:27 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Garet Garrett: Corvus: Garet Garrett: qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: "Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.

No, this is not correct. Being added or removed from the preclearance list was based on contemporary data.

Examples, please.

Hey I know maybe next time you should actually learn what you are talking about before running your mouth off in here and stop lying to "prove a point" which you feel is ok.

Is that Fark for "let's take it outside, buddy?"  Great arguing.

My favorite thing is that you responded to this post and not the 4 or 5 that actually, you know, gave you examples.


He was just doing it to prove a point.
 
2014-01-16 04:00:55 PM

max_pooper: qorkfiend: sprgrss: You mean the Congress is doing what the Congress was supposed to do rather than use 50 year old data?  Amazing.

Is this the part of the thread where we pretend that the VRA didn't have provisions to take new data into consideration?

Or pretend that it wasn't renewed in 2006.


Too bad the renewal in 2006 didn't update it.
 
2014-01-16 04:01:52 PM

sprgrss: max_pooper: qorkfiend: sprgrss: You mean the Congress is doing what the Congress was supposed to do rather than use 50 year old data?  Amazing.

Is this the part of the thread where we pretend that the VRA didn't have provisions to take new data into consideration?

Or pretend that it wasn't renewed in 2006.

Too bad the renewal in 2006 didn't update it.


Too bad you don't know what you are talking about.
 
2014-01-16 04:03:26 PM

sprgrss: max_pooper: qorkfiend: sprgrss: You mean the Congress is doing what the Congress was supposed to do rather than use 50 year old data?  Amazing.

Is this the part of the thread where we pretend that the VRA didn't have provisions to take new data into consideration?

Or pretend that it wasn't renewed in 2006.

Too bad the renewal in 2006 didn't update it.


Update what? The bail-out process that uses contemporary data and had been in the law since it was originally enacted?
 
2014-01-16 04:05:15 PM
Let me know if it actually passes and is signed into law. Otherwise, meh.
 
2014-01-16 04:16:26 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Garet Garrett: Corvus: Garet Garrett: qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: "Gutted"?  It surgically removed one piece of the VRA, the piece that mandated preclearance of any change to voting laws in specific jurisdictions based upon 40-year-old data.

No, this is not correct. Being added or removed from the preclearance list was based on contemporary data.

Examples, please.

Hey I know maybe next time you should actually learn what you are talking about before running your mouth off in here and stop lying to "prove a point" which you feel is ok.

Is that Fark for "let's take it outside, buddy?"  Great arguing.

My favorite thing is that you responded to this post and not the 4 or 5 that actually, you know, gave you examples.


The examples are irrelevant to the point asserted.  The baseline formula for requiring preclearance was based on 1968 data.  A change in "data" would not alter an entity's status.  Rather, that entity would have to bring suit in D.C. to obtain relief, where the burden of proof is that you can't have even been under investigation for anything bad.  That's not basing continuing preclearance requirements on current data about voter discrimination/intimidation/suppression, it's basing it on historical data about whether or not the jurisdiction played nice or was targeted by the feds, without any proof of any shenanigans.

And by the way, all of that "flexibility" remains.  Which really makes my point about the law not having been gutted at all.
 
2014-01-16 04:16:56 PM
Lawmakers are trying to restore Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which focused on the regions of the country with a history of racial discrimination at the polls.

No, they aren't.  They're replacing the section of the law that was legitimately a matter of contention-- messing with state voting laws based on 50-year-old data-- and replaced it with something that addresses the concerns of both sides -- a system that uses present-anchored historical data to avoid relying on something obsolete.

It's an actual reform for once, it isn't "restoring" anything.
 
2014-01-16 04:22:06 PM

Garet Garrett: A change in "data" would not alter an entity's status.


Not even remotely true. Regions have always been "bailed out" based on recent actions, not events in the 1960s.
 
2014-01-16 04:25:11 PM

Jim_Callahan: 50-year-old data


nope
 
2014-01-16 04:37:28 PM

Jackson Herring: nope


You know what's wrong with 50 year old data?  There's 50 of them!
 
2014-01-16 04:40:26 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-01-16 04:44:40 PM
If there's GOP support, there has to be a minority-disenfranchisement law escape clause in there somewhere.
*reads TFA*
Farkitall!
I wish I'd been wrong.
 
2014-01-16 04:49:03 PM
I think I'm still the only person in this thread concerned about the ID portion of this proposal... but then again, there's a whole 'nother thread for that today, too.
 
2014-01-16 04:55:18 PM
You would think that after 60 years, we would have matured enough as a nation to the point where this type of legislation would not be necessary... but alas, we are quite a stupid country with quite a few bigots.
 
2014-01-16 04:56:32 PM

Triple Oak: I think I'm still the only person in this thread concerned about the ID portion of this proposal... but then again, there's a whole 'nother thread for that today, too.


In reality we already have all the voter ID we need... just show your social security card and have someone scan it at the voting booth.
 
2014-01-16 04:57:02 PM

Triple Oak: I think I'm still the only person in this thread concerned about the ID portion of this proposal... but then again, there's a whole 'nother thread for that today, too.


Look up one.
See?
You're not alone.
 
2014-01-16 04:59:25 PM

Triple Oak: I think I'm still the only person in this thread concerned about the ID portion of this proposal... but then again, there's a whole 'nother thread for that today, too.


I'm a little concerned about it too. But frankly, one of the big gets is shifting the Section 3 bail-in provisions from disparate treatment standards to disparate impact standards. That's a huge get, and it more than offsets some of the problems I have with the bill.
 
2014-01-16 05:14:16 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Triple Oak: I think I'm still the only person in this thread concerned about the ID portion of this proposal... but then again, there's a whole 'nother thread for that today, too.

Look up one.
See?
You're not alone.


Yeah, it was the "typing while others submit" mistake. It's just sad what needs to be conceded in order to appease the obstructionists into a vote.
 
2014-01-16 05:20:47 PM
About time.  Didn't the Supreme Court say that Congress needed to do this when they struck that portion of the law, anyways?
 
2014-01-16 05:30:10 PM

NEDM: About time.  Didn't the Supreme Court say that Congress needed to do this when they struck that portion of the law, anyways?


Yup, lets just hope they abide by the courts recommendations or it will eventually get bounced yet again.
 
2014-01-16 07:21:18 PM

StubhyGraham: Yeah, I bet the House will be in a tremendous rush to pass this.


They will take all deliberate speed.
 
2014-01-16 07:33:01 PM

Garet Garrett: The examples are irrelevant to the point asserted.  The baseline formula for requiring preclearance was based on 1968 data.  A change in "data" would not alter an entity's status


False.

Or are you lying to prove a point again? If so, what point is that?
 
2014-01-16 08:47:49 PM
If I had any Photoshop skillz, I would shoop Boner's head onto Gandalf's body and have him yelling at Bill from the Schoolhouse Rock cartoon, "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!"
 
2014-01-16 09:12:01 PM
Then pass an amendment that defines money is not free speech
and businesses are not people.
 
2014-01-17 01:57:45 AM
It'll get nowhere fast.

imageshack.us
 
Displayed 90 of 90 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report