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 7
    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  
•       •       •

1926 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jan 2014 at 2:31 PM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2014-01-16 03:06:42 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:41:49 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:01:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:42:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:38:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:35:12 PM  
1 votes:
You mean the Congress is doing what the Congress was supposed to do rather than use 50 year old data?  Amazing.
2014-01-16 02:35:10 PM  
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 7 of 7 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report