Supreme Court VRA Decision
 

These Supreme Court cases have really intrigued me.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/politi...html?hpt=hp_t1

This morning, the SCOTUS announced that they have struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. The decision was 5-4. Any opinions on this?

The argument seems to be that - instead of highlighting particular counties or states for scrutiny or oversight because of past bad acts (more than 40 years ago), we should assume that these counties will not now revert to their past bad actions and that the money could be better used for general oversight or to responding to specific complaints. Does that sound about right?

That's what it seems to me.

This is huge for supporters of Voter ID laws, as the federal government recently shot down Voter ID laws in South Carolina and Texas, two states who's laws were being monitored by the federal government.

The debate will inflame passions on both sides of the political aisle. The former status quo (approved 98-0 in the 2006 Senate) was a good deal for the GOP, allowing them to vote for the VRA, doing their good deed for civil rights, while ensuring that those black and brown islands were surrounded by white conservative districts, which, given broader demographic trends are all that allow them to retain House control presently. That won’t be as easy going forward. The left will still challenge the maps, and each decisions will be parsed for bias.

Writ large, as all the SC court justices age, I think those on the right are making a gambit on a number of issues while they still hold power, recognizing that President Obama will make any appointments through 2016, and, perhaps subconsciously, fearing an HRC victory in 2016, I dunno.
They certainly are portraying themselves as the “activist court,” an ideology they claim to detest except when it suits their political view of the world.

I still don't understand why people are so against voter IDs. I'm not being a punk here.... I just don't get it. If you are a legal US citizen, you should have an ID to prove it. And I get it... there are fake IDs... okay, okay. Do you guys have any better suggestions?

And I still think the electoral college is crap too. drawing disctirct lines around white skin or black skin, etc etc. why can't we have a straight popular vote? It would certainly get the lazy bums more reason to get off their butt and go vote.

And yes - most of these questions are rhetorical. I'm not trying to start a war. Just frutrated that people (in general) can't just be honest and let things work out as they are supposed to. Why try to gain an unfair advantage over your oponent in sneaky tactics, rather than building up your own merit?

yes, I like my fantasy land, thank you very much.

The sticky part is that in (especially) urban areas, where minority populations are higher, requiring an ID also requires that someone be able to get to a DMV or state office, which is often a PITA (I went to the DMV to get a new driver's license on a day where I didn't have access to a car, it took me almost an hour to go a couple of miles because these places are sometimes awkward to get to via public transportation). Add in the fact that these things are not free, so lower income populations are less likely to be able to get them.

In rural areas, where minority populations are lower, if you don't drive, it can be a real problem to get to a DMV to get a state ID card - my DMV growing up was a half hour driving and probably 20 miles away from my town.

So, this basically discourages indigent populations without access (or, in urban areas, need for) to cars from voting, because they have to jump through extra hoops that they wouldn't otherwise have to jump through in order to vote.

Edited to add: Voter ID laws can also have an adverse affect on other populations, like the elderly, which is a population that tends to vote to the right of center. So it actually hurts both "sides" which is why it's so odd to me that either party supports it.

I get the sentiment that ID should be required, although I think the problem is over-exaggerated, but given the ID system we have now (quite frankly, you should get a state ID in school and there should be a myriad of places where one can get a state ID OUTSIDE of a DMV or State Secretary Office), enacting such laws without overhauling how we do IDs could have a significant chilling effect on minority and low income voting populations.

TL: DR, lots of legal US citizens do not have ID to prove it.

Many people don't have ID's. Obtaining them takes time and money.

Also, there is a chicken-and-egg scenario in which an adult who doesn't have an ID attempts to obtain ID and is asked for....ID.

Many people who grew up in poverty don't have birth certificates. Almost half of women don't own a birth certificate with their current legal name on it. Further, even if you DO have one, the idea of using a birth certificate or social security card to obtain a photo ID doesn't even make any sense, does it? At least not any more sense than checking a signature at a polling place.

Given that voter fraud is almost non-existent in the US, ID requirements are clearly calculated to disenfranchise specific groups of voters.

http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/d...file_39242.pdf

I take you at your word. Are you famililar with poll taxes, literacy taxes, and other things done in legislatures across the South post Reconstruction? How read up are you on things that neccessitated the VRA of 1965?

How vigilant were you during the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012 (which involved states in the midwest, not so much the south)?

I agree with you; in the arena of competing ideas, the best ones usually win. But, if ever such a time existed, these are not, by and large, the times of honorable politicians.

I dunno.. if you're too inept to get a birth certificate and state issued ID, you're probably too inept to be selecting our political leadership.

I'm not sure voter fraud is non-existent. Certainly instances where it is detected are, but mostly, when it occurs, are there mechanisms in place to catch it? Not in my state at least, with the exception that voters sign the voting rolls in the presence of a volunteer.

Oh come on. Seriously? Your 80 year old grandmother, who no longer has a valid driver's license, who got married in 1952, has a birth certificate with her married name readily available to her?

My 80+ and even 90+ year old grandmothers both had no trouble voting.

Hell, my 80+ year old maternal grandmother even continued to vote while in the throes of dementia.

That said, I'm just not overly impressed with this argument. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to obtain a birth certificate. You go down to the Department of Vital Statistics, take your little number and wait for it, pay the fee and they print it for you. In Oklahoma, a bank or utility bill will work as ID to obtain a birth certificate. These are things responsible adults keep around. If you lose it, no matter what your age, that's not something responsible adults do. If you are ever not able to prove who you say you are, you've placed yourself in a potentially pretty bad situation.

False.

Kevin, this is where I must ask about the socioeconomic diversity of your home and work environments; and whether you have any substantial dealings with different groups of people other than defendants.

Ineptitude is not the central issue here unless your contention is that everyone who does not fit ideal lives and outcomes are inept. If that is what you are contending, you are an illustration of why social inequalities are pervasive in the world. Your post is practically a mirror of what the power elite around the world have said to label and minimize people who do not fit a certain mold.

Generally speaking, and beyond voting rights, voting throughout the history of the United States of America has never required a great deal of aptitude, consciousness, and critical thought. Certain political activists and scholars have challenged American citizens for generations to critique their own thought processes, challenge politicians and the party system, do not fall for the hoopla, and to inform themselves. Again, generally speaking, American voters have proven time and time again that they want quick information and only just enough information for a quick outcome. Therefore, what constitutes aptitude is definitely subjective. Does aptitude mean having a voter ID, does it mean having transportation to the voting precinct, does it mean being informed and knowing more than just the politicians' names and that you like their convictions on select topics, etc.? And can we assume that people who do not have what we consider aptitude are truly inept? There are people who do not have a voter ID or transportation to the voter precinct but they have been researching and critiquing these politicians more than I have.

So, let us not pretend as though aptitude is the central issue when it comes to voting. Aptitude is only what political parties (all political parties) selectively preach about when they want to prove some point. I am all for Voter's Rights and I would love for people across communities to have access to the things that I have access to (a job, access to correct information, social security card, driver's license, voter ID, etc.). Until that happens, we need to stop pretending as though everyone has access to the same resources and information. We need to stop pretending the average person who does not have access is lazy or inept.

These weren't the question. My question was do they have birth certificates with their married names on them? About half of married women do not. Because birth certificate is not something one "has" to change with marriage, like a driver's license, etc.

So, you need to buy a birth certificate, to buy a state ID. And this doesn't discourage low income populations how?

I'm sure responsible adults never lose things. They also never have fires or floods.

Not to mention the time that is required to go get it. I had to replace my birth certificate which required me to make a trip to the state capital in the middle of the day. I had the time to do so because I was a student, but if I had a 9-5 I would have been in trouble. Oh and the reason I had to replace it? Somebody in the county office of vital stats was selling fakes.