Supreme Court VRA Decision

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Missouri Ivy

I may be misreading the opinion (rather, the analysis of the opinion) but I thought the main issue was the data that was being used to decide areas needing congressional oversight. (Section IV). From what I understood, if recent data is collected demonstrating an area (county, state, etc...) is not compliant with the VRA, oversight can be reinstated, because Section V still stands. So, while as of right now, the areas are not bound by Congressional oversight, it isn't necessarily the case it will remain that way. I could be making a botch of it though.

I wasn't aware we were attempting to remain on topic

[MaryPoppins]

I'm from Mississippi and the VRA should have stayed the way it was. Just because no ones run off the side of a bridge we don't remove the barriers from the side. Same with bridge suicide jumpers. You see Mississippi most closely resembles a Banana Republic. It always has. Don't expect it to change.

[HQWest]

Originally Posted by MaryPoppins

I'm from Mississippi and the VRA should have stayed the way it was. Just because no ones run off the side of a bridge we don't remove the barriers from the side. Same with bridge suicide jumpers. You see Mississippi most closely resembles a Banana Republic. It always has. Don't expect it to change.

I disagree. Should we ignore reported problems in other states at the last election because we need to stay on top of problems in the south 40 years ago? I am not saying that there are no longer problems in the south. I am saying that it is a moving target. Voter intimidation has been reported in several places.

As Missouri Ivy said - part V would still be in place to monitor areas where problems have been reported, but part IV which highlighted certain counties for particular attention is not fair.

[MaryPoppins]

Originally Posted by HQWest

I disagree. Should we ignore reported problems in other states at the last election because we need to stay on top of problems in the south 40 years ago? I am not saying that there are no longer problems in the south. I am saying that it is a moving target. Voter intimidation has been reported in several places.

As Missouri Ivy said - part V would still be in place to monitor areas where problems have been reported, but part IV which highlighted certain counties for particular attention is not fair.

There hasn't been documented voter fraud in Mississippi but we are getting a voter ID law. I allege it has but one purpose.


Raised by Yellow Dog Democrats, being a former Republican and now an Independent, I will not stand for disenfranchisement by these sapsuckers in charge here. Never forget Chaney, Goodman & Schwermer 1964. After all, The Mississippi Bard himself said, "The past is not dead! actually it's not even past," (Requiem For A Nun,) and "To understand the world, you must first understand a place like Mississippi." Apply Matthew 25:40 until problem subsides. And I'm gonna go get you some more nfamous quotes of our current sitting Governor, would prefer that we elected Pappy O'Daniels but he seems to be unavailable.

[MaryPoppins]

How in the blue blazes we elected this retrograde thinking anti-genius makes me wonder how Mississippi is ever gonna pick Mississippi up out of the50th place:

http://yallpolitics.com/index.php/yp/post/35192/

[KillarneyRose]

Kevin, forgive me if I don't know how these things work, but I have a question. The argument against voter ID seems to be that the urban as well as the rural poor aren't necessarily able to procure a valid ID, right?

Does that mean that these people are also forfeiting public assistance because they're not able to go through the steps it takes to get it?

If so, then nevermind. If not, how do the two differ as far as hoop-jumping?

Thanks!

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by KillarneyRose

Kevin, forgive me if I don't know how these things work, but I have a question. The argument against voter ID seems to be that the urban as well as the rural poor aren't necessarily able to procure a valid ID, right?

Does that mean that these people are also forfeiting public assistance because they're not able to go through the steps it takes to get it?

If so, then nevermind. If not, how do the two differ as far as hoop-jumping?

Thanks!

In my experience with this in Illinois, the requirements for getting public assistance include ID, proof of address, etc., HOWEVER, those things are required for the applicant, not for every member of the household. Plenty of low income households contain multiple citizens of voting age.

[KillarneyRose]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

In my experience with this in Illinois, the requirements for getting public assistance include ID, proof of address, etc., HOWEVER, those things are required for the applicant, not for every member of the household. Plenty of low income households contain multiple citizens of voting age.

Wouldn't the people in the household who are of voting age be eligible for their own public assistance? Or is only one head of household allowed? Thanks for the answer, by the way!

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by KillarneyRose

Wouldn't the people in the household who are of voting age be eligible for their own public assistance? Or is only one head of household allowed? Thanks for the answer, by the way!

The head of household gets money based on the number of people in the household, so basically, multiple people can get benefits with only one ID.

[WCsweet<3]

Thoughts on this problem with mail in/absentee voting? For those of you who don't know Oregon (I believe Washington as well) is almost 100% mail in voting or you drop the ballot off at a drop box which is basically the same as mailing. We don't have anyone check ids and our signatures are checked. Do those of you who do not like signature checks have an idea for these states or absentee votes?

[Kevin]

Our absentee ballots require a notary to sign off. Notarie are supposed to check ID, so theoretically, we check ID for those too.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by HQWest

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?

No, that's not quite what the majority is saying, though they do talk about how things have changed. What they're saying is that if Congress believes that extra requirements and federal oversight of state and local laws affecting voting are still needed in some places, then the criteria for which places those are are need to be based on current data, not 40-year old data. They do state in their opinion that Congress can define a new formula for which jurisdictions should be subject to Section 5. Whether as a practical matter Congress has the will to pull that off or agree on a new formula is another matter.

Section 2, which applies to the whole country, wasn't affected by today's decision.

Originally Posted by Missouri Ivy

I may be misreading the opinion (rather, the analysis of the opinion) but I thought the main issue was the data that was being used to decide areas needing congressional oversight. (Section IV). From what I understood, if recent data is collected demonstrating an area (county, state, etc...) is not compliant with the VRA, oversight can be reinstated, because Section V still stands. So, while as of right now, the areas are not bound by Congressional oversight, it isn't necessarily the case it will remain that way. I could be making a botch of it though.

Close. Section 5 requires some jurisdictions to get federal approval of changes in laws that have to do with voting. For now, Section 5 has no teeth, because the formula for which jurisdictions are subject to it has been struck down. Congress would have to come up with a new (and presumably acceptable) formula for Section 5 to come into play again.

[DrPhil]

More recent articles:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/politi...hts/index.html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/06/25/195627046/voting-rights-ruling-could-open-lawsuit-floodgates

If you love listening to NPR as much as I do (I hope the list of voting rights show episodes is still on this link):

http://www.npr.org/search/index.php?...=voting+rights

[AGDee]

A state ID is most definitely the way to go. Nobody has a fake ID. Oh wait...

[MaryPoppins]

Originally Posted by AGDee

A state ID is most definitely the way to go. Nobody has a fake ID. Oh wait...

Or changes their address and fails to update all of their personal ID . . .