[HoosierDaddy]

I'm in white suburban southern Indianapolis, and our voting booths are at a Johnathan Byrds restaurant. Which, I enjoy the food, but it's old white people central.

Shockingly, when I went to the booth in 2014 it was ALL old white people. There was even a reporter! But, he just wanted the elder take, which was: "Which way did you vote?" Old white guy: "Gotta get this country back. That Obama. Hgnng Nhngng. That Obama is ruining ev'rything."

[Terez]

worry, on 02 October 2015 - 10:21 AM, said:

It's true, any formula that didn't include 100% of jurisdictions where white racism has the potential to influence politics should have been considered outdated circa 1776, and congress-members whose regions were not subject to pre-clearance have been getting away with not looking in the mirror since '65. However the reasoning was not "white racism has to be checked everywhere it affects voting policy", it was "we have to assume the map of which white people are trustworthy and which aren't must have changed since '65, and in fact the troubling regions have surely shrunk." But it's the same map it's always been, as marked in yellow below:
...

Hence the wisdom of using Section 3 to combat voter suppression everywhere it happens. I think we're all a little nervous because it hasn't really happened yet, but I would be really surprised if Justice did not strike using Section 3 in time for the 2016 elections. This period of silence merely gives states like Texas and Alabama the rope to hang themselves with.

It's tough to show that Voter ID laws themselves are inherently discriminatory. But eliminating DMV stations in minority-majority districts in conjunction with Voter ID laws is a step further and a lot more damning. Also, Justice should be able to do something with laws designed to make longer lines at polling stations in minority-majority precincts.

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on 02 October 2015 - 10:40 AM, said:

I'm in white suburban southern Indianapolis, and our voting booths are at a Johnathan Byrds restaurant. Which, I enjoy the food, but it's old white people central.

Shockingly, when I went to the booth in 2014 it was ALL old white people. There was even a reporter! But, he just wanted the elder take, which was: "Which way did you vote?" Old white guy: "Gotta get this country back. That Obama. Hgnng Nhngng. That Obama is ruining ev'rything."

Exactly. I follow a bunch of MS news stations and papers on Facebook. When I moved to IL I started following a Peoria station which is as close as I can get to a local station here. During the Confederate flag debate a while back, I got into an argument with a bunch of people on that station's posts, and it took me a long time to realize it was the IL station and that my posts about "our flag" probably didn't make much sense to them. There were very few people posting anything other than defense of the flag, and their arguments were similar in terms of dog-whistling and even overt racism.

[worry]

I hope you're right and you very well may be. I just don't think it was the SCOTUS reasoning (I do recall the suggestion that Congress needs a kick in the butt, but that was aimed at the updating w/ contemporary data issue).

[Terez]

worry, on 02 October 2015 - 11:00 AM, said:

I hope you're right and you very well may be. I just don't think it was the SCOTUS reasoning (I do recall the suggestion that Congress needs a kick in the butt, but that was aimed at the updating w/ contemporary data issue).

Did you read the opinions? I did. It was a plurality decision so there was a majority (plurality) opinion, a concurring opinion (Thomas, who wanted to rule all of Section 5 unconstitutional, rather than just the enforcement formula in 4b), and a dissenting opinion. The Roberts "majority" opinion was pretty narrow in its objection, and whatever opinion he might hold about the need for pre-clearance in former Confederate states, his language leaves a lot of leeway for lower courts to approve bail-in requests from Justice.

[worry]

Nah, I didn't read it like you and the law peeps do, just various excerpts in the news at the time. I do know that Roberts -- as our dear departed PD forum compatriot Adjutant Stormy liked to point out -- has a fierce opposition to anything that smells even remotely like Affirmative Action, and that parts of the VRA struck the same nerve with him.

One of the views he expressed post-decision: “Things have changed dramatically” since 1965, Roberts wrote. “Yet the Act has not eased Section 5’s restrictions or narrowed the scope of Section 4’s coverage formula along the way. Instead those extraordinary and unprecedented features have been reauthorized as if nothing has changed, and they have grown even stronger.”

His language suggests to me that he's not fond of these provisions in any way, and doesn't consider them outdated so much as restricting and broad...in other words, the purpose of these sections is misguided, not merely misapplied (though he includes the couching concept of change over time). Found that quote in http://www.politico....ghts-act-121222 which (at least starting with p2 after you get through the Rehnquist stuff) details Roberts' longstanding beef with the VRA as overreaching because it is concerned covert and not just overt racism -- using the language of intent vs effects tests.

[HoosierDaddy]

Terez, on 02 October 2015 - 09:37 AM, said:

Vengeance, on 02 October 2015 - 02:47 AM, said:

worry, on 01 October 2015 - 10:17 PM, said:

Alabama has provided a master lesson on the ramifications of gutting the Voting Rights Act: http://talkingpoints...censes-voter-id

What happens when a state with a tough voter ID law suddenly makes it
much harder for minorities to get driver's licenses? We are about to
find out in Alabama.

Facing a budget crisis, Alabama has shuttered 31 driver's license
offices, many of them in counties with a high proportion of black
residents. Coming after the state recently put into effect a tougher
voter ID law, the closures will cut off access -- particularly for
minorities -- to one of the few types of IDs accepted.

According to a tally by AL.com columnist John Archibald,
eight of the 10 Alabama counties with the highest percentage of
non-white registered voters saw their driver's license offices closed.

"Every single county in which blacks make up more than 75 percent of
registered voters will see their driver license office closed. Every
one," Archibald wrote.

Thank goodness we don't need the voting act anymore because there is no racism!

To be perfectly honest, I agree with the court's reasoning on ruling the pre-clearance formula unconstitutional, though I can see why the liberal justices didn't want to make that ruling—they knew they couldn't count on Congress to rewrite it in anything resembling a timely fashion. But the pre-clearance formula in Section 5 was outdated. Pre-clearance itself is not unconstitutional, but basing it on decades-old criteria is questionable at best. There are plenty of states today that were not part of the old Confederacy but use this sort of voter suppression tactic in minority-heavy precincts and districts, like Ohio. The state Republicans did their damndest in 2012 to suppress minority votes in hopes of winning Ohio in the electoral college.

SCOTUS did not take away the Justice Department's power to subject jurisdictions to pre-clearance, by the way. We still have Section 3. Of course, Holder was looking at retiring around this time, and it took forever for Loretta Lynch to be confirmed, but I assume that Justice has a long-term strategy in mind to "bail in" offending jurisdictions. This would not go against the SCOTUS ruling because the criteria for "bailing in" jurisdictions is inherently up-to-date. And I assume it's no coincidence that Obama has only nominated black people for this position in particular (not that he wouldn't trust certain white people with the job, but because he wanted the justice reform mission to be personal).

HD, back me up here.

Not gonna back you up because the South still needs it. Frankly, it should have been expanded. 1 citizen, 1 vote should be the case everywhere but it isn't. Frankly, they should crack down more on it. It doesn't really make a difference in Confederacy land, because that's redder than red, but it would in other places.

[worry]

On another note, people are ringing out the death knell for Jeb's campaign today with the "stuff happens" quote. He's calling the reaction "out of context" (of course), but in context it actually goes from pat and tone deaf to outright cruel. Which makes sense, since he's basically Chet from Weird Science all grown up.

[Gnaw]

I can't contribute to the legal discussion except for adding this from the Atlantic:

Will the Supreme Court Decide That Democrats Have Too Much Power?

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on 02 October 2015 - 06:35 PM, said:

Terez, on 02 October 2015 - 09:37 AM, said:

Vengeance, on 02 October 2015 - 02:47 AM, said:

worry, on 01 October 2015 - 10:17 PM, said:

Alabama has provided a master lesson on the ramifications of gutting the Voting Rights Act: http://talkingpoints...censes-voter-id
...

Thank goodness we don't need the voting act anymore because there is no racism!

To be perfectly honest, I agree with the court's reasoning on ruling the pre-clearance formula unconstitutional, though I can see why the liberal justices didn't want to make that ruling—they knew they couldn't count on Congress to rewrite it in anything resembling a timely fashion. But the pre-clearance formula in Section 5 was outdated. Pre-clearance itself is not unconstitutional, but basing it on decades-old criteria is questionable at best. There are plenty of states today that were not part of the old Confederacy but use this sort of voter suppression tactic in minority-heavy precincts and districts, like Ohio. The state Republicans did their damndest in 2012 to suppress minority votes in hopes of winning Ohio in the electoral college.

SCOTUS did not take away the Justice Department's power to subject jurisdictions to pre-clearance, by the way. We still have Section 3. Of course, Holder was looking at retiring around this time, and it took forever for Loretta Lynch to be confirmed, but I assume that Justice has a long-term strategy in mind to "bail in" offending jurisdictions. This would not go against the SCOTUS ruling because the criteria for "bailing in" jurisdictions is inherently up-to-date. And I assume it's no coincidence that Obama has only nominated black people for this position in particular (not that he wouldn't trust certain white people with the job, but because he wanted the justice reform mission to be personal).

HD, back me up here.

Not gonna back you up because the South still needs it. Frankly, it should have been expanded.

I never said the South didn't need it, just that it's true that the formula should have been updated continually and should continue to be updated continually. Optimally there should be baked-in criteria that could land any state in pre-clearance territory, not just the Southern states. The fact that 4b has not been updated since 1975 is a dereliction of Congress.

As I said before, I sympathize with the dissenting opinion on this, considering the present state of Congress. But legally—constitutionally—the majority (plurality) opinion was sound.

[amphibian]

Terez, on 03 October 2015 - 09:09 AM, said:

I never said the South didn't need it, just that it's true that the formula should have been updated continually and should continue to be updated continually. Optimally there should be baked-in criteria that could land any state in pre-clearance territory, not just the Southern states. The fact that 4b has not been updated since 1975 is a dereliction of Congress.

As I said before, I sympathize with the dissenting opinion on this, considering the present state of Congress. But legally—constitutionally—the majority (plurality) opinion was sound.

The Voting Rights Act was amended in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992, and 2006. The specific formula was last changed in 1972 to bring the VRA to jurisdictions outside the South.

Congress spent a full year on the VRA in 2006 and no Republicans ended up opposing it or demanding a formula change. Since then, the idiots representing the southern states changed their minds to say "My constituents believe elections are done right and that the biggest problem in voting these days isn't racism, it's the double and triple voters and people voting for Democrats without ID."

The overturning of the formula is one of the most drastic moves the Court has made in recent memory. It survived something like 10 Supreme Court cases before and multiple reauthorizations and amendments by Congress over 40+ years. It was very clearly the will of the people and of Congress that this act go on.

Now the bills introduced to change the formula to give heft back to the VRA are dying in commission. We had a big attempt in 2014 die and the less widely touted 2015 one was dead-on-arrival.

So no, I don't agree that the majority decision was legally sound. I strongly believe it was driven by a targeted agenda imposed by powerful Republican donors and five justices decided to go along with it because most of them are genuinely terrible people.

[HoosierDaddy]

The Republicans are imploding. Holy fuck. McCarthy's abdication of Speaker means the Tea Party has essentially taken over their party.

I'm worried for the future of my country.

[Obdigore]

HoosierDaddy, on 08 October 2015 - 05:18 PM, said:

The Republicans are imploding. Holy fuck. McCarthy's abdication of Speaker means the Tea Party has essentially taken over their party.

I'm worried for the future of my country.

You should be, with the states being given an ok to start discriminating against citizens once more.

The Hardliners taking over the conservatives, and the conservative strategy that has been done in State legislatures to redraw district lines to make the House a sure-win for another 20 years or so.

I doubt the GOP will get another POTUS elected, but then they wont lose the House for quite a while either.

[HoosierDaddy]

I was speaking from a more Pol Sci perspective than simple punditry. There's a civil war among the party and it's bad news. The speaker is 3rd in the line to the presidency, but they can't get their shit together at all.

[Gnaw]

HoosierDaddy, on 08 October 2015 - 05:18 PM, said:

The Republicans are imploding. Holy fuck. McCarthy's abdication of Speaker means the Tea Party has essentially taken over their party.

I'm worried for the future of my country.

Fuck. Now I need to read the news. I was hoping not to do that today.

[worry]

Lighten your moods by focusing on the presidential race:
http://www.rawstory....ployee-instead/

[worry]

Or perhaps Jeb Bush and his nuanced view of Citizens United: http://www.nytimes.c...-and-super-pac/

"We just started to advertise — actually, the Right to Rise PAC started to advertise, not our campaign.”

[Gnaw]

Christ. The one rule about PACs that a candidate is supposed to remember is that they can't admit coordination. Every time he opens his mouth I realize that he's no brighter than W.

[EmperorMagus]

Holy mother of god I saw Donald Trump say something LOGICAL.
This is a miracle.

I did not expect to see something like this before I die. Also, the rest of the video is an accurate representation of a political institution.

[Terez]

I couldn't make it 20 minutes. God, what a terrible slate of candidates. None of them would be a good president. Good ideas, terrible people.