I don't get these "religious freedom" bills

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/north-carolina%E2%80%99s-terrible-anti-lgbt-law-even-worse-we-thought
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/08/civil-rights-groups-mobilize-against-mississippis-religious-freedom-law/82804786/

I am not an expert in the law, but when you open a business, I think there is the assumption that you will encounter undesirable/offensive patrons now and then. But most enterprises will still accept their money, because the bottom line is often more important than principle. Sure, if people are blatantly violating your code of conduct or basic decency, you can refuse the right to serve (and call the authorities on them). But $1 from Jack or Jill or Ahmed should be accepted equally, otherwise you are biased.

For equal opportunity employment, there are federal laws and it's pretty clear. If Jack is qualified to do the job, and you hire him, then you must give equal consideration if Jill (or a person with some sort of differentiating feature like age, sexual orientation, disability, etc.) has equivalent qualifications. And you can't retaliate against workers who complain about prejudicial treatment.

For a private business, I'm less clear. But if these MS and NC style laws spread, it sets a dangerous precedent. I know we give special protections for religion, and Christianity is the dominant faith in the US, but we all are entitled to equal protection under the law, even those without a faith. Anyone can come up with some sort of reason to refuse service to a patron because they disagree with some element of their behavior/persona (or are "offended" by it). But I'm sorry, in the US we have the right to offend, just not harm. You are guaranteed to life and liberty (tell that to poor urban black youth though), but not an offense free life.

The MS law narrowly states (according to USA Today): "The denial of certain services to the LGBT community based on any of three religious beliefs -- that marriage is between a man and a woman, that sex is proper only within such a marriage, and that people are male or female based on their genetics and anatomy at birth."

So are those the only considerations that matter? Why not expand it to Jews, who after all, rejected Jesus' teachings and condemned him? Would America be OK with that? Plenty of heterosexual (and Christian) couples engage in sodomy/anal sex. Do you need a questionnaire to screen those folks out of your establishment too? Would such a business be sustainable?

What if I am a Satanist and I am offended by Christians, so I refuse to serve and hire them? Supporters of the law have to be OK with that, right? Selective beliefs/outrage always tick me off; so John Q Baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding (sinful abomination), but he is OK to sell pastries to a clearly obese person (gluttony, deadly sin)? And just because he refused to bake that wedding cake, did he stop those 2 men from getting hitched? Likely not. So what was the point, that he can go home with a clear conscience? Well he can tell St. Peter, and also admit that he refused to act with compassion and love that day. If Mr. Baker cares so much, why not take some time to talk to the gay couple and use your wits/morals to convince them to change their ways? Nope, it's just easier/lazier to discriminate. And even that is flawed - I am sure some gay customers slip through the cracks and still get service. So you let down your god! How can you live with yourself?

I am not too concerned about these laws because I think they are poorly thought out and destined to be struck down by a higher ruling. It's probably hasty backlash against the recent SCOTUS rulings about gay marriage, gay adoption, employer covered contraception, etc. Religious conservatives feel like their belief system (and "traditional American values") are under attack, yet I bet most of them never even encounter a gay couple in their daily affairs, so is their life so much worse now? Even if I was against Obamacare, I would have to admit that I don't feel its effects at all in my daily life, so I can't claim any harm, apart from "feeling offended."

Grow up. Sometime you don't get your way, and sometime you don't approve of what others are doing. That is compromise and living in a mixed society, and Christians are still the majority faith with the most sociopolitical power. We should strive to protect everyone's freedoms as much as possible, but not at the expense of discriminating another group. Because then who gets to decide who wins and loses in each case? I thought conservatives were opposed to the gov't picking winners and losers? Just another display of hypocrisy. I don't even know why I wasted 30 min of my life writing about this issue. It's so ludicrous it's almost comical.

Fox News mocks Obama's tears over gunned down kids

http://www.alternet.org/media/fox-hosts-absurd-claim-about-obamas-tears-during-gun-speech

Maybe you saw Obama's powerful (and both emotional and logical) speech about exec. action for gun control. Even Trump called it sincere and that Obama's meant well (but of course disagrees with his proposal). But the shock-and-awe attention-whore pseudo-anchors at Fox insinuated that Obama faked the tears to be more convincing, and that he should cry about other problems like ISIS terrorism as much as he cries for gun victims.

Well, if you have that degree of bias and hate, there's nothing more to say really. We've had way too many threads about gun violence, but I'll offer this position:

• In a society, you implicitly or explicitly give up some personal freedoms/liberty/resources/happiness for the greater good (according to our values, but of course "good" can be subjective)
• Seat belt laws, hunting licenses, child abuse laws, etc.
• No society manages this sacrifice/balance perfectly, but the US is relatively low corruption, fairly transparent, and at least maintains some public channels for change/redress
• The US is already one of the most libertarian nations on earth due to our laws, Constitution, and culture
• We are accustomed to bitching about "the gov't", but really we don't know how spoiled we are vs. places like France or god forbid, Iran
• And so we have our 2nd Amendment and the modern warped interpretation of it... but no right is absolute
• The gov't can take away your right to vote, or your right to life if you are convicted of a certain crime
• We can debate the prudence of such policies, but some gun control is sound and lawful
• I don't know why pro-gun folks are so defensive; gun laws have generally relaxed more than strengthened since Sandy Hook
• Therefore, the pro-gun arguments about standing up to gov't tyranny and upholding freedom & the Constitution are pretty much invalid
• That crap is mostly NRA propaganda; a majority of gun owners do want the things Obama proposed (universal bkgd. checks, closing of the gun show loophole - and plenty of other loopholes still remain)
• But I suppose the NRA's position is that they can't give an inch, or the US will start to accept/see the benefits of gun control and want more (similar to how the GOP feels about Obamacare)
• Some minority groups get the "short end of the stick" for socially-beneficial decisions:
• Alcoholics might lament that some bars must close at 2AM
• Speed freaks could be disappointed that the limit is 65 mph
• So gun sellers (either businesses or hobbyists) should accept more paperwork/oversight due to the social threat of their wares
• And some gun nuts should compromise that while they might prefer 50-round magazines on their assault rifles, people really shouldn't have those things
• And there are still plenty of lethal and less controversial alternatives like semi-auto shotguns and .44 magnums they can own instead
• The "rights and freedoms" of the pro-gun camp need to be subordinate to the right to life of gun victims, within reason
• But some people are selfish pricks and they want the status quo to persist, even if it contributes to innocents getting killed (i.e. someone else's problem)
• In other words, they don't mind if others suffer as they benefit (externalities)
• Now to the next issue: most of us agree that innocents should not get murdered, but will more or fewer guns (or less mass-murder-capable guns) reduce that problem?
• The gun lobby has prevented public research and data collection on the issue, but there is literally zero credible evidence that more/deadlier guns makes us safer, and a decent amount of trustworthy evidence to the contrary
• So even if the research is partly flawed/wrong, how much social harm is there to limit magazines to 10 rounds, with the potential upside of preventing dozens (or hundreds, or more) of murders a year?
• Same goes for better background checks/tracking, assault weapons bans, more oversight of online/private sales, etc.
• It is way harder to get a student loan than to get an assault rifle - is that the type of society we want?
• In some cases, the atmosphere of regulation can deter crime, even if the actual laws and enforcement are flawed
• E.g. how much tax fraud is avoided just by the mere specter of the IRS, even though they may not audit and catch much of the fraud?
• In other words, what do we have to lose, apart from pissing off a privileged minority group of gun nuts, gun makers/sellers, the NRA, and the politicians who enable/benefit from them (and remember, they will still have the right to buy and sell plenty of other types of weapons)?
• Since the gun violence problem is so large (~30K killed per year in the US), it's possible that these new regs won't make much of a dent. But as Obama said, isn't it worth it to save even a few kids (some of whom might grow up to be the next Einstein or Obama)?
• So gun control is legal and responsible (see points above), economically justified (limiting guns might reduce some revenue/taxes, but will likely pay for itself through social cost savings), and morally good (in many people's minds)
• Anyone who opposes gun control on these grounds does not have their arguments based in facts and logic (likely emotional/ideological instead)
• But that's the problem, in Polarized America, you can't persuade anyone with facts and logic; you just have to ram your agenda through and not care about your opponents' wishes
• So that is what we should do re: gun control, stop letting the minority terrorize the majority

Tax dodging by the super rich

http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/two-tiered-taxes-one-system-rich-one-everyone-else/

This is a "no duh" story to end 2015, but the explicit details are interesting (more so than the typical corporate inversions we've recently heard about). During the Clinton years, the 400 highest income American households paid an effective rate of 27%. Now it's 17%. And because payroll taxes hit the less wealthy harder, that 17% rate means that the highest-income Americans are paying about the same tax rate as a family with $100K household income (80th percentile in the US). How can that be democratic and just?

Like their gated communities and hedge funds, there is an exclusive-access world of private tax dodging infrastructure that the super-rich pay millions in fees to access (including political contributions), but it saves them tens or hundreds of millions in taxes per household. These families span the political landscape, which is especially dismaying for the supposed "progressive rich." If they adopt the same practices as the Kochs, then they are just adding to the problem instead of fighting it.

Their biggest source of tax savings is of course that schlubs like us earn wages as income, while they earn the bulk of their money through complex investment vehicles, shell corporations, and trusts - and those barely get taxed. They need pricey lawyers and bankers to set up, but it pays off. The NYT article said that the rich treat it like a fun game - like an easter egg hunt to find all the possible loopholes to screw Uncle Sam and the 99%. But I'm sure they don't think of the impact that way - they "deserve" the rewards because they're just more clever/influential than the rest of us. Some of the arrangements are so complex that the underfunded and maligned IRS can't even keep track, and they are supposedly the custodians of the rulebook. But they don't craft the tax policy, they just do their best to interpret and enforce it.

The NYT article failed to state what the total tax losses are to the US due to these practices by the super rich. But I wouldn't be surprised if it numbers in the tens of billions. Maybe that is not a huge # vs. the total US income tax revenue (over a trillion per year), but it could buy a lot of road repairs and school programs. And besides the actual revenue, cracking down should send the message that the rich do not get to play by a different set of rules. They already enjoy vast socioeconomic advantages that enable them to grow their wealth, and maybe some of those advantages should be reduced too, but at least they should not weasel their way out of their patriotic and civic obligations.

Otherwise IMO they are more damaging to the country than all the deranged mass shooters and ISIS-inspired amateur terrorists, because the cheating rich are undermining US principles of equality, justice, and community, which hurts us all. Remember the old saying (paraphrase), an accepted injustice anywhere diminishes justice everywhere.

The rich and poor of environmental wars

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/04/452555878/deep-in-the-amazon-an-unseen-battle-over-the-most-valuable-trees

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140627-congo-virunga-wildlife-rangers-elephants-rhinos-poaching/

Despite more awareness of climate change and wildlife conservation this decade, rainforests and elephants are being destroyed at higher rates recently (maybe you also heard about the Indonesian peat fire that has blanketed SE Asia in smog, driven by deforestation to make room for corporate palm oil plantations).

But unlike pollution, habitat/species destruction may not be reversible. By some estimates, elephants will be gone in the wild in a few decades, at present hunting rates. Recent laws have slowed Brazilian deforestation, but globally we are still losing ~100K acres/day (mostly in Bra., Indo., and Africa).

When I was a teen, I knew species like elephants and forests like the Amazon were under threat, but I never imagined that they could totally disappear in my lifetime. The Amazon is so large and remote that it won't be totally wiped out, but we might lose enough to tip the climate change scales past the point of no return (deforestation is responsible for ~15% of total greenhouse gases due to burning/rotting, and disappeared forests can no longer absorb CO2). It's really scary.

So what is going on at the ground level? As you would expect, it's poor desperate people pitted against each other. In Brazil, indigenous forest communities tap rubber plants sustainably for their meager livelihoods. But others are paid by illegal logging operations to cut those trees down (mostly for export to the US). The Bra. gov't doesn't have the resources/interest to patrol the huge swaths of forest. So the "defenders of the forest" take up outdated arms to keep the loggers at bay and protect their way of life, but more of them keep coming and the trees are cut down much faster than replacement saplings can mature.

On the other side, economically marginalized Brazilians with few skills/prospects feel like they have no choice but work for illegal loggers to feed their families. They know it's wrong, but what choice do they have in that situation? When it comes to stealing vs. letting your baby starve, and the corrupt/uncaring gov't offers no solutions, what choice do they have?

Similarly in Africa, poorly paid/trained/equipped rangers are fighting a losing battle to protect elephants 24-7 (a daunting bodyguarding task) from the multiplying bands of poachers (who are getting more and more sophisticated). But these poachers are not getting rich either; they might fetch $100/kg from ivory smugglers, but the end product sells for ~$2K in China. They're just the foot soldiers fighting and dying over a luxury product that they will never use (same applies to rainforest hardwood, or some narcotics for that matter). $100/kg is relatively lucrative for the poachers, but the benefits wane when you consider the physical and legal risks they take. Again, they have very little education and other viable economic options, and live under gov'ts that are not able to lift much of the populace out of poverty.

We might pay more attention to the front-line fights because those are visceral and Hollywood-esque, but of course the root causes are less exciting and the economic perpetrators are not held accountable. I do not know the trade laws regarding rainforest timber, but Western importers should perform the due diligence to find out where the wood came from (like with blood diamonds), and boycott shadier sources. Builders/consumers should also scrutinize suppliers and call out/shame those who can't verify the sustainability/legitimacy of their sources. But likely illegal sellers offer lower prices, so foreign importers can pocket more profit if they pass it off as above-board. No one asks questions, and all we care about is the beautiful hardwood adorning our McMansions. Maybe gov'ts and trade orgs should demand that nations like Brazil curb illegal logging and make socioeconomic reforms, or face tariffs/sanctions (or even provide aid/counsel to help them reform). But the huge sums of money made by the powerful players on all sides of the trade is too important to let some trees and poor people get in the way.

Elephants are a protected species and ivory is illegal in many nations, but those laws are not well enforced in major consumption markets like China/Thailand. The US is an advanced nation, yet we are still a top importer too, so I guess we are not really in a position to criticize. Where is the education and stiff punishments for ivory smugglers/buyers to help dry up demand? Where is the global shaming/penalties on consumer markets and source countries? Int'l orgs and other bodies can influence African nations like Kenya to do more about elephant hunting. But even if they do, Asian buyers will just pay higher prices and enable poachers to defeat enhanced protections. We have to attack the demand, but then again no one wants to anger China because they are so economically important now. 

The saddest part is that ivory and rainforest hardwood are frivolous products without much intrinsic value. Some fish are being driven to extinction too, but at least you could make the argument that it's for food (even if fish are mostly being consumed by the rich who have more sustainable protein alternatives). There are cheaper and environmentally-friendly alternatives to wood and ivory too, but the problem is that some buyers desire those status products specifically because of their rare/exclusive/controversial status (more so for ivory). "Look how rich/powerful I am; I can put ivory all over my home with impunity." I know greed and selfishness will always be a part of the human condition, but some societies do a better job of teaching better values to its people. That is the best enforcement because you don't even need the legal system - people will "self police" because they don't value those illegal items to begin with, so it's a moot point. Sweden and Canada are rich nations, but I'm pretty sure ivory is not a problem there.

Do we want less gun violence, or don't we?

980+ mass shootings (defined by 4 or more dead, non-drug/gang/war related) in the US since Newtown. That says it all. And keep in mind that the vast majority of gun deaths do not occur in mass shootings, but the less-reported suicides and "regular" homicides.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/02/445379809/stuff-happens-comment-creates-firestorm-for-jeb-bush

And the typical tone-deaf, uncompassionate, guns-before-people response from GOP leaders (in this case, my favorite guy to hate, Jeb). Basically after a national tragedy relating to guns: "shit happens." But when Muslims attack us: "Bomb them to hell!" I hope Jeb's rivals and the MSM call him out on this.

http://gawker.com/you-dont-pass-a-pool-fencing-law-after-a-child-drowns-1734383068

Jeb is saying we shouldn't rush to impulse legislation after a tragedy. But after a kid fell and drowned in a pool in FL, Jeb's gov't rushed to create a pool fence law. Was that such a bad thing? How many people and pets were saved by that knee-jerk reaction? Like Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow," sometime you want to think fast for your survival. Don't let the trauma fade away so you delude yourself into thinking that it's not a big problem and it won't happen again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/books/review/thinking-fast-and-slow-by-daniel-kahneman-book-review.html?_r=0

And for those who say it's a mental health issue and not a gun issue, I disagree. The vast majority of mentally ill or "weird loner" people are not violent. So unless you want to infringe on the rights of millions of innocents (in a Minority Report style preventative action), I don't see how this will help. Sure it's better safe than sorry to report to authorities if someone you know is concerning you, and those authorities have to respond to legit threats effectively (like how we're trying to deal with suicide prevention warning signs). Of course we as a society should pay more attention/resources to mental illness, hate ideology, and isolated youth. But it won't prevent most mass shootings.

Only locking up guns will do that. Some would say that the Oregon shooter purchased his guns legally and no bkgd. check would have blocked him. So maybe that's the problem: properly interpret the 2nd Amend. (how the courts did pre-NRA) and strictly limit private ownership of guns (or ammo, or both). Maybe people can still buy them, but must store them with 3rd party highly regulated gun locker companies (so it's not the evil gov't controlling our guns). In order to check out the guns, the owner has to be lojacked and have a witness legally vouch for their mental/emotional state. Maybe critics would say that such a system would leave us vulnerable to criminal attacks. Then buy a dog or mace, or support leaders/laws that address the root causes of crime like poverty, education, and racism.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

Alternatively, some people think that the gun culture in SUI "works" because of a deep tradition of safety and personal responsibility (hard to measure). Like how strongly Americans feel about personal freedoms (and football), if we placed a similar or larger emphasis on gun safety, peaceful conflict resolution, and accident prevention, then maybe we could have our guns but not the tragedies (but we have a long way to go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBIOJJkEQT4). Keep in mind that SUI's gun deaths per capita are still one of the highest in the 1st world too.

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

Hobby Lobby ruling and contraception

Considering the Court's makeup, it was expected. It won't help the GOP win over more young women. I guess corporations continue to enjoy most individual rights but avoid many of the responsibilities/punishments.

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

-Ginsburg dissenting opinion

----

I suppose it's not surprising, but it still sucks. Ginsburg wrote a great dissent though, for whatever that's worth. 

What's funny about the ruling is that the prevailing opinion seems to want to restrict the ruling, by applying it only to "closely-held corporations with strong religious beliefs" but that can still apply to a significant number of companies with numerous employees. For example, the Mars corporation would qualify, especially because there is no test to be administered for "strong religious beliefs" so any company can essentially claim they have those. The funny bit (to me anyway) is that I get the impression that they thought there were being restrained in their conservatism with this ruling. As if they were saying "no no it's not all corporations who can deny you birth control coverage, just these certain ones!"

----

I get his once we assume their freedom if religion was infringed RFRA says the gov must attempt to accommodate.

But how is the offer of health insurance that includes birth control legally distinguished from a paycheck that pays for an abortion?  Aren't both compensation which are offered at the discretion of the employer? 

I think I saw it mentioned somewhere that hobby lobby covered birth control etc prior to the aca apparently without issue.

----

I actually had the same thought about their paychecks. Ginsburg had a great line about how if it's against someone's religion then I guess they don't have to follow any laws they don't want to.

In fact, I would recommend this article: http://gawker.com/a-treasury-of-justice-ginsburgs-real-talk-in-her-hobby-1598003837

Which pulls out some of Ginsburg's greatest hits on this ruling.

----

http://www.npr.org/2014/06/30/327071978/how-many-companies-will-be-touched-by-courts-contraception-ruling?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20140701

Thx for the comments and links, guys. Yeah as you said, the majority opinion claimed that they were being really restrictive as to which org's this ruling could apply to, but really the language was anything but. NPR estimates that 90% of businesses are "closely held" (employing >50% of our workforce),  as in 5 or fewer individuals own more than half the firm value (IRS definition). Maybe this is an example why political appointees/Beltway lifers without much experience in the "real world" may not be the best candidates for a lifetime SC appointment where US society is literally at their mercy. And the ACA already exempted religious nonprofits and small businesses from covering contraception, so that is millions more Americans.




http://ocsotc.org/


In school I worked on a business case (similar to the link above) advocating that oral contraception should be available over-the-counter. It's really a no-brainer, and that's how it works in Catholic Mexico and other nations. This has been discussed for years, but the understaffed and political football FDA has yet to act. "Plan B" (the morning-after pill) is available no-questions-asked after a pharmacist consultation, but it's more expensive and doesn't reduce menstrual symptoms (also I believe there is some controversy as to what age range it is available to). Now, women can only get the pill after a yearly or quarterly visit to their OB-GYN, and awkward pelvic exams are often mandated prior to giving out an Rx. This is obviously time consuming and expensive, esp. if the patient doesn't have coverage.




Sure, I can imagine that drug companies may lose $ if the pill goes OTC and is subject to generic competition and market price pressures (like most other products!), and I guess OB-GYNs may stand to lose business too (some legitimately care and it's their medical opinion that regular exams are the best thing for their patients - so they need to link it to the pill Rx in order to get women to comply). But most major health org's worldwide say the OTC pill is an overwhelming improvement with very little downside (except for right wing Christian ire I suppose). And we are just talking about decades-old, well-validated, super-safe, cheap basic hormone pills. The fancy next-gen stuff can still be Rx for consumers who want it. Unintended pregnancies and menstrual symptoms are a huge cost on societies, and disproportionately affect women. So is that the problem - women have most of the responsibility and incur the suffering, but the men are writing the laws and enjoying the pleasure of sex without the consequences? Since there is practically zero medical/sociological/economic evidence to support the restriction of contraceptives, I can only assume that this is another manifestation of the "war on women". Conservatives claim to love freedom and liberty, but have this fixation to try to control female behavior. It's really bizarre. Maybe we can take them at their word and it's all about religious values and "morality". If so, then why don't they pony up and pay more taxes to help all the unintended mothers raise those kids? The US is probably the most hostile developed economy for working mothers - so how about changing those laws and norms first, and then you can restrict contraception coverage as much as you want.  


----

For the 4th, here is a disturbing story that hasn't got much coverage: the US accepts non-citizens into its Armed Forces (often with the "promise" of citizenship at honorable discharge), but if those vets are caught in a crime (even a petty one like DUI or financial fraud) - the laws of the land require automatic deportation. Maybe deportation is justified for some crimes, but there has to be exceptions or at least a review process for non-citizen vets who served faithfully for years and got caught in one mistake. It's like the penal system in general - how can we claim to be civilized people, yet we judge and label criminals by the worst moment of their lives? Someone could be a productive worker and loving parent, son, brother, and neighbor for 99% of his life, but once they are in prison, they are henceforth known as "robber" or "drug user".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6rjCvgRkq0

----

And lastly, on the lighter side of things, the Daily Show mocks bourgeois liberals for their stupidity/narrow-mindedness too!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/13/google-glass-daily-show_n_5491565.html

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/03/the_daily_show_anti_vaxxers_are_the_climate_denying_nutjobs_of_the_left/

 

The Supreme Court's ruling on the Voting Rights Act

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/us/justice-dept-blocks-texas-photo-id-law.html?_r=0
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/obj_activ.php

You've probably heard about this case. To me this is a terrible injustice. It's true that the nation has come a long way racially since the '60s, but the VRA Section 5 (requiring states "with a history of racial discrim." to get the OK from DOJ before making a voting law change) doesn't just protect against racial disenfranchisement, it is a check against all forms of disenfranchisement and vote-rigging, regardless of the voter (victims are still likely people of color and poor, but now they are being targeted because they tend to support Dems). IMO, the VRA should be applied to ALL states, not just ones with a "history of racial prejudice". But then it gets into the state's rights issue and all that mess.

Voting is the most sacred right of citizens of free societies. People in other nations risk death to vote because they believe in and trust the process (even when they shouldn't). Northern swing states exempt from the VRA Section 5 have passed or tried to pass horrible GOP-led voting change laws in places like PA and OH in 2012 (trying in vain to help Romney). Gerrymandering goes on in most of the nation, is one of the top threats to our political system IMO, and fortunately places like CA have tried to fight the trend with districts drawn by an independent commission. And contrary to what we might assume, the VRA Section 5 applies to non-Dixie states like CA, NY, MI, and AK. So it's not a giant conspiracy against the South. And if they pass reasonable law changes, then there's nothing to worry about, so why oppose the VRA?

Chief J. Roberts said that the VRA Section 5 is not necessary anymore. If so, does that mean the flagged states have learned to enact fair laws, and injustices do not occur? Take a look at the attached jpg. It's from the Jun 25 edition of Daily Show, but my video res was bad at the time and I can't make out the source (US Justice ). If we trust it, it shows that that the DOJ has objected to 74 voting law changes in these states since 2000. I am not sure how many changes were passed on the other hand, but clearly the law IS necessary and still needs to be enforced. Maybe it's a shame/pride issue that these states are tired of getting extra scrutiny as "recovering racists". But hey, parolees have that mark on their records forever. Again, if you write just laws, what do you have to fear from the Feds? And many of the flagged states are in the top 15 of the FBI's list of states with the most hate crimes per capita (AL, MI, AZ, SC). Interestingly, LA, GA, and MS are among the best on the hate crimes list - but that is likely a reporting issue (those states have like one intern working on it).

http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-2011-hate-crime-statistics-2012-12#ixzz2EfwtOVBq

 

Gerrymandering has also made it likely that the GOP control many state legislatures. So they try to push through changes to help the GOP in federal elections. This is just like the business world: don't fight fair. The goal of elections is to get more votes than the opponent, right? Instead of putting in the work to make a better product and communicate/convince voters of that, they prefer to rig the game so that they win regardless of the quality of their product. They know America is changing demographically (and some may argue politically), and it is getting nearly impossible for the GOP to control the Senate or WH (or even the House if districts were drawn rationally). So instead of trying to capitalize on the winds of change, they are typically rejecting it. How can we win with just the old, white, wealthy (or ignorant), Christian, angry vote? Make it harder for Dem supporters to vote. We already have some of the most inconvenient voting practices in the free world. It's a miracle that turnouts are so high. Now some states want to make it even harder, by implementing some of the strictest voter ID laws in the world. On paper those laws sound reasonable, but in practice they serve to confuse, intimidate, and target specific populations. Plus those laws address a nonexistent issue. Voting fraud DOES NOT HAPPEN to a material degree, and in fact is rarer than a 4-leaf clover (even some Republicans say this). Why invest all this time and effort fighting an imaginary problem? Ironically, there were 10 documented cases of in-person voter fraud since 2000, so that makes the improper voting law problem 7X bigger! Go America!

http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-schmidt-voter-fraud-doesnt-exist-2012-11
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/person-voter-fraud-it-doesnt-exist-we-must-stamp-it-out-anyway

From Wiki:


Advancement Project in 2012 put together a map showing all voter ID laws and restrictions in all 50 states.
State-level voter ID laws fall in one of the following categories:^[24]
Strict photo ID (voters must show photo ID at polling place or follow-up with election officials soon after the election if they fail to provide a photo ID when voting): Georgia, Indiana, Kansas and Tennessee. In addition, Mississippi, Texas and South Carolina have strict photo ID laws that must receive, but have not received, approval from the U.S. Justice Department; pending such approval, they all require non-photo ID, except for Mississippi which has no other voter ID law on the books. Pennsylvania & Wisconsin have had their photo ID laws restricted by the U.S. court system, and they will not be in effect for the 2012 election cycle.
Photo ID or alternative (voters at polling place must either show photo ID or meet another state-specific requirements, such as answering personal questions correctly or being vouched for by another voter or poll worker(s) who have a voter ID): Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, South Dakota and New Hampshire.
Non-photo ID (state-specific list of acceptable forms of polling place ID, including a non-photo form): Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington. Arizona, Ohio and Virginia also have strict, after election follow-up rules for voters that fail to provide the required voter ID when voting at a polling place. Alabama has a newer photo ID law that is scheduled to take effect in 2014, if it gets pre-approval from the U.S. Justice Department.
No ID required at polling place: all other states not noted above.

The GOP's disenfranchisement efforts

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/15/
158869947/do-voter-id-laws-prevent-fraud-or-dampen-turnout
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-
04-28/politics/scotus.voter.id_1_voter-impersonation-voter-id-laws-voter-fraud?_s=PM:POLITICS
http://www.npr.org/blogs/
itsallpolitics/2012/08/17/158982853/federal-court-reinstates-early-voting-days-in-parts-of-florida?ft=1&f=1014

Of all developed democratic nations, the US is probably the one where it's hardest to vote. In the last few elections, conservatives have tried to make that process even harder (presumably for some voting blocs that lean Democrat). They claim that it's meant to prevent fraud and tampering, but there is pretty much zero evidence of in-person voting fraud in the last couple decades (most fraud cases have involved mail-in ballots). They respond to that by saying one fraudulent vote is one too many. But in order to stop that one fraudulent vote, how do you justify disenfranchising dozens or even thousands of legit voters? Faux News and others have done a great job implanting the idea in Americans' minds that voter fraud by the left is rampant. Dead people, illegals, and felons are on the voter rolls, etc. Well as we saw in FL 2000, that wasn't the case at all, and in fact authorized voters were being mislabeled as felons.

What are they so afraid of? If their candidates are better, and their ideas are superior, then no need to play games - the voters will validate their cause. Or if they think the voters are dumb and don't know what's best for them, then spend the corporate billions to blitz the airwaves with propaganda and get out the vote as insurance. Both parties are doing that plenty. But now they have to go one step further and block unfriendly voters from exercising their American rights? That is unacceptable. The GOP is supposedly the party of freedom, liberty, and small government. Then why are they so hardcore about enacting these new bureaucratic laws that undermine some people's liberty? They want to be the populist party instead of the elitist party, but moves like this reveal their true colors. Heck we have so much gerrymandering and don't even allow winner-by-popular-vote in many cases, precisely to be undemocratic. But is  this a gov't "of the people, by the people, and for the people" - or something else? By the way, that quote was from a certain Republican president during the Civil War.

-----------

Can you imagine who would be elected of we didn't have a system that disenfranchised voters? That's why the Republicans are so afraid. They complain about fraud and want to require govt issued ids but they can't point to any cases where this has been a problem.

Also, why not vote on Sundays (like in France which has much higher turnout) or make election day (at least for presidential) a holiday?

-----------

Yeah I agree. Voting is already so inconvenient here (and many Dem-leaning voters like students and the poor don't participate as it is), that the voter ID stuff is almost a joke. In some nations voting is mandatory (that probably wouldn't fly here). But at least in other places, the voting window is like a month, and/or voting day is on a weekend as you said. There is NO good reason voting should occur on a Tuesday (in the winter) here, with so much at stake. I know there is some law stating that employers must give workers unpenalized time off to vote, but that is probably not practical for many hourly lower-wage jobs (again, poorer minorities who may lean Dem). So the system is already so whack and undemocratic as it is, these new laws are just salt on the wound. I don't understand why there isn't more outrage over this. If only the ACLU and NAACP speak out, then the issue appears liberal and partisan, not a matter of rights and liberty that it truly is.