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.