July 2, 2013

"When five justices of the Supreme Court disabled the Voting Rights Act last Tuesday, they left it to Congress to find a new formula..."

"... to restore one of the great landmarks of equality and once again protect the nation’s most fundamental democratic right."
That is unlikely for the moment given Congressional dysfunction, as the justices certainly knew, but it is hardly impossible in the months and years to come.

47 comments:

edutcher said...

Gee, I thought they only invalidated one section.

From the article:

"What is needed now is a new coalition — as loud and as angry as the voices of 1965 — to demand that Republican lawmakers join Democrats in restoring fairness to the election system."

Right, let's make sure all those Democrat precincts keep voting 100% Democrat.

Revenant said...

It is somewhat depressing that a great many of the people who read that article will actually believe the statement "the Supreme Court disabled the Voting Rights Act".

Farmer said...

Discrimination at the ballot box continues and is growing.

I can't think of any reply to this. It defies mockery.

Right is right! said...

It would be best for the country if voter participation went down in urban areas. I only want the non-transient committed voter in those areas being allowed to vote. Not those who have been promised an Obama phone.

Right is right! said...

It would be best for the country if voter participation went down in urban areas. I only want the non-transient committed voter in those areas being allowed to vote. Not those who have been promised an Obama phone.

YoungHegelian said...

It comes in more forms than it did a half-century ago, but it is no less pernicious. Instead of literacy tests, we now have rigid identification requirements. Instead of poll taxes, we now have bans on early voting, cutbacks in the number of urban precincts, and groups that descend on minority districts to comb the registration rolls for spelling errors.

Not to mention New Black Panther Party members, who are Democratic ward chairmen, standing outside of polling places with a club. And -- mirabile dictu -- even though the DoJ won a default judgement against said NBPP member because he didn't show up in court, DoJ refused to follow up on prosecution.

Yeah, tell me again, you Mahattanite motherfuckers, about just how "pernicious" those challenges to voting are, and how we can trust Uncle Sam to fix them!

mccullough said...

Requiring ID to register to vote is a good way to prevent illegals from voting. This must be stopped.

ricpic said...

For the civil rights cabal victory is the worst imaginable nightmare. Ergo discrimination MUST continue.

Drago said...

How quickly will the moby "Right is right" be linked to on lefty blog sites?

My over/under is 15 minutes.

edutcher said...

Never forget, every state the Romster won had a voter ID law.

bgates said...

groups that descend on minority districts to comb the registration rolls for spelling errors

In July 1995, seven months after launching an exploratory fundraising committee for a U.S. congressional run, Illinois state Senator Alice Palmer announced she would run to replace U.S. Representative Mel Reynolds, who was then under indictment for sex crimes. She also said that she would not seek reelection to the Illinois state Senate in 1996. Shortly afterward, Barack Obama, who had never held political office to-date, launched his campaign committee for Palmer's Illinois state Senate seat.
Following Reynolds' conviction and resignation from the U.S. House in August 1995, a special election primary was set for November 1995 to replace Reynolds. In September 1995, Palmer supporters held a press conference asking other announced and rumored candidates to drop out to allow Palmer to run in the special primary without opposition.
On September 19, 1995, Barack Obama formally announced his candidacy for the state Senate, with Palmer introducing and endorsing Obama as her successor.
On November 28, 1995, after finishing a distant third behind Jesse Jackson, Jr. in the primary to replace Reynolds, a disappointed Palmer remarked that she still would not seek re-election to the state Senate. However, Palmer changed her mind and filed nominating petitions with 1,580 signatures on December 18, 1995—the last day for filing. That day Obama told the Chicago Tribune, "I am disappointed that she's decided to go back on her word to me".
In early January 1996, Obama challenged Palmer's hastily gathered petitions and those of the three other prospective Democratic candidates. Nearly two-thirds of the signatures on Palmer's petitions were found to be invalid, leaving her almost 200 signatures short of the required 757 signatures of registered voters residing in the Illinois Senate district.
None of the other three prospective candidates had the required number of valid signatures. As a result Obama, who had filed nominating petitions with over 3,000 signatures on the first filing day, appeared alone on the ballot for the March 16 Democratic primary. For all intents and purposes, this assured him of election in this heavily Democratic district.

n.n said...

Is this The New York Times in their activist role?

"When a president through dereliction of duty and betrayal of his oath disenfranchised American citizens with the provision of amnesty to 10, 20, 40 million or more illegal aliens"

Perhaps because of their overt rejection of individual dignity, they have a selective interest in civil rights.

It's quite odd how their kind are more likely to recognize reformed murderers, rapists, invaders, and other criminals before the innocence of succeeding generations.

Do they even consider or care about the causes which motivated mass immigration and migration or the consequences of accelerated overpopulation?

Among other issues, there is a clear and progressive failure to assimilate. Is The New York Times inviting disruption of our society?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

I really have not been able to figure out what the dissent means about the more recent ways of nobbling the minority vote. Apparently it is discriminatory to draw districts such as to concentrate minorities. But this is the "majority-minority" idea that was so popular among minority Democrats (and highly cynical Republicans) not that long ago. It's the reason both for the size of the Congressional Black Caucus and for the size of the Republican majority of the House. I doubt the CBC is really in favor of all its members residing in competitive districts.

But, then, apparently "diluting" the minority electorate, by not concentrating it in particular districts, is also discriminatory.

I've seen this play out many times with district vs. at-large debates in the SF Bay Area. Which is better: A district system that all but guarantees a set number of Black or Latino councilmen, or an at-large system where everyone has a need to court the minority vote, but there's a strong possibility of an all-white (or white and Asian-American) city council? There are minority advocates for both, but Ginsburg paints both as invidiously discriminatory.

As for this, from the NYT editorial:

The most fundamental change Congress could make would be a law declaring a universal right to vote that could not be infringed by any level of government.

What would that even mean? "A universal right to vote"? As in one by which anyone could show up to any polling place and cast a ballot, without evidence of registration, let alone identity or citizenship? I think in-person vote fraud isn't nearly as big a problem as some imagine, but, really, if you wanted to make it one, that would be how to do it.

virgil xenophon said...

Farmer is right. How does one even begin...I'm actually absolutely awestruck at the size of the ideological blinders..

Michael said...

Yes, whatever we do we cannot let the predominately black populations of many southern towns decide to move a polling place without checking with their masters up north.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

I forgot the "bans on early voting" part. Evidently, if you have once introduced early voting, you are a bigot if you then contract it. It's another of those one-way ratchets, yes?

The word "bans" suggests that something always freely available has been forbidden. Not all states have early voting, and several that do have it added it very recently. We aren't talking "hallowed democratic traditions being run roughshod over" here.

tim maguire said...

"Activist" is a mindset. The cause is incidental. And there will always be a cause because the activist will always need one.

Revenant said...

The most fundamental change Congress could make would be a law declaring a universal right to vote that could not be infringed by any level of government

Well yes, giving newborns and foreigners a Constitutional right to vote in American elections WOULD represent a fundamental change in the way our federal elections are run.

Hard to argue with that.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Hey, I'm all for giving kids the right to vote! Then my family would get 8 votes instead of two, while the yuppies down the street would only get 2....

We'd pass anti-abortion laws in no time at that rate!

Heck, people with kids care more about the future-- so shouldn't our votes count for more?

Big Mike said...

Shorter New York Times: a bad formula based on 50 year old data is better than any formula that could be worked out today.

I'm especially taken with their high dudgeon about "groups that descend on minority districts to comb the registration rolls for spelling errors." I can only conclude that the Times editorial board is unconcerned that the misspelling is a sign of a non-existent voter? I mean, even in minority districts people can spell their own name, right?

Revenant said...

Or get rid of all taxes except the poll tax. You pay a tax of your own choosing at the ballot box and get 1 vote per dollar paid.

Marty Keller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Douglas said...

There is no need for Congress to do anything. Under Section 3 of the VRA (the "bail-in" provision), the DOJ or an aggrieved party can force a jurisdiction into Section 5 pre-clearance by proving in federal court that such jurisdiction engaged in intentional discrimination against minority voters. This is a complete remedy for whatever discrimination exists. Congress need do nothing more.

SteveR said...

"Disabled"? Bullshit

Methadras said...

ROFL, I'm telling you leftists are going to fuck this up even worse and congress is going to go right along with them.

Lem said...

Boulderdash...

That editorial is not worthy of the Supremely eloquent Argle-Bargle putdown.

ken in sc said...

The old version of the voting rights act needs to be applied in every state or not at all. It is unconstitutional on the face of it. If anybody has to get permission from the Justice Dept. to change their election laws, then everybody should. Actually, I don't believe anybody should.

garage mahal said...

Yes for the life of me I can't figure what the big deal is! Republicans are just trying to root out fraud. They are so notorious for that. They would never ever try to keep Democrats from voting. NEVAR.

caseym54 said...

In 2009, the Court warned (7-1) that the nearly 50-year-old sanctions were unlikely to pass muster much longer, and Congress -- controlled by 60% Democrat majorities in both houses -- did nothing.

Now they whine.

But perhaps the most unfair assumption in all of this is that the Republicans are against Voting Rights, when they have voted for each and every one of them by lopsided margins, going back to the Civil War. Something the Democrats can't claim, even for the 1964 Act.

Birkel said...

garage mahal,

I tell you what, you (and your ideological brethren) find all the examples of Republicans convicted of voting fraud you can.
And I (along with other commenters) will find all we can of Democrats convicted of voter fraud.

Tit-for-tat.

Good luck.

The Godfather said...

The section of the law that the Court struck down identified certain states for which all voting law changes had to be approved in advance by DOJ. By and large, they were Southern states with a history (as of 50 years ago) of discrimination against Black would-be voters.

If we replace that section to deal with the issues the Times identifies, what states should we identify to require pre-clearance? I guess if the Times were candid, they'd say: All states other than those in which the Governor and the majority in both houses of the legislature are Democrats. Because only Democrats can be trusted to protect the votes of people who vote for Democrats. Makes sense, right?

Sorun said...

I heard in the South that they print ballots up in cursive.

Gahrie said...

How are they going to be able to justify discriminating against southern states in the 21st century when Mass. has the worst Black voting record?

Gahrie said...

So, if evidence that the VRA was successful in promoting Black voting rights to the point where they exceed White registeration and voting numbers is insufficent for ending the VRA.....what will ever be sufficent?

Gahrie said...

The most fundamental change Congress could make would be a law declaring a universal right to vote that could not be infringed by any level of government

True. But I personally would oppose this. The more democratic we have become the worse it is for our republic.

SGT Ted said...

It all the usual NYT-DNC template on race in support of the Democrat Parties race based spoils system to purchase votes from the poor with free shit and preferences.

SGT Ted said...

It is also an attempt to Mau-Mau politicians to pass another fucking "civil rights bill", as if it's still 1950. Which they need it to be, forever, in order to keep blacks voting Democrat.

Democrats like to keep them dumb and scared. They are easily controlled that way.

Oso Negro said...

I am reminded here of the old "don't these people believe in civil rights?" post. It was before my time on Althouse, but I recently went back and read it all in the archives. I find it preposterous that the NYT is touting an "uninfringeable right". Theoretically all of our rights are uninfringeable, but centuries of effort by the rulers have infringed the shit out of them. I discovered that I might be with the libertarians on freedom of association. Wouldn't have known it without this blog.

Steven said...

The most fundamental change Congress could make would be a law declaring a universal right to vote that could not be infringed by any level of government.

Said law being based on what power of Congress? Are we to pretend that voting is regulation of commerce?

Here's everything the US Constitution has to say on the right to vote:

1) The same people who get to vote for the more numerous branch of the state legislature get to vote for the House of Representatives (Article I, Section 2).

2) The right to vote cannot be conditioned "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude", and Congress shall have power to enforce this provision by appropriate legislation (Amendment 15).

3) Senators get elected by the same people as Representatives (Amendment 17).

4) The right to vote cannot be conditioned on sex, and Congress shall have power to enforce this provision by appropriate legislation (Amendment 19).

5) You can't charge poll taxes to vote in Federal elections, and Congress shall have power to enforce this provision by appropriate legislation (Amendment 24).

6) People 18 and older can't be denied the right to vote on account of age, and and Congress shall have power to enforce this provision by appropriate legislation (Amendment 26).

So, if the State of New York wanted to, say, prohibit people with a BMI over 30 from voting, you know what? That's constitutional prima facie, and a contradicting Federal law is unconstitutional.

That's not to say you can't make an argument that a BMI provision is a sneaky attempt to discriminate against the older/men/racial minorities that federal law can address. Nor does it mean the law is actually constitutional under current substantive due process theory or the like. But you have to make that argument, you can't just preempt with a "Everybody gets to vote!" federal law. Congress has no plenary power to determine who is qualified to vote.

Shitheads.

Henry said...

Discrimination at the ballot box continues and is growing.

Farmer wrote: I can't think of any reply to this. It defies mockery.

Yes. And then there's the next line:

It comes in more forms than it did a half-century ago, but it is no less pernicious.

Uh, wrong. It is less pernicious.

Fernandinande said...

It'd be cool if the NYT and their fellow travelers would just come clean and say "we want to cheat".

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

"... to restore one of the great landmarks of equality and once again protect the nation’s most fundamental democratic right."

That is drivel. The disabled sections 4 and 5 treated nine States counter to any measure of 'equality' with the other 41.

One 'fundamental democratic right' they were stripped of was the presumption of innocence. Section 5 forced them to prove themselves not guilty of intent to deprive blacks of voting rights, as judged by the heavily politicized, unelected Justice Department.

Enough Supreme Court justices examined their voting statistics by race, and committed the politically incorrect act of noticing the parity between black and white populations in voting, and did the right thing by squelching Section 4 - thus restoring 'equality' and 'fundamental democratic rights' to all the several States.

Nathan Alexander said...

It's kind of funny that garage thinks he's being bitingly sarcastic when he's actually making an extremely accurate statement.

That's what happens when someone forgets how to think for themselves and just repeats Democrat/Progressive talking points.

Rusty said...

garage mahal said...
Yes for the life of me I can't figure what the big deal is! Republicans are just trying to root out fraud. They are so notorious for that. They would never ever try to keep Democrats from voting. NEVAR.


Ssssh. Stop digging, now.

It's spelled, NEVER

dbp said...

A new voting rights act would have to apply to all the states. The "morally superior" places will be less likely to want to pass anything that would apply to them. Fun: Lording it over backward places. Not Fun: Getting lorded over too.

raf said...

Have you noticed how when they agree with a decision it's: "The Supreme Court ruled..." but when they disagree it's: "Five Justices said...."

raf said...

Have you noticed how when they agree with a decision it's: "The Supreme Court ruled..." but when they disagree it's: "Five Justices said...."