The Right To Vote

[Howey]

Did you know the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to vote to all Americans?

In a 5-4 decision today, an ultra-conservative U.S. Supreme Court struck down key enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act, including those which required states with a history of racial disenfranchisement to get pre-approval from the US Department of Justice before those states could change voting laws. This opens the floodgates for states to pass restrictive voting laws across the country, such as voter identification laws and gerrymandered redistricting, that have the intended goal of preventing people of color from accessing the ballot box.

Millions of Americans are now threatened by attacks on our ability to vote, if we don’t act.

Please sign the petition to join Daily Kos, Color of Change, and a growing movement to pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing and protecting the freedom to vote for all.

Click here to sign petition


Now that the spamming is out of the way, it does appear that a simple Constitutional Amendment is necessary to ensure every one of us is given the right to vote, at no fee without restrictions.

 

[Socrtease]

All this opinion does is put those 15 states on the same level as the other 35. If an unconstitutional restriction is put into place the DOJ can challenge it like it would any other. All the court said today was that the law as reauthorized had no rational basis in today's society. Said congress must tailor the law to the current situation and not the situation in the past.

 

[Howey]

All this opinion does is put those 15 states on the same level as the other 35. If an unconstitutional restriction is put into place the DOJ can challenge it like it would any other. All the court said today was that the law as reauthorized had no rational basis in today's society. Said congress must tailor the law to the current situation and not the situation in the past.

Actually, the ruling said the current map is outdated and needs to be redone*. There is still a rational basis in today's society for the Civil Rights Act, and there will continue to be as long as voter disenfranchisement occurs.

*The rationale liberal in me agrees that the map is, indeed, outdated. The pessimistic liberal in me realizes that our Congress is incapable of doing anything that's the right thing to do in this case.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

who knows....maybe the federal government will actually take a look to SEE if there's any evidence of discrimination in voting laws.....well, not the liberals of course.....we couldn't expect them to actually look........

 

[tekkychick]

Actually, the ruling said the current map is outdated and needs to be redone*. There is still a rational basis in today's society for the Civil Rights Act, and there will continue to be as long as voter disenfranchisement occurs.

*The rationale liberal in me agrees that the map is, indeed, outdated. The pessimistic liberal in me realizes that our Congress is incapable of doing anything that's the right thing to do in this case.

I would be ok if all 50 states had to submit changes to their voting laws for perusal to see if they have a disparate impact on minorities. After all, Pennsylvania is an example of a state that wasn't under control of the Voting Rights Act, but they did their darndest to stop minorities from voting.

But, like you, I don't see Congress able to come up with anything given the partisanship.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You'd have to be living in a cave not to realize that this day had to come sooner or later. It would be near impossible for the 9 southern States most affected to deny minorities their voting rights on the scale that they did in the Jim Crow era. Those States now realize from bitter experience that to even attempt to do so would cost them a significant amount of sovreignty. The times have indeed change and the Civil Rights Act has not been discarded but has been mandated by SCOTUS to be updated and modernized. I don't have a problem with that. Lets see what happens and be prepared to act if any whole sale attempt at denying voters rights occurs. My guess is that you might see some nibling around the edges that will be met with a rapid federal response.

My main concern about this decision is we have a current congress that couldn't piss on their own shoe even if someone held their dick for them let alone modernize civil rights legislation.

 

[Steelplate]

You know....I have no problem with voter ID laws.....provided:

A. They are free foe people who don't own vehicles and don't want to drive.

B. That it wasn't rushed through like they tried to in the 2012 election. That shit was gerrymandering the likes of which I have ever seen in this country since I began voting (1983)

And finally....

C. That States don't make it more difficult for the poor to attain that ID..... like they tried to do in Wisconsin....closing the photo ID centers in the poor and minority heavy sections of the state so they have to travel inconveniently to some other section of town.

The right to vote and take part in the Democratic process is EVERY BIT as much of a right as the Conservatives' baby of the 2nd amendment.

If you are pro-Constitution.... you cannot pick and choose the elements of it that you will embrace or ignore.

Let's look at the Conservative ideal of the 2nd Amendment. I am pro-2nd Amendment.....however, I do realize that there is a real threat of illegal guns getting into the wrong hands via private sales. The wrong hands meaning....psychopaths getting ready for a shooting spree, or Gangland Criminals wanting to establish their superiority.

That's why I thought Toomey/Manchin was a very good compromise. It did not effect a legal transaction in any way. But it did put some sense of accountability into the private sales arena....and made straw purchases more difficult to take place. It was an excellent case of middle.of the road legislation that allowed law abiding citizens to buy and sell weapons and made it more difficult for the folk that through criminal record or psychological testing, to get easy access to those weapons.

It was a clearly defined win/win. But because or WMI(weapon manufacturers International)...or their alias....the NRA, put enough pressure on the legislature to shoot it down, a reasonable, middle of the road bill was defeated.

 

[Bonestorm]

All this opinion does is put those 15 states on the same level as the other 35. If an unconstitutional restriction is put into place the DOJ can challenge it like it would any other. All the court said today was that the law as reauthorized had no rational basis in today's society. Said congress must tailor the law to the current situation and not the situation in the past.

What's the constitutional basis for the decision, though? What in the Constitutuion prohibits Congress from exercising its powers under the 15th Amdndment in a way that imposes higher burdens on some states and localities than others?