http://www.statesman.com/news/judge-...EnHSeyQxmDuXJ/

JFC I would've lost All The Money betting that was a FYP.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/al...d-dmv-closures

So the lady banging the governor of Alabama was heavily involved in closing DMVs in minority areas:

So there's another strike against voter ID laws. Not only do they do nothing to prevent fraud, they are also a tool that corrupt politicians use to increase their influence.

None of that matters if you like them because of how racist they are, though.

The laws are designed to disenfranchise minorities.

Also your example of the Minnesota Senate election would not have been changed by a voter ID law, so...

Haven't read the court's opinion or the opinion of the Fifth Circuit, but be interesting to see how the Fifth Circuit reacts on the next appeal. If the quoted summary is accurate, it doesn't seem that Ramos' determination was responsive to the question raised in remanding the case.

Source?

Source?

/rhetorical questions

I love how a judges opinion that a law is racist now qualifies as proof that a law is racist. As if a judge is somehow more qualified to understand the matter at hand and why statistics proving every law "unfairly targets" a race means only laws liberals think are racist are actually racist.

MICKEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

As if a judge is somehow more qualified to understand the matter at hand
As if a judge is somehow more qualified to understand the matter at hand
As if a judge is somehow more qualified to understand the matter at hand
As if a judge is somehow more qualified to understand the matter at hand
As if a judge is somehow more qualified to understand the matter at hand
As if a judge is somehow more qualified to understand the matter at hand
As if a judge is somehow more qualified to understand the matter at hand

These particular judges very clearly have no idea what they are talking about. They act like a law "unfairly targeting" a race is something unique among laws. We still haven't been able to list one law in the US that doesn't hurt one race more than another ITT.

this is what the judge said. keep an open mind, judge is not a synonym for god. people have been trying to beat it through thick SJW ears for how long now? you have failed to explain or define what makes a law racist. you have given vague pieces of the puzzle. now you are quoting someone using the most blatantly obvious flaw in the logic that has been explained to you dozens of times in a dozen different ways. its starting to look like a learning disability

so again, where is the evidence this is racist... say vs it is an attempt to suppress votes from irresponsible people that can't get ID or would flake at the smallest hurdle to vote such as the weather, which is proven to suppress voting

What does it mean for a voting law to be "racist"? For the purposes of this thread, at least when it applies to a United States law, "racist" should be considered short-hand for violating a provision of the United States Constitution or the United States Voting Rights Act.

In the US a judge (or panel of judges) is the person under US law that is tasked with determining whether or not a law violates the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act. This fact should not be confusing or controversial.

As hopefully everyone posting in this thread realizes, the US has a sordid history of discriminatory laws designed to disenfranchise blacks and other citizens. Right after the civil war, a series of amendments to the Constitution were passed that gave blacks the right to vote. Sadly, soon after that eleven southern states passed laws designed to make it difficult for blacks to actually vote in an election. These took the form of poll taxes which required prospective voters to pay a fee to register to vote.

In due course these poll tax laws were stricken down by the US Supreme Court as violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution. Essentially the justices ruled that how wealthy a citizen was should have no bearing on his/her right to vote.

Most modern voting court cases are decided upon via the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965 extending the protections of the 14th and 15th amendments of the Constitution. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act explicitly prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified in Section 4(f)(2) of the Act.

In 1982, Congress amended Section 2 to provide that a plaintiff could establish a violation of the section if the evidence established that, in the context of the "totality of the circumstance of the local electoral process," the standard, practice, or procedure being challenged had the result of denying a racial or language minority an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

Thus, the Voting Rights Act prohibits not only laws (practices, procedures, or standards) that were designed to be discriminatory (prohibited by the 14th and 15th amendments), but also laws that are in fact discriminatory by their results (the now famous "results test") whether or not the law was originally designed to be discriminatory.

In every case of this type that has been decided upon there are hundreds if not thousands of pages in the trial history (briefs, etc.), many of which purport to show the disproportionate effects of the law in question. The Texas case has innumerable documents available to the public should anyone here be interested in reading them. Here is a link to that court case's history, documents, briefs, etc.

https://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/naacp-v-steen

This is false.

Yeah that is my point.

It actually invalidates your point.

Thats not logical. You can be responsible citizen and not have an ID.


Amazing there is so much concern for voter IDs but no concern and even active resistance to looking into Russian meddling. Its almost as if something else is going on here other then our elections integrity.

Not saying you're wrong, but why is this true?

what? there is a massive push from the left to investigate russia. thats happening and there has been no evidence produced. the same people pushing this agenda are pushing back against voter fraud. that is the magical hypocrisy you seem to be looking for but missed

i think you might have russian interference with the election mixed up with russian ties to trump. those are two different issues with some overlap

its possible, and thats the point. its a demonstration that the democratic process is vulnerable as we saw in the state of florida for the presidency or in the case of minnesota here. an organized effort to fraudulently cast votes thats not even tied to the political party or candidate it favors, could have a huge impact. not only did florida demonstrate it could sway a presidential election, but in minnesota it demonstrated it could shift where a trillion dollars is spent. its a serious loophole. the argument that it doesn't sway a popular vote or that nobody has organized people to expose this vulnerability yet, isn't a sound argument

Agreed, juan. I'm just starting to research this. I've found Greene County, Minnesota and New York in 1984 so far. I don't know if those also would "not have been" averted by voter ID laws. Maybe. I hope to get to the bottom of it.

And what about acorn? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...ion-fraud.html

Acorn wasn't voter fraud. It was voter registration fraud. In that some employees of acorn may have lied about how many registrations they did to get paid a bit more. Not actual fraudulent votes cast.

lol

And there is a complete denial by trump and restence to the investigation by the right.

Our intelligence community disagrees. They say Russia tried to influence the election for trump.
Thats because voter fraud is almost non existent.
I think you are the one confused here. I'm talking about influence not trump being a puppet.

It's confusing in as much as the Supreme Court struck down key parts of the Voting Rights Act on a 5/4 majority. There is clear ideological division and accepting your view at face means that people who disagree with the majority view can't claim practices allowed by the decision are racist.

I truly have no idea what you are talking about. The thread was stuck by one or two posters who persistently asked what made a voting law racist and why other non-voting laws were not struck down as racist since many other non-voting laws have differential effects across races.

I attempted to answer that question in a neutral manner. Voting laws are specially carved out in the US since voting is fundamental to our democracy. If a federal judge finds that a voting law has resulted in differential effects along racial lines, then that voting law can be stricken down. The same threshold of judgment (the results test) does not apply to non-voting laws.

If your point is that people should be able to disagree with judges' judgments or laws passed by Congress, I totally agree. If your point is that these disagreements have a tendency to fall along political lines, I totally agree.

People are encouraged to discuss, debate, and argue these issues. My post above was intended to encourage further debate since the thread seemed, in my opinion, to be side-tracked by a pedantic (yet important) question fairly easily answered.