Conservatives on high court cast doubt on voting law

Comments (22)
unionwv wrote:

“The court’s liberal justices mounted a spirited defense of the law and questioned how the court could strike it down in a case from Alabama, where they said so many problems of voting bias persist.”

These “problems” will never go away in liberal’s minds and the problems caused by their prior restrains will never enter their minds

Feb 27, 2013 12:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
onemind wrote:

Is there any admissible evidence that whites are willing and politically able to exclude blacks from voting in Alabama? I have heard none that is of today. Absent that, why should the people of Alabama have to ask the federal government for permission to change any voting law or regulation, when Chicago does not? That is the issue.

Feb 27, 2013 1:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PPhermit wrote:

@ diluded : What you just commented is exactly what the extreme right would love to do so they could get in and remain in control of our great country for ever and ever . If only the big corporations since they are people and only big property owners could vote they could rule for hundreds of years. The start of them wanting it is they are starting to yell if you don’t pay income tax to the IRS you shouldn’t be able to vote.

Feb 27, 2013 1:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
victor672 wrote:

Barack Obama is not the “first black president”. He’s a mulatto by definition. Half white and half black is not 100% black. Wishful thinking by liberals.

Feb 27, 2013 2:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Christy-VP wrote:

Liberals always think they are targeted, when it is a matter of “either we get our way or you are discriminating”. Just like the phrase “bipartisan”, which means if you don’t vote with/for us, then you are not bipartisan – forgetting that it also goes the other way. Voting down Section-5 would be such a good thing for the country. How can they say there is wide spread discrimination when there is a black president? The Supreme Court messed up with Obama Care, maybe they can get this one right.

Feb 27, 2013 2:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bemore2day wrote:

victor672 wrote:

“Barack Obama is not the “first black president”. He’s a mulatto by definition. Half white and half black is not 100% black. Wishful thinking by liberals.”

You make an interesting point, but what this also shows is how little things have changed in our country when it comes to race. What is interesting is the fact that we still label a person with any black ancestry as being black.

Feb 27, 2013 2:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
usisburning wrote:

Actually, diluded, I am fully in favor of not allowing people to vote on issues that only affect homeowners unless the voters are, themselves, homeowners. I am tired of seeing my property taxes raised to fund pet projects of politicians with nothing but higher taxes to show for it. As for the rest of your argument, I agree: it is just too difficult for people to obtain a picture ID nowadays. I mean, it isn’t like there are numerous ways to get such ID’s, and I know that the $5 to $12 charge for them is so over the top that people might not be able to afford to make their cell phone payments, or buy more cigarettes, or buy more lottery tickets, or buy the other necessities in life, like satellite television.

Maybe you should acknowledge that requiring identification to vote isn’t an undue burden, or is your soap box too high in the air to come back down to reality?

Feb 27, 2013 2:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sandman839 wrote:

I have an easy way to solve the problem since now there are states in the north who are trying to limit who can and can not vote(by requiring different things. All states have to follow federal voting laws for any election involving a federal position.

Feb 27, 2013 3:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
diluded0000 wrote:

usisburning, do you own your real property outright, or does the bank own it? And I don’t think this case is about voter ID as much as redistricting. But since you brought up the voter ID requirement: my Grandma is in a home, and doesn’t have an ID that I know of. She doesn’t have access to cash, and doesn’t have a ride to the DMV. ID requirements put an unreasonable burden on her, and you won’t convince me otherwise.

And if you want to talk about reality, how about the reality of people in rural areas that are really, truly, dirt poor. I guess you have this vision of welfare recipients eating steak and having cell phones on your dime. But that vision tells me you have never really seen extreme poverty up close and personal, and can’t conceive of $12 buying a week’s worth of food.

Feb 27, 2013 3:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
steveorlando wrote:

yes, it should be equally applied to all states and should be amended that all states are required to federal oversight in relation to voting laws and redistricting.. problem solved, except its not the solution the radicals are looking for, is it?

Feb 27, 2013 3:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

“citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North.”

Has anyone ever seen any evidence of this? Funny.

Feb 27, 2013 4:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
astroz wrote:

The vast majority of Americans seek equal protections under the law. But equal means equal, not above equal, and we all know that.

Feb 27, 2013 4:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DeannaTx wrote:

America had made progress. However the last 4 Presidential election cycles have shown us while progress has been made, the states affected by this still need their hand held by the Federal government to not step backward.
Approaches such as redistricting, attempted voter ID laws which apply only in select counties in these states supposedly to address past voter fraud which was without proof of the substantial existence claimed. You could also look to the select counties who had their voting times cut short. Specifically targeting areas with high minority populations who tend to vote Democratic.
Sadly we’ve seen a resurgence in racism in America. It’s vile ignorant ugly head rising. Not in overt obvious ways , rather in subtle attacks that while obvious, are also deniable by design. But it’s pure racism at work regardless.
The citizens of these states need to be more openly intolerant of even the vile subtle actions taken to prevent qualified Americans from casting their vote rather than feeling singled out for the problems they still have.

Feb 27, 2013 4:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Burns0011 wrote:

I would also point out that the Republican party, acting through its conservative think tanks, is pushing *hard* for legislation and redistricting measures that are only a little short of making sure that anyone who doesn’t vote Republican is disenfranchised, by shaping districts so that they’re always majority Republican, passing “anti-voter fraud” bills that add measures making it harder for poorer people to vote, and diluting the electoral college’s magnifying effect on the popular vote.

Feb 27, 2013 5:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
crittertron wrote:

If Senators in 9 state vote in support of a law that they personally oppose for fear of public dissatisfaction in their choice (i.e. the constituents of said states), isn’t that representative democracy in practice?

Feb 27, 2013 5:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
LBK2 wrote:

People in the south ARE more racist than those in the north.

I know. I’ve lived there for 40 years.

The southern states are also the quickest and most persistent to infringe on everyone’s civil rights.

Feb 27, 2013 5:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
usagadfly wrote:

If indeed the USA wants to promote racial, ethnic and gender fairness, let us set up a nationwide quota system that gives each group a proportionate share of everything. Such a system would have to break up the huge almost meaningless group “whites” into as many sub groups as are recognized for non-”whites”.

This would truly correct discrimination which lingers or is hidden from view by privileged groups. Fair is fair. If it is fair for one group, it is fair for all groups. This is the fundamental meaning of equality before the law.

Feb 27, 2013 7:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DavidCBeach wrote:

If democrats ever lost race as an issue what would they have? Nothing.

Feb 27, 2013 8:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

Corporations are people. Only corporations should vote.

Feb 27, 2013 8:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ronryegadfly wrote:

Justice Scalia called the minority right to vote “minority entitlement”. The right to vote as entitlement. Unbelievable. Why do we as a nation put up with this kind of ignorance and racism in our Supreme Court, the seat of our lawmakers? It is beyond astonishing that a supreme court justice could hold that opinion, let alone espouse it in public. He only undermines his credibility. MOST people are NOT stupid enough to buy into that sort of bigotry.

Feb 27, 2013 9:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ArthurRusset wrote:

Thousands more jurisdictions also may be eligible, said voting rights expert Gerry Hebert. But that list probably does not include Shelby County, because one of its cities, Calera, defied the voting rights law in 2008 and provoked intervention by the Justice Department during the Bush administration.

Feb 28, 2013 4:21am EST  --  Report as abuse
BruceMajors wrote:

Yes by all means let’s have artificial gerrymandered districts forever, with people separated by race into different districts to ensure minority majority districts that only elect minorities, and majority non-minority districts that never elect Democrats. Very healthy. Did someone say something about how are political life is polarized?

Feb 28, 2013 7:25am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.