Forum Thread

North Carolina Tackles Non-Existent Voter Fraud "Problem"

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 3 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    The GOP dominated state legislature in North Carolina has finally tackled the non-existent problem of voter fraud in their state by passing the most restrictive voting law in the United States. While saying with a straight face that this is in the name of ensuring a free and fair election, the legislature systematically gutted a host of provisions that tend to draw more democrats to the polls. The law now requires voters to have a government issued photo-id, erases seven days from early voting, ends same day registration, just to name a few. They even eliminated a very popular high school civics program that allows students to register to vote shortly before their 18th birthdays. I can only imagine how many cases of voter fraud occur each year in those high school classrooms.

    It is laughable that these politicians can say that they are doing this in the name of eliminating voter fraud, a problem that has yet to be proven pretty much anywhere in America. What they should do is own up to the fact that they don't want students, minorities, the poor, and the elderly to participate in the democratic process. Why can't Republicans just admit that they don't want people who disagree with them to vote? I'd almost have more respect for them if they just came out and said that instead of enacting these laws in the name of "free and fair" elections. It only seems to be free and fair if you vote for them.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    This is a copy of a post that I sent earlier today to someone else who shared a concern for what Republicans have done to eradicate the ability of The Voters Rights Act of 1965 to address election laws that serve no purpose other than to prevent minority voters from casting their ballots. I have done a lot of research into the VRA and the Supreme Court's June 25th opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, which, more or less, destroyed the VRA. I have come to the conclusion that, if a particular act benefits the GOP, Republicans, including the 5 Justices presently sitting on the Supreme Court, HAVE NO SHAME. Chief Justice Roberts' rationale for his holding in the Shelby County case, if not so sad, would be laughable.

    You're absolutely right when you say that, "Republican State Legislatures are waging a 'War on Democracy' . . ." but I'm not at all sure that you understand who is allowing this "war" to be waged. The real bad guy here is the United States Supreme Court, which has a majority of Republican Justices (5 Republicans and 4 Democrats).

    In the 1960s, Congress recognized that certain states and voting districts had a long record of voter discrimination, and they had every intention of continuing these unconstitutional practices until Congress prevented them from doing so. In 1965, Congress did precisely that, passing The Voters Rights Act" (VRA) of 1965. As I'll explain, the VRA required every state and voting district that had a history of voter discrimination to
    "pre-clear" or seek prior approval by either the Justice Department or a 3-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals before any election-law changes made by such a jurisdiction went into effect.
    became effective.

    Section 5 of the VRA requires that "covered" jurisdictions (those with a history of voter discrimination) receive federal approval, known as "preclearance", before implementing changes to their election laws. In order to receive approval, the jurisdiction must prove that the change does not have the purpose or effect of discriminating on the basis of race or language minority status; if the jurisdiction fails to meet this burden, the federal government will deny preclearance and the jurisdiction's change will not go into effect. Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was the part of the VRA which set out the formula that is used to determine which state and local governments must comply with Section 5’s preapproval requirement. Without Section 4, it becomes impossible for anyone to determine whether or not a particular jurisdiction has to meet the requirements of Section 5, because you no longer have a way of telling a court which jurisdictions must seek pre-approval.

    The purpose of the VRA was clear: Before a "covered" jurisdiction's election law changes actually went into effect and became the law, the Department of Justice or the D.C. Court of Appeals had to review the law and determine that it had a discriminatory purpose or effect. If, as you and I believe, where a jurisdiction's changes in the kinds of photographic ID that it recognizes (the changes to election laws in Texas and North Carolina come to mind) prevent Blacks and Hispanics, who almost always vote Democratic, from being able to vote serve no other purpose than to discriminate, the law in question would never be given approval under the VRA. Before the VRA became the law, every election law that was thought to have a discriminatory purpose or effect had to be litigated on a "piece-meal" basis. And, since the person(s) challenging the law had the burden of proving his/her case, one could not challenge a discriminatory election law until after the election had taken place.

    On June 25th of this year, the United States Supreme Court, in a case called Shelby County (Alabama) v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down
    Section 4 of the VRA is unconstitutional and can no longer be used. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Majority, claimed that the criteria used by Section 4 to determine whether Section 5 (and its preclearance provisions) even applied to a particular jurisdiction was based on conditions that existed in 1965, and not "current political conditions." In plain English, this is like saying that, just because a state or voting district used to discriminate does not mean that it still discriminates.

    That is B.S., and you, I and much of America know that. The United States Supreme Court is the highest Court in the land, however, and the law is what the United States Supreme Court says it is.

    In my opinion, the majority-Republican Supreme Court did exactly what it intended to do: it made it difficult, if not impossible, for many minority voters to cast their ballots. And in doing so, made it infinitely easier for Republican candidates to win their elections. The Supreme Court did not question the constitutionality of Section 5 of the VRA, but until Congress re-writes Section 4 so that it is constitutional, Section 5 serves no purpose.

    I don't know about you, but as far as I am concerned, members of the "Tea Party" are nothing more than Republicans with more money and less ethics: thus, America only has 2 national political parties, and one of them stands to gain everything if Section 4 is never re-written. The good news may be that, unless I am badly mistaken, American voters are fed up with most Republicans and Tea Baggers, especially after the government shut down, and with a little luck we may have a Democratic Congress and White House from 2016 through 2024. . .

    As I mentioned, Shelby County was a 5-4 decision. If just one Republican Justice retires from the Supreme Court, is replaced by a Democrat, and another election discrimination case comes before the Supreme Court, the VRA, as Dr. King intended it to be, may be resurrected.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    reversal --

    Yes the Bush legacy lives on in the Supreme Court, and I think it will stay that way for another decade at least. But also in many of the lower courts where Bush appointees are following a right wing agenda. And time and again those Bush appointees are voting against minority rights, whether it is voting or social issues.

    The War on Democracy would not get far if they attackers knew that the courts would rule their actions illegal. That's why they do it...they do not fear the courts. It's why Republicans in the Senate have continually blocked Obama's lower court appointees. They don't want to change the balance of those courts that currently favor Republicans.