But those are the groups that the right wants to prevent from voting.Minorities, young people, and poor people typically vote Democrat. Rather than
adjust their platform to meet the needs and desires of the people, repubs would
rather just prevent them from voting.
I respectfully disagree about the author's endorsement of the proposed VRA
amendments. First, there isn't any legislation needed. The Shelby County
decision was aimed at only one section of the Voting Rights Act -- the
preclearance provision, requiring some (mostly southern) jurisdictions to get
permission in advance from the federal government before making any change
related to voting -- and the rest of the Act remains in full force, including
other, potent enforcement provisions for every jurisdiction in the country.
These provisions are being used aggressively, and there is no evidence that they
are inadequate. The new provisions are there to help the Left
advance its agenda, which in this case is flatly at odds with the original
ideals of the Civil Rights Movement: It wants to bring lawsuits that require
racially gerrymandered and segregated voting districts. Even worse, the bill
uses overtly discriminatory means to achieve this dubious end: The bill affords
protections to "minority" voters that it denies to "nonminority"
(that is, white) voters.
From the letter, "minorities throughout our country (including
African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans and others) continue to face
attempts to block their right to vote, such as moving polling places, election
dates and district boundaries."When a polling place, or date, or
district boundary is moved, doesn't that effect Caucasians too? How is that
discrimination? It effects every voter equally.EVERYONE equally must
go to the polls. No one is making minorities go to a special, or
'separate' polling place.
I'll believe this misadminsitration is concerned aboutr equal access to
voting and voting rights when it prosecutes those black panthers who in 2010
intimidated white voters away from the polls in Philly.No, this is
all just smoke and mirrors to deflect attention from BO's abysmal record.
Kitty,Can you give us specific examples (real people you know) who are
having their voting rights taken away... based on their race???===If they move the voting location... #1) They may have a reason.
and #2) they move it for residents of all races in the neighborhood (not just
Hispanics, etc). It moves for all residents in that area. And how
do you know they are moving it to make it HARDER for them to vote? They may be
moving it to make it EASIER for them to vote!My voting location
moved recently... I don't know why, but I don't blame it on race... or
somebody trying to keep me from voting... They just moved it!
@Badgerbadger"When a polling place, or date, or district boundary is
moved, doesn't that effect Caucasians too? How is that discrimination? It
effects every voter equally."Take something like say... some
districts in North Carolina that used to have an early voting polling place on
campus but are moving them away (Appalachian State, UNC, also looking into doing
this for Fayettesville State, North Carolina A&T State and Winston-Salem).
Or let's say there's an urban county (Hamilton, home to
Cincinatti) in Ohio whose early voting place used to be in it's main city.
Instead it was moved outside to a location that requires an hour to get on a bus
out of the city and walk the half a mile from the bus stop to get to. Ohio gets rid of voting the Sunday before election day, traditionally
"Souls to the Polls" day for many black churches.All voters
are affected but some groups are more targeted than others.
To "The Real Maverick" how are Republicans preventing minorities from
voting?Poll locations move all the time. I lived in a city that
changed their polling location, and it didn't stop anybody from voting.As for voter ID, that isn't a problem either. You have to have ID
for getting a job, buying cigaretts, alcohol, plane tickets, some cold
medications, and countless other things.Please name an instance
where a registered voter has been prevented from voting like you claim.To "Schnee" those are early voting locations. That still does not
prevent anybody from voting. Their regular polling locations are available on
So I guess by the authors sentiment that those groups (non-white) are somehow
not as intelligent or able to get out to vote as are white people. What an
insult to minorities. I suppose this same argument is supposed to be made in
about 30 years when white people in America are the minority. The only real
episode of voter intimidation that I've heard of in recent times is the one
mentioned by Lost in DC when the Black Panthers were in front of a polling
place. Notice our esteemed Attorney General didn't do anything about that.
The liberals are not only creating a straw man argument here but are also the
same crowd that doesn't believe that the single most important activity a
citizen engages in, voting, should require an ID as proof of eligibility.
Especially in a country that has millions and millions of non citizens living
here. And if 300 votes in Florida can make a difference in a Presidential
election, then don't say thousands of unauthorized votes could not do the
same in any election anywhere.
Has ANYBODY really been prevented from voting... because of their race???
This whole debate reminds me of Cinderella's step-mother: "Why
certainly, dear, you can go to the ball, IF you can find something suitable to
wear, and IF you scrub the house from top to bottom, and IF . . ."The step-mother Republicans aren't going to do something so blatant as to
ban minorities from voting, which would of course be illegal. They just need to
make it so hard that a sizable portion of them will give up trying. That way
their ugly step-daughter candidates might have a chance to win the prince's
hand and become queens themselves.
Two: If you are looking for a big bad white burley guy standing at the polls
and telling people of all colors (except white) they can't vote, no not one
person has ever been in the news as having that happen to them. Right you are.
Now if you ask if a person has to show ID before being able to vote, that might
be a different answer. So let's say that someone shows up to
vote without the proper ID, suppose the law changed recently to require ID. Then
perhaps older people of all colors who don't have ready access to
transportation, people who don't drive (lots in big cities), people who
don't hunt (some States allow a hunting license as proof), kids who are
here for college and have current student ID (some States allow that and some
don't), people who have moved from another State, etc, etc. etc. You see
how some could have been "prevented from voting". Thankfully
the new Count My Vote compromise allows for same day registration and voting in
Utah...got a problem with that?
If you think showing ID is RACE targeting... then I get why they are able to
convince you that this is a big racial problem.===You
can't live in America without ID. You are supposed to get a SS# for your
kids as soon as they are born (it's not like when we were kids and you
could wait).Your kids can't be registered for elementary school
without a SS#.You can't put them on your health insurance
without putting their SS# on the form.You can't drive without
ID.You can't drink without ID.You can't do
MOST things without ID.Why is it such a huge hardship to show your
ID before you VOTE.... proving who you are, and that you are eligible to vote in
that election, aren't in the country illegally, and haven't voted
already???Why is it seen as a RACIAL thing to verify EVERYONE's
identification before voting???Is it also racism to verify
people's ID when they start a job???
Grover....Your premise is wrong, As Redshirt mentioned that you need
an ID to do a lot of things (several he mentioned).As for Elderly,
If they need an ID to get Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc. Having an ID
not stop anyone "legally" from voting. If they change the polling place,
did not the Elderly have to find a way to get to the original polling place?Love the far left smoke and mirrors...
curmudgeon,other than call repubs the wicked stepmother, can you please
explain HOW they are restricting voting by minorities or making it any harder on
minorities (or anyone else)?I cited a specific example, can you do
more than call names?No, this is all smoke and mirrors by the BO
misadministration, trying to create more boogeymen to draw attention away from
their abysmal record.
Minorities who are part of the middle/upper class are not affected by these
voting law changes. Poor people are the ones who are affected. Per capita,
more minorities are poor. Thus, minorities are more affected by these changes.
How are poor people more affected? When you are very poor, you do not have
enough money to maintain a vehicle. You use public transportation, meaning you
have no need for a driver's license. Therefore, if you are required to
show a driver's license to vote, you're up a creek unless you think
ahead (more than any person who owns a car will have to do) and go get a
government ID. In addition, when polling locations and times are decreased,
there are longer lines. That means an urban voter has to wait in line much
longer to vote (more people crammed into the smaller window of time),
discouraging voting. Just a couple of reasons why these laws affect minorities
disproportionately. It's about making voting as inconvenient as possible
for people who don't vote the way you want them to vote, and that is wrong.
In addition, 2 bits, while it is true that you need a SS number to do all the
things you mentioned, you don't need a driver's license to do those
things (other than drive), and carrying a SS card to vote will not cut it. So
that's no help. Really poor urban people do not own cars. For you or me,
as middle class or upper middle class folks, yeah, of course we use ID all the
time. Poor people, really poor people, do not live like you or me. Neither do
the disabled or very elderly. These voting law changes are a hassle for them as
well. Why make a hassle for people when voting law fraud is almost
non-existent? Voting is a Constitutional right. Like owning a gun, ya know?
Here in California, we have at-will absentee voting. Anyone may request a mail
ballot, without cause or reason. 2/3 of primary election votes and 1/2 of
general elections votes are now cast by mail in California. If all states had
this system, I'd agree that minorities aren't targeted, because it
only costs two stamps. However, many states place far greater
restrictions on absentee voting. Some states allow it only for those who can
prove they will be out of town that day (favoring the wealthy who travel for
leisure or work). Some states with GOP majorities are eliminating or reducing
early voting, which gives lower income voters an alternative to taking time off
from work on Tuesdays. If voters have few or no alternatives to
voting in person on Tuesdays, the wealthy are favored over the poor, who are
less likely to be able to get time off from work to vote. I am an MD who often
has to work more than 12 hours/day and I almost always vote absentee---because
sometimes I can't leave the hospital in time to vote.
For the benefit of Utah readers, Utah does allow no-excuse absentee and
permanent absentee voting, as in California, so there should be few barriers to
voting in Utah for those who work on Tuesdays. However, many states still
require proof that you will be out of town on election day. I.e. you cannot vote
absentee out of convenience or, in the case of a nurse working 7am-7pm shift,
simply because of your employment.