Why not include all states? Pennsylvania used redistricting to cut back on the power of urban areas to protect House seats

Seems to me, if you have the superrior product, you would WANT the most people to be able to vote for it.

(uhh......never mind)

Clearly there is a problem with political intervention in the process of elections. When both parties jockey to redistrict to their advantage it's a problem. When both parties jockey to disqualify certain voting blocks while calling for more value of other votes it's a problem. When UN inspectors stopped out and were shocked that we don't reqiure IDs to vote due to the greater liklihood of misue of voting rights it's a problem. When our military voters are maligned via the military mail system and complying with state election guidelines that's a problem.

JoeNY- I've often wondered how hard it would be to set up districts based on something like the old "mile-square" scheme, or some simmilar grid. You would have to make the squares within the grids of the states larger or smaller to reflect polpulation sizes, but could it work?

The voting for a President is a national issue and should not be left to the whims of any state or local policy. Create a national standard for the presidential election and have the Feds pay for the election. If states want to follow the standard, well and good, they can tie their state and local elections to the presidential election as is done now. If not let them figure out a way that does not discriminate and they can pay for their own elections.

In my opinion anyone caught tampering with the election of the president should be tried for treason.

It's a no brainer really, we should have national voting standards that protect the rights and integrity of the vote and voters. It's obvious after what we've seen in the last few years that once again, unless you legislate a process someone will figure out how to screw someone else. It's the entire reason we have any laws otherwise known as "Job killing regulations". When people are left to do the right thing on their honor i.e not poison people or the environment or rip consumers off without regulation they won't be able to stop themselves from doing the wrong thing eventually. "Self regulation" is a myth! Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely!

I agree with Exito. Every state should have to do this.

Another TeaPeople loser Canseco (TX), bites the dust!

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Canseco-concedes-District-race-to-Gallego/OMEgQsTOGkqJjZdGWOb1nA.cspx

If we're going to clean up the election process, let's start by getting rid of "Citizen's United"!!!!!

JS in SD,

I always thought people in SD were smart.

What are you talking about:.

"There have been organized efforts to give illegals the names of registered voters who have died recently and are therefor still on the rolls so that they can go to the appropriate polling place and vote in the dead person's place"

Gvie me a link to this allegation... give me some proof?

do you want people to believe, that ther are folks in SD and MN reading the obituaries the month before the election and then figuring out where their precint is and then finding a 70, 80, 90,year old look alike illiegal to walk into the polling place, sign the voter book with the same type of signature and then vote. And after all this great oraganizing, they will throw the election for whom?

JS, relax, have a good weekend and rest your brain.

Liberals? Wasn't it Romney's money in Florida that set up a group to vote for him multiple times? Well yes, wasn't it. Wasn't it republican voter fraud in Florida in 2000 that got Bush II in office the first time?

I'm starting to think republican fraud from Rick Scott in Florida is the problem with counting the ballots again, they are trying to cover up the improprieties since it doesn't make a difference anymore.

JS in SD thinks buying cigaretts is right up there with the constitutional right to vote.

You need an ID to buy alcohol, to cash a check, to buy cigarettes, etc., etc.

ID and signature is required for registration. Signature is verified when voting.

The PA Republicans clearly stated in court that there has been no known case of in-person voter fraud any where in the USA, and that the law would not stop in-person voter fraud.

So if it does not stop fraud that does not exist, what is the purpose of the law? The PA Republican legislature who answered that question said that the result of the law would be to deliver PA to Romney.

Excellent idea ! As a Liberal, I have no problem with a national Voter ID Card. That way all cards will have the same format and requirements.
This might be a hard sell to some of the Conservative blocks that would see this as the 'mark of the devil' and have fears that the government was tracking them.

The thing is Romney won the Confederacy, so now tell me about voting laws. Rick Scott did everything he could to advantage Romney in Florida, none of it worked though, and actually made more people come out to vote. At the chance to have a bigger government, if the repubs want the government to be in everybody's bedroom, it shouldn't be a big problem for the government to be in every voting booth, with national standards!!

From Los Angeles Times Article Is part of Voting Rights Act outdated, unfair? High Court to decide. - latimes.com--

In 2009, the chief justice stopped short of boldly throwing out the law’s pre-clearance requirement. Instead, he fashioned a narrow, compromise ruling that allowed a Texas municipal water district to “bail out” of the Voting Rights Act. But his pointed and skeptical opinion set the stage for a future decision declaring Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to be an unconstitutional infringement on states’ rights.

That prospect grew much larger today when the justices voted to hear a frontal attack on the law from Shelby County, Ala.

The case could also put the court in conflict with Congress, President Obama and the Justice Department. In 2006, Congress in a near unanimous vote extended the Voting Rights Act and its “pre-clearance” rule for another 25 years.

The Obama Justice Department has wielded the law in the last year to block enforcement of new voter-identification laws in Texas and South Carolina and to contest cutbacks in early voting in Florida. In all three instances, the Justice Department officials said the proposed changes would have a harmful impact on black or Latino voters.

In a related case, a federal court in Washington also blocked Texas from using a new electoral map that favored Republicans. The judges, relying on the Voting Rights Act, said the GOP plan undercut the voting power of the state’s growing Latino population.

Civil rights lawyers cited these recent decisions as proof that the law is still needed. They said it helps ensure that discriminatory measures will not go into effect.

JS in SD You are wrong on ALL accounts about needing an id to buy alcohol, cash a check, or buy cigarettes. The statement is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Not since I was in my early twenties has this EVER happened. And for cashing checks, if I am not recolonized at the bank(or if I am cashing a check through my bank machine), I only need my number. These examples are lies to deceive those who never think about how real peoples lives work(not even their own). Are there any real examples in the etceteras you state ? These three examples have been their argument again and again by republicans trying to justify the voter id laws when again and again they have proudly touted that the actual reason and effect would be to disenfranchise poor voting democrats and get republicans elected. I can think of no more anti-democracy and un-American thing. They didn't even try to hid the fact that this is the reason for the laws. Voter fraud that can be affected by voter id laws does not happen(why would anyone do that...what reward would they gain?) You call this 'hidden' election fraud because THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF THIS. That is dishonest, pathetic, and plain wrong. The elected are supposed to REPRESENT the people. The requirement for voter id WOULD disenfranchise an incredible amount of poor people who do not have the money for this voting tax....hmmmm so republicans prefer taxes on voting to stop certain Democratic voters from voting so they can increase the stratification on wealth so as to ensure less voting in the future. Your party has become quite ugly(there are uglies from the democrat side too...you should talk about the legitimate ones)and anti-american if their way is not TOTALLY in power. We should work together with balance. The UNITED States of America is our name. We need conservatives/republicans who are smart and have integrity and some knowledge of history...we need them badly and have for a long time now. Please be fair and fight for what is right and stop trying to cheat and make laws respecting establishments of religion. I only ask for honesty and trying to make this a better country. Not bratty insolent cheating attempts to make this some sort of commie-dictatorial-fascist state.

JS,

when you register to vote, you have to sign the registration card. when you show up at the polls , you again sign the voter registration book.

We have had two recounts in our state. One of the ballots were contested on the signature did not match. It turned out that is was an elderly person whose signature had become more shakey over time.this was an absentee ballot.

After two recounts, there was no case of voter fraud, but many absentee ballots were spoiled and not counted.

I am very concerned the voter suppression could return in the South if the Supreme Court should rule in favor of the Shelby, Alabama case.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is the only guarantee we have to protect against voter suppression

Let's look back at the 1870's in the South.....here are some of the tactics of the Southerners at that time--

l. They challenged the place of birth of some of the elected African Americans

2. They said African Americans could not handle freedom as they pointed to the high criminal rate for the newly freed slaves. They, however, did not point out how minor the offenses were that caused the arrest of the African Americans. (And, those laws were just for African Americans---for instance, they could simply be arrested for vagrancy or loitering because they were jobless.... or be arrested because they "appeared" disrespectful to whites.)

3. Southerners also came up with gimmicks to deprive African Americans their right to vote.

Any of this sound familiar with today's situation?

.

Remember all of these tactics were outlawed in the civil rights era.

However, I feel that the right wing political agendas are trying to turn the clock back.

Challenging the 1965 Voting Rights Act is an attempt to turn the clock back.

yahtc

No.1, not relevant to VRA.

No.2, not relevant to VRA.

No.3, not relevant with today's wide spread use of social media.

Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution on the office of the President

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Does that not require each State to vote for people to represent then in the Presidential election?

The electoral college .

kpm58--

My post at #1.21 was to simply show that some of the trends that I see occurring today do harken back to what was witnessed in the late 1800's.

This case before today's Supreme Court could carry great consequences equal to legislation that ensued after the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson. That decision opened the era of Jim Crow laws and most importantly--

Jim Crow legislation related to voting would quietly disenfranchise the Southern African American by requiring of prospective voters proof of land ownership or literacy tests at poll stations. African American community leaders who had achieved brief political success during the Reconstruction era lost any gains made when their voters disappeared.

Historian Rogers Smith noted on the subject “lawmakers frequently admitted, indeed boasted, that such measures as complex registration rules, literacy and property tests, poll taxes, white primaries, and grandfather clauses were designed to produce an electorate confined to a white race that declared itself supreme”, notably rejecting the 14th and 15th Amendments to the American Constitution.

This quote is found under the following Wikipedia article at

Click> Plessy v. Ferguson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yahtc

A photo ID affects everyone equally.

Or do minorities have a genetic or cultural aversion to having a photo ID?

Kpm58--

The Shelby, Alabama case that the Supreme Court will be hearing will have an effect far beyond simple ID cards.

Our citizenry cannot be found sleeping.... unaware...... of all of the implications of this case.

JS in SD #1.10~~Your post does not make much sense. Many of us are really sick of your false claims of rampant voter fraud, by everyone except the radical republican extremist. As for voter fraud, it is time to do away with guilty until proven innocent of voter fraud. Apparently there was more gop voter fraud prior to this election, since the republican vote was much lower in 2012 than in 2008.

JS, says "The liberals do not want voter ID laws because it would put a stop to the hidden election fraud that has been going on undetected"

Most of us have been saying for years, that it is ELECTION FRAUD by gopers, that needs to be investigated, indicted and prosecuted. Thanks JS for agreeing with us, but the voter ID will NOT stop election fraud.

yahtc

Facebook, Twitter, 24HR Cable News.....there is no place to hide in this day and time.

Do you have any references that are less than one hundred years old?

yahtc

You are right it will have an effect.

It will take the power out of the hands of a few individuals and give it back to the citizens of the states.

kpm--I don't know what your point is when you write--

Facebook, Twitter, 24HR Cable News.....there is no place to hide in this day and time.

or

It will take the power out of the hands of a few individuals and give it back to the citizens of the states.

Please expand on your two points.

From the article above--

"Things have changed in the South," the court said in 2009.

"Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare."

The Supreme Court failed to note that this is because the Voting Rights Act of 1965 PREVENTS

"Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees

yahtc

First, social media and 24hr news, any attempts to prevent people from exercising their legal right to vote is reported far, wide and quickly now.

Second, how many people in the Justice Department are making these decisions as opposed to the elected legislatures of the states? Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Would you rather have someone you elected making decisions or some faceless person making the decisions?

Shelby County, Alabama has filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which is widely regarded as the heart of the legislation. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) is intervening in the case on behalf of African-American residents of Shelby County whose voting rights are directly impacted by the county’s challenge.

Section 5 serves as our democracy’s discrimination checkpoint by requiring jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting to submit proposed voting changes for federal approval before they are enacted to ensure that they are free from discrimination. This is commonly referred to as the “Section 5 preclearance" process.

from NAACP Legal Defense Fund : Defend, Educate, Empower

kpm--you explained--

First, social media and 24hr news, any attempts to prevent people from exercising their legal right to vote is reported far, wide and quickly now.

Yes, attempts to suppress a vote can be reported quickly and easily....but you need the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to back the complaints.

Second, how many people in the Justice Department are making these decisions as opposed to the elected legislatures of the states?

yahtc

The VRA is not being eliminated, just the discriminating part.

Kpm--Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is the key part of the legislation.

Section 5

Section 5 freezes election practices or procedures in certain states until the new procedures have been subjected to review, either after an administrative review by the United States Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This means that voting changes incovered jurisdictions may not be used until that review has been obtained.

yahtc

The NAACP is saying that since some members of a group have committed wrongs in the past, then all present members of that group should be veiwed as guilty.

Now is that a right thing to do?

The NAACP is saying that since some members of a group have committed wrongs in the past, then all present members of that group should be veiwed as guilty.

That is not an accurate assessment, kpm. I would say that the NAACP does not want a gradual erosion to occur that could affect the rights of voters.

Are you aware that

In 1975, the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act were extended for another seven years, and were broadened to address voting discrimination against members of "language minority groups." An additional coverage formula was enacted, based on the presence of tests or devices and levels of voter registration and participation as of November 1972. In addition, the 1965 definition of "test or device" was expanded to include the practice of providing election information, including ballots, only in English in states or political subdivisions where members of a single language minority constituted more than five percent of the citizens of voting age. This third formula had the effect of covering Alaska, Arizona, and Texas in their entirety, and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota.

yahtc

I would say it was an accurate assessment and I left out any comments about them wanting retribution.

What relevance does your copy and paste have to do with section 5?

Section 5 requires that

Before making any changes to criteria for voter registration, voting eligibility, the counting of votes or redistricting, covered states and jurisdictions must get preclearance from the Justice Department or from a panel of judges at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Covered states have the burden of proving that any voting law changes lack a discriminatory purpose or effect and wouldn't "diminish a minority group's ability to elect a favored candidate."

That's the reason why on Tuesday, a panel of federal judges in D.C. refused to allow Texas's redistricting plan: It ruled that the redrawn maps would dilute the impact of black and Hispanic votes and that legislators could well have had a discriminatory purpose when they drew up these new districts. Texas has said it will appeal the rulingto the Supreme Court.

What relevance does your copy and paste have to do with section 5?

It shows how on 1975 Section 5 was broadened to include discrimination against members of "language minority groups"

see click>Civil Rights Division Section 5 Resource Guide

YAHTC, I am in total agreement with you. So much of what we are seeing now is a return to a not so distant and disgraceful past.

To say that ID restrictions do not disproportionately affect minority populations is to either be as naive as a new born babe, or willfully ignorant, one of the two. Too many have such a narrow and restricted view of what constitutes a minority population. They seem to think that it is based on skin color alone, or shape of the eyes, or some other physical feature that differs from the pale skinned, light eyed person they see when they look in the mirror.

The expansion in 1975 also covers the minority of a linguistic and cultural minority in this country that few ever even consider. The Deaf. (Capital 'D" denotes culturally deaf). They, too, are members of a linguistic minority because they communicate with American Sign Language or written English rather than spoken English.

Some people really and truly need to step outside that safe little white world they live in and see that there are many minority groups protected under anti-discrimination laws, and many of them are not of a darker skin tone.

However, before I get on a cultural rant, discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. Oppression and denial of rights is discrimination, no matter what guise you attempt to use to hide it.

Well said, DOCJT. I am in complete agreement with you.

Citizens need to be on the alert. People need to be educated to understand what is at risk if the 1965 Voting Rights Act is attacked by those who desire to tamper with it.

Draw the districts in accordance with population and longitude and latitude. Lets just cut through all the bull$h!t with the gerrymandering.

JS in SD

I do not know where people are getting the idea that signatures are checked when you sign in to vote. I do not know about every state, but that has never occurred in any state I have lived in, including my current one of CA.

They are checked when it comes to absentee balloting. When you vote in person it's not checked.

I think it would be a great thing for America if Thomas, Scalia, Alito could be removed from the Court. It would be benefical to this country.They are even more obstructionist than Mitch McConnell.

Here is an excerpt from President Johnson's remarks on August 6, 1965 when he signed the Voting Rights Act:

This law covers many pages. But the heart of the act is plain. Wherever, by clear and objective standards, states and counties are using regulations, or laws, or tests to deny the right to vote, then they will be struck down. If it is clear that State officials still intend to discriminate, then Federal examiners will be sent in to register all eligible voters.

.....And, under this act, if any county anywhere in this Nation does not want Federal intervention it need only open its polling places to all of its people.

This good Congress, the 89th Congress, acted swiftly in passing this act. I intend to act with equal dispatch in enforcing this act.

And tomorrow at 1 p.m., the Attorney General has been directed to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the poll tax in the State of Mississippi. This will begin the legal process which, I confidently believe, will very soon prohibit any State from requiring the payment of money in order to exercise the fight to vote.

And also by tomorrow the Justice Department, through publication in the Federal Register, will have officially certified the States where discrimination exists.

I have, in addition, requested the Department of Justice to work all through this weekend so that on Monday morning next, they can designate many counties where past experience clearly shows that Federal action is necessary and required. And by Tuesday morning, trained Federal examiners will be at work registering eligible men and women in 10 to 15 counties.

And on that same day, next Tuesday, additional poll tax suits will be filed in the States of Texas, Alabama, and Virginia.

And I pledge you that we will not delay, or we will not hesitate, or we will not turn aside until Americans of every race and color and origin in this country have the same right as all others to share in the process of democracy.

So, through this act, and its enforcement, an important instrument of freedom passes into the hands of millions of our citizens.

We know that today the Southern Democrats are now part the Republican Party.

Let us remember that President Johnson was a Southern Democrat from Texas.

You
Yes, Johnson was a southern Dem. But when he pushed the Civil Rights Act through he knew he would lose the south for at least one generation for the Democrats. He was wrong, it will take more than one. But Johnson was a real Democrat. He truly believed in equal rights and risked his entire political career to ensure that equal rights for all would be codified and enforced.

Far too many people only know of Johnson's Vietnam fiasco. They don't really know about how he pushed through the Civil Rights Act, started the rural electric cooperatives, signed the voting rights law.

Johnson had his faults but his heart was in the right place in all things. In my opinion, he is one of the greatest presidents we have ever had.

JS in SD,

That Hispanic person who supposedly already voted, was his name something like Juan Hernadez, who lives on Main Street? I'd be willing to bet this happens once in a while to John Smith who lives on 1st Avenue too. I know this election, even though my name isn't common, the lady was about to check off the person above me. I don't know how it is in your area, but around me it seems like there's a minimum age requirement of 70 for poll watchers. I wouldn't be surprised if checking off the wrong person happens pretty frequently. I'm not sure exactly how it is supposed to work, but they have two different tables, each with two poll watchers at them. The first table is just a listing of names, of which each has a copy and they check you off. At the second table are books where you sign.

I think the voter ID fraud issue is pretty much non-existent, I worry more about what happens to your vote after you make it. That is where manipulation is going to be the easiest with little chance of getting caught. That is where one or two people working together can manipulate a lot of votes. But the safest way is to keep certain people from voting in the first place, and down deep you really know that's what the ID laws were about. Now you can't call that fraud, but voter suppression is every bit as illegal. There is a long history of this in the South where these regulations are in effect and the fact that this was a movement by one party exclusively tells you something.

Also the fact that these laws were developed and spread by ALEC is another reason they are suspect. ALEC has a rich long history of being funded by right wing interests to spread carbon copy legislation across red states. ALEC has a team of lawyers who write these laws in such a way as to make challenges very difficult. They get tested and improved for the next red state customer. If these laws were a bi-partisan effort I'd be a bit less skeptical, but everywhere they've been instituted is in state who have a Republican lock on the state legislatures. When you have that many common threads, it isn't a coincidence.

"I have a dream" that one day the Supreme Court of the United States will again be a place where nine highly respected and trustworthy justices who are courageous enough to ignore all political influences, and pressures to conduct social engineering from the bench, will once again interpret and uphold the Constitution of the United States and its Amendments rather than applying their personal ideologies and agendas.

There is no excuse for a "liberal" Supreme Court" or a "Conservative" Supreme Court.

There is no excuse for a "partisan" Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court was constituted by our nations founders to be blind to political influence. And Justices of the Supreme Court -- just like judges of the lower courts -- are supposed to leave their personal biases at the door ...and apply the law.

Robert in Oregon: "And Justices of the Supreme Court -- just like judges of the lower courts -- are supposed to leave their personal biases at the door ...and apply the law. "

While I am sure that some try to leave personal biases "at the door", unfortunately it is a sad fact that their ideologies not only follow through the door, but play an instrumental part in their thought and decision making process. This is why a sitting President will try to fill a vacancy with a person with a similar leaning ideology, whether it be a liberal or conservative point of view.

Now when it comes to the issue of voter id, it seems the "left" feels that a basic piece of identification, which would help with curb voter fraud in all elections (whether it be regional or national), would be an undo hardship and discriminatory for their constituency to obtain due to the cost associated with obtaining such a card. An easy fix would be for the Federal government to subsidize the purchase of the state id at no cost to the "hardship case".

After all, doesn't our government already supply cel phones to low income citizens at no cost??

http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/free-cell-phone-providers/safelink-wireless

This is a program which cost the American taxpayer, ready???.......1.6 BILLION in 2011.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/where-do-obama-phones-come-from/article/2509203

Sorry, but I feel that if We The People can pay for cel phones we would gladly foot the bill to ensure FAIR and HONEST elections.

Also, for anyone who thinks that there isn't RAMPANT voter fraud, you are delusional.

dsb wrote--

Yes, Johnson was a southern Dem.

Johnson was a real Democrat. He truly believed in equal rights and risked his entire political career to ensure that equal rights for all would be codified and enforced.

We need to be thankful for this work that President Johnson accomplished....culminating in the 1965 Voting Rights Act!

GOD save us from the Robert's Court. They gave us the PACS. and how to try to buy elections. What will they do to deny us the right to vote next?

Viet. Vet,

I think you are the one delusional! I've worked at polling places in my community and fraud here doesn't exist. Our state has had only 10 cases of proven fraud in a decade and yet the republicans and conservatives are willing to deny 10's of thousands their right to vote that you fought to give them!

Guys... you want to fix the problem? Make the voter registration card a photo id card...

Folks, I live in the South and love the South and Southern Lifestyle but I have to admit, embarassingly, that racial prejudice is not only alive and well it is once again growing by leaps and bounds. No, it is not as open as it was prior to the mid 1960's but anyone whith an eyes and ears can and will see and hear racial prejudice acted out. I absolutely wish this was not true but is is evident on almost a daily basis, if you pay any attention. Oh, one more fact; I am a white male in his 60's!

Pigotry et al you remember those UN inspectors your side called in. They think we are insane for NOT requiring photo IDs. Justice for al the Texas law would give a free ID to registered voters but the democrats say making somebody go get their picture taken is discriminatory because we don't have the photo set up at every convience store in the state. And gee for some reason we don't consider a photo ID given to many citizens of Mexico a good ID for voting. All the UT id does is prove you paid your tuition not that you live on the north side of the river.

If you want to fix the problem send back those 20 million illegals back to Mexico. Latinos are the most racist ethnic group in America today since the whites had the title in the 1960s. I know better than any caucasion because I grew up with only latinos for 30+ years. Their patriotism is to their race only. Whites dont know this because only maybe 1% of whites grew up with Latinos. Latinos despise whiteys success in America. They despise that whites fathered this great nation and reep the rewards first. Well it is what it is, get over it Paisanos. For you gringos Paisanos means Countrymen. But they are not Americas countrymen or patriots, they are Anchor Babies=Chicanos. PS. American indians Hate Mexicans. Mexicans slaughtered, raped and wiped out south west indian tribes for hundreds of years out of spite because Mexicans could not take over their native lands. And Mexicans today treat indians like dirt. Go ahead and ask a real American indian about this.

MAybe it is tme to stpp either political party from dividing up any state country or city trying to give hemselves a political advantage per state. We also need to stop all outside funding by individuals or private groups of any kind. In this election we saw way o much money spent and way too many lies told..or mis-representations handed out as truth. The media..should not be a party of any political group which my allow us .. all to get real news from time to time instead of the rantings like was heard from Fox news and others.

This nation has a problem....this election time we saw the wealthy try ther best to buy this election using any means possible..the 1% have way too much control over our politics and our politicans. This was seen in almost every state.

In congress..we are represented by better than 40 % of the wealthy members of congress..who have no problem accepting funds from the wealthy and their lobbyist friends all the while getting paid also by us tax payers who are getting very little for our money in representation. It would be very nice to get real honesy back into our elected.

Billy234:

RE: your post #1.58

Billy, please stop with the nonsense! IF you grew up with Hispanics you would NOT refer to them as PAISANOS! Maybe AMIGOS but not PAISANOS! PAISANO refer to ITALIANS. Now, zip your pants up and try again!

The Supreme Court should just tell the RePubaCons to stop trying to steal our elections, problem solved !!!!!!!

With today' technology we shouldn't be having trouble with an "ID" system. We got the fingerprint and eye scan for identifications. Once you are in the computer system for voting it shouldn't matter where you vote in what State, county, city or part of the world. This should take away voter fraud also.

scrambolo

Racism is not just in the south but also in the north. Many friends I worked with have a deep rooted dislike for anyone that is different than them. I too am a white male in my 70s and have worked with men of all colors and nationalities. I've heard from my friends degrading remarks about not only blacks but also Hungarian, Korean, Chinese, Mexican, anyone different to the point I've told them to stop. I guess they thought because I was a white Mason Dixon male I approved of such talk but I didn't then and I don't now. I'm not sure if it's the insecurity of the person or something else but there is something wrong with a person that has to degrade someone else in order to lift themselves up in their own mind.

Larry-2260635:

RE: your post #1.63

Larry, you are ABSOLUTELY correct and your point was not lost on me and was very frankly stated.

The landmark Voting Rights Act, passed by Congress in 1965 and renewed four times since then should be expanded to every state where voters were disenfranchised.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9TjVsQa57c

If there is no current 'pattern of discrimination' in the affected States, then the law should be dropped - especially since the current Attorney General (Eric Holder) has been using it as a 'political weapon' for purely partisan political purposes lately.

As for the issue of 'Affirmative Action' in college admissions, this is also an 'archaic' policy that violates the 'Equal Protection' clause of the Constitution. The biggest problem is that by setting 'quotas' for people based on the color of their skin, we perpetuate racism in the Country - As Chief Justice Roberts once said "The way to end racial discrimination is to stop discriminating by race."

I understand that Blacks like the policy of Affirmative Action' because they benefit from it, but discrimination is discrimination, regardless of the colors involved.

One last point in this regard - Since Blacks have a significantly lower college graduation rate, when we give priority to an unqualified Black student over a more qualified student, we are depriving many non-minority students of the college degree that they deserve, with a net LOSS to society.

@Lookattherealworld...things you need ID for..

1. Get on an airplane
2. Get something notarized
3. Open a bank account
4. Register for college
5. Drive
6. Apply for Food Stamps
7. Apply for Medicaid
8. Apply for Unemployment
9. Cash a check
10. Get a mortgage
11. Get married
12. Get a job
13. Apply for Welfare

dsb re #1.48, Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat alright but he was a "real" Liberal. LBJ was just the first Democrat to back the notion of a Civil Rights Bill that was started by Eisenhower! Jack Kennedy, now that was a real Democrat,"ask not what your country can do for you" etc. Today's Democrat's or the one that was re-elected that is, is a Liberal. Whose motto is," You don't even have to ask,we'll just give it to you anyway, just as soon as we take it from someone else" !

More things you need an ID for,

Renting an apt or house
getting a business license
rent a car
buy a gun
apply for hunting or fishing license
buying a car
registering a car
get a building permit
purchase pseudoephedrine
jury duty
register to vote

JoeNY "Clearly there is a problem with political intervention in the process of elections. When both parties jockey to redistrict to their advantage it's a problem."

Agreed. Despite only 43% of registered voters in California being Democrats, they have 'gerrymandered' the districts so that they now have 67% (over 2/3) of the legislative votes - a 'Supermajority' since 2/3 is required to raise taxes. This now gives the Democrats 'Carte Blanche' to raise taxes without any effective controls - in fact, they just raised the top tax rates on top income earners (primarily small business owners) by a whopping 46%. Their anti-business policies will soon result in many businesses leaving the State, taking their jobs with them.

@scambolo. sure you are....

Roy,

So I guess the hundreds of years of denying the African American entrance into a college or university before today means nothing? When Whites only was the rule! Shame on you!

When we catch up, then maybe we should change the law back. But one hundred years + has not been rectified in the 40+ years the law is in effect!

Breaking news from PNN (the Pigotry News Network)...

.

Obama just won Florida -

never a doubt in my mind. Ryan's voucher plan has helped.

.

FORWARD...

This has been a PNN breaking news update - PNN - a nun-partisan news network - our motto? 'We love nuns.'

well the supreme court should be busy, demonizing anything that did not make a 100% victory for Dems....what a world what a world...

anyone against voter ID knows where the crime is..........Im a thief, I will protest those cameras....same thing

Why regulte everything except democratic votes

Speaking of "BLATANTLY" evading Federal Decrees, I wonder how Planned Parenthood feels about the Shelby Attorney's argument about "being presumed to be acting improperly" (and being penalized for it?) Ain't that sh!t going on over in Texas, too? No HealthCare for all poor Women because some might have a Federally Decreed "legal" abortion? It's the same dynamic here, isn't it?

Who were those Justices in 2009? The article doesn't say.

Hey clwyd, ( "Robert's Court gave us PACS to buy our Elections" ) I like that, good one !!!!

Robert's Court used extremely poor judgment I would say, who put that Clown in ????????

clwyd-2621393

Roy,

So I guess the hundreds of years of denying the African American entrance into a college or university before today means nothing? When Whites only was the rule! Shame on you!

wow really! I had no idea people of color had no college education offred to them....I swear my boss, 75yrs old, went to college as a young adult....he was probably lying...

Wait a second, so Obama never went to college................did he tell you to say this....would be typical of an uneducated person who weaseled his smile into your heart to have you play a race card like this

kinda appears like you are crediting Black peoples rights to Obama.....omg what have we done I guess you think Obama is Malcome X re-incarnated...along with FDR, and anyother person he can steal a legacy from....including HIPPA title I

@Lookattherealworld have you traveled out of the country lately? You need a passport. They take your fingerprints when applying for it.

When getting back into into the USA, US Customs has a finger print scanner that you MUST apply to or you ain't getting back in the country.

Your fingerprints are already on file in Washington.

Unless they are prepared to say that minorities don't have equal rights in this country, I am hopeful that this is a chance for them to clarify things some. These recent law changes, and decisions by republicans in effort to suppress voting did not work in favor of the republicans. There is nothing like telling someone you can't vote to make them vote.

I am going to remain cautiously optimistic. While certainly I still feel citizens united was a mistake, that didn't help republicans this election either, but I am not just not all certain they would make such a move as to overturn it.

A federal judge did not like what Husted attorneys had to say about his nefarious actions and is hauling him in to answer for it himself. He directly disobeyed judges orders twice, hopefully some jail time is involved.

Every time a case like this goes to the Supreme Court -- Heads up! The SCOTUS currently leans to the Right and favors state's rights. But after the fiasco that this 2012 election has been, it is mind-bending to think they could rule against the Voters Rights Act. In fact, we need MORE protections, not less -- obviously.

Federal elections should be nationalized like other countries, and even local elections handled by partisans at the state level are a concern in regard to democracy. Why is the US always so far behind the rest of the world? It's not just embarrassing, it's destroying people's faith in our institutions. Enough!

In the meantime, throw out Rick Scott, Kasich/Husted, Scott Walker, Jan Brewer, etc. The states of Florida, Arizona, Ohio, Wisconsin have been the most pathetic this time around.

GT-2021701

If we're going to clean up the election process, let's start by getting rid of "Citizen's United"!!!!!

Agreed. The dark money is no different from the KKK -- Rip off the white caps and let's see who is behind the money. Then the money will stop. Anonymity is NOT protected in the constitution, and the Teapublicans are the ones who have been blocking the legislation to require transparency.

This is NOT happening on both sides. Stop with the false equivalency. Only the Teapublicans are doing this crap. As posted above, the real concern is election fraud, not voter fraud -- And this 2012 election we saw GOP election fraud wide spread, again!

Tom-1076479, In Illinois you can buy a car without a Drivers Liscense, you just can't buy insurance! Sad but true, but that's for another discussion.

clwyd-2621393 "Roy,So I guess the hundreds of years of denying the African American entrance into a college or university before today means nothing?"

That's a totally different issue, since those people are long since dead (on both sides), and I agree that the way they were treated was shameful.

But those were different people and different times. People today should live by the 'dream' of MLK, to wit;

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

I think that is the best way of looking at the issue, and not try to punish people now for what other people did hundreds of years ago. Not only is this the 'fair' thing to do, but it also meets the Constitution's legally mandated "Equal Protection" clause.

PS - My wife is Black and my 5 children are 'mixed heritage', so please don't start with the 'racist' nonsense. I have raised them to be accountable for their own lives - not dependent on 'special treatment'.

GT-2021701 "If we're going to clean up the election process, let's start by getting rid of "Citizen's United"!!!!!"

While we're at it, let's also get rid of union contributions so we have a balance.

By the way - Obama outspent Romney in the election cycle, thanks to union spending (where union members are forced to support Democrats whether they like it or not), so it wasn't like Obama was at a disadvantage in spending.

Voter suppression = having to show ID? We get what we deserve in this country = we're screwed! People stupid enough, clueless enough or just out of touch enough to not even have a form of ID are going to shape this country...yep, we get what we deserve when this is the cause the country champions!

An NBC investigative report 5 days ago showed that more than 25,000 dead people were still voting in the bay area of CA. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Dead-and-Still-Voting-177286281.html

Not sure if the link I posted will work, but if not, go to nbcbayarea dot com and search "dead and still voting". This is just 1 region of 1 state.

All you ding dongs who think voter fraud is not rampant are simply ignorant of the facts. Who do you think is voting in their place, conservatives? CA just passed some of the most liberal laws in the land. The bay area is filled with liberals. They keep electing Nancy Pelosi. Clearly the liberals are not only driving this illegal behavior, but the Obama campaign was receiving millions in overseas campaigns on throw away debit cards donating just under the $200 limit. This is the largest criminal enterprise on earth, and growing.

Perfect example of discrimination being used to end (supposedly) discrimination. The only ones who can't see that are the ones who benefit from it ... the "Gimme-Sumfin-Free" crowd.

People stupid enough, clueless enough or just out of touch enough to not even have a form of ID are going to shape this country

Capt.....Some states tried to make ID difficult for some voters--

For example, on August 30, in Texas v. Holder, a three-judge court unanimously blocked Texas' new voter identification statute, the most stringent in the nation, finding that the statute would inevitably disenfranchise low-income Texas citizens, who are disproportionately African American and Hispanic. The court explained that, unlike Indiana, whose voter identification law was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008,

Texas had gone to great lengths to suppress the vote in poor and minority communities, strictly limiting the types of photo identifications available -- a license to carry a concealed firearm is a valid ID under the law, but not a student or Medicare ID card

-- and making it costly to obtain a so-called "free" election ID for use at the polls. For those without one of the five permitted photo identifications, the court found that the law was tantamount to a poll tax, "imposing an implicit fee for the privilege of casting a ballot."

.

The "very point" of the Voting Rights Act, the court explained, was to deny "states an end-run around the Fifteenth Amendment's prohibition on racial discrimination in voting."

[Doug Kendall- HuffPost]

As far as I am concerned the US Supreme Court lost whatever credibility they may have had when they voted to uphold Obama care. This country is no longer the great country it once was. I am deeply saddened that a country that I served 20+ years in the military for has turned out the way it has. The American people deserve what they get and when the total collapse of economy happens we will deeply regret the choices we made. I for one hope that day comes sooner rather than later. Until it does the majority are not smart enough to realize the government cannot continue to support them until tragedy hits.

I would never have believed that this country would support the concept of men marring men, and penalizing those who do not support that life style. Government mandated dollars for contraception, the legalization of pot. American exceptionalism has vanished and no one seems to care. We are just one more run of the mill country hell bent on destroying what was once a great country, how very sad.

I guess I am not only conservative but old fashioned where strength was admired and we didn't abandon our allies. Taking care of your wife and family was important and admired. The country was united and we worked together to make the nation great. I miss those days and I am afraid my grandchildren will never experience what we once had.

Don't just list those parts which suit your personal agenda, list it ALL.

While the statement concerning CCF/CCW, student, & Medicare ID's are correct, several variations & methods of the following are sufficient as ID also.

1. drivers license, even a 60-day expired one

2. military ID

3. passport

4. citizenship certificate WITH photo

5. citizenship papers WITHOUT photo

6. naturalization papers WITHOUT photo

7. election identification certificate

8. Texas personal identification card up to 2 YEARS expired

9. birth certificate

10. change of name court order

11. change of gender court order

12. school records

13. social security card

14. pilot license

15. out-of-state drivers license

16. several other types of supporting identification

17. voters over 65 may vote by mail WITHOUT presenting ID

18. disabled voters may vote by mail WITHOUT presenting ID

19. disabled voters may vote in person WITHOUT photo, but documentation of disability

But yeah, I see that it's still REALLY difficult for legitimate U.S. voters to prove who they are at the polls. Let's just make it so you can vote if you show up in a blond wig & claim to be Donald Trump.

Wait ... that won't work either. It would cost money to walk across the street & borrow that wig from your auntee, so that constitutes a "poll tax".

In Florida an ID card can cost as much as $65. To an older person on a fixed income of $500/month, this is more than 10% of their income. This process discriminates against the elderly and the poor.

Two posts from TJefferson onpage 7--

TJefferson-1649275

The elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about in the south is purely white racism. Like it or not, that is the truth. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 on abolitionism, but after the civil war and the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, the Republican Party thought it no longer had any responsibility for the freed slaves. The Democrat Party, however, remained fiercely racist. Slowly the parties began to change their positions. President Lyndon Johnson led the Republic towards civil rights reform in the 1960s, but he lost a lot of Democrats along the way.

By 1968, Richard Nixon applied his Southern strategy to recruit white racists away from the Democrats and into the Republican Party. Nixon didn't want them necessarily, but he needed them to win the election. Since then there has been a gradual movement of white racists from the Democrat Party to the Republican. Then, in 2008 with the advent of a black, presidential candidate in the Democrat Party, we saw the vast number of southern white racists in the Democrat Party move to the Republican. All one has to do is to look at the voting statistics, particularly in southern states in 2008 and 2012 and one will see the total numbers of votes for the presidential candidates was overwhelmingly Republican. Not only that, but the southern white racists put Republicans in almost every other office in southern state as well. That means the historically southern, white racists in the Democrat Party shifted their support to the Republican candidate.

Everyone in the south knows it! It's the elephant in the room no one talks about in southern politics.

.

.

TJefferson-1649275

you all have thoughtful comments: The situation inside the Republican Party is serious. The poorly educated, far right wing, extremist, fanatics in the Party are moving toward demanding the states' rights doctrine of "Nullification." They argue the Constitution reads that any given state, not the U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional in any given state. In other words, a state has the constitutional authority to "nullify" a federal law and therefore not obey it within the geographic bounds of that state. It is true that Jefferson and Madison made that argument in their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, but it is also true those Resolutions never did pass the Congress. The issue was resolved in 1803 when Chief Justice John Marshall and the U. S.Supreme Court ruled in Marbury vs Madison that the Court had that authority.

The poorly educated, far right wing, extreme, fanatics in the Republican Party today are joining together in an organization called the 10th Amendment Society to demand the states adopt the "nullification doctrine." Why? One of the main reasons is to nullify the 1954 Brown v. Topeka Board of Education decision, the decision that ordered segregation was not constitutional and that the United States would integrate at all deliberate speed. So, if the nullification doctrine were put into place, Arkansas legislature or the Mississippi legislature, or the Alabama legislature could nullify the Brown case and return the state to segregation. Not possible you say? Then, take a look at the voter statistics for those states and see how many whites voted for Obama. Think about that very real possibility and then let your mind run free to all of the other federal laws that could be nullified within the borders of the fifty states. In effect, nullification means that each state is a separate country and that therefore the United States is nothing more than a confederation of united states of america.

#159.2 - Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:40 PM EST
.
.

Peridot-1693859 In Florida an ID card can cost as much as $65.

And it can ALSO be entirely FREE. But that discriminates against rich people, right?

Roy,

What I was saying was that the inequalities that existed in getting a college education for African Americans for over one hundred years can't be corrected in 40 years. Not that there were no African Americans getting into college, but that the system was prejudiced against them. Hope your kids get the benefits of getting to go to college because of the law as well. Yes, also for their abilities! However, I hope they aren't as narrow minded as their father!

Roy, So you have raised your kids to be accountable and to just ignore the racial prejudiced that has been so widely expressed here and especially on FOX? They are in for a rude awakening sir!

clwyd---This quote below is from HuffPost [October 10, 2012)

The Supreme Court takes up Fisher vs. The University of Texas at Austin today, in a potentially landmark case that could limit or eliminate affirmative action practices in colleges' and universities' admissions departments across the country.

.

also--click links below-

Supreme Court hears landmark affirmative action case |

University of Texas, the Supreme Court may limit or ban affirmative action at universities. ... to hear arguments on Fisher V. University of Texas at Austin

complete Supreme Court transcript--

Complete transcript: Supreme Court arguments on Univ Texas reverse discrimination case

clwyd........also--

.

It is nteresting that The Project for Fair Representation is providing the counsel and resources for Shelby County to challenge the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The Project for Fair Representation (a not-for-profit foundation based in Virginia) also is providing help in the Fisher v. Univ. of Texas Affirmative Action case that is NOW before the Supreme Court.

The Project for Fair Representation was also behind the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District #1 v. Holder case that challenged the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, said, "Congress reauthorized the VRA in 2006 based upon the black voter disenfranchisement in the Deep South that existed in 1965, but those conditions measurably don't exist anymore."

In 2009, the Supreme Court avoided the question of the statute's constitutionality in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder, but signaled that Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Act may impose "current burdens and must be justified by current needs."

If the states want voter ID, then make the states pay for the retrieval of proof of ID (birth certificate, etc). I'm going through the process of renewing my drivers license in Oregon currently. My birth certificate from CA costs $30 ($50 for quick shipping) and $40 to the DMV. On top of the $83 to renew the tags on my truck, it's a bit of a hit to the budget. So I can see where the low income could have difficulty in accomplishing this.

I am 100% behind voter ID, I don't know why we've gone so long with out it. I don't see it as anything racial, or why people would think discrimination is behind it. We're all Americans regardless of color. But if the government is going to toss yet another money sink on us, then they need to step up and help those that can't afford it.

Green Timer

You are so wrong. In Texas, not only does signature not get verified, you do not even have to show your voter ID card. You just show up, give them a name, if it is on the list for that precinct, you vote. No verification of any kind.

We have a very high rate of identity theft here, due to illegal immigrants looking for jobs, etc. Many have more than one fake ID (SS numbers, etc). A friend of mine recently found out that someone was using her deceased mother's SS number and name (in part) She had added a Latina name to the mix.

Voter fraud is a real danger and should be addressed. I personally would have no problem for legitimate IDs to be paid for by the government. That would eliminate the "X" race can't afford to buy pay for an ID. The argument that buying an ID is a poll tax would be moot. BUT, the validity of the voting process would be upheld, Illegal voters, such as non- citizens would be eliminated. It would definitely be more cost effective than the threat of having illegal voters turn a Presidential race.

Alex

I know how expensive it is to get an ID. I was born in Puerto Rico to American parents. I had to get a new birth certificate a couple of years ago due to wide spread identity theft there. Thought I tried to get a new one mailed to me, it never happened. I had to fly to San Juan, see a lawyer, AND pay for a new birth certificate. Cost of several hundred dollars, not counting the drivers license cost. But car registration should not be included in cost, or even a trip like mine.

David-296853

Perfect example of discrimination being used to end (supposedly) discrimination. The only ones who can't see that are the ones who benefit from it ... the "Gimme-Sumfin-Free" crowd.

Like so many people (especially rightwingers) David doesn't think he is racist.

So the 47% who will vote for President Obama just want "stuff" -- Perhaps "things" like not being purged from the voter rolls, equal access to polls with voting machines per capita and properly-trained poll workers? There is data that proves minority district were neglected (I say on purpose) and why they had to stand in lines for hours in comparison to the richer neighborhoods. In Florida, the historically large 10-page ballot was a form of a Jim Crow test of people's patience -- A ballot bloated (I say on purpose) with trivial Republican amendments.

And that's just a start. Women want the right to choose, the working class want good paying jobs, the ability to put their kids through college, and affordable health care. They don't want to pay $2 trillion more for the military and wars, they'd rather have roads without pot holes and bridges safe to drive across. Well you get the point, or at least you should.

These issues are NOT just "stuff" or "things." Especially the right to vote or the right over one's own body. Let's look at the way you wrote that David, -- "Gimme-Sumfin-Free" -- How about you take your bigot arse and go away?

BTW, to another post above about seeing dead people voting -- Guess what? Most problems are due to pathetic administration of voting by the states. In my state the County Recorder Office and DMV couldn't figure out I needed an updated photo. Then they sent me two ballots to vote by mail -- Of course I destroyed the second ballot.

This is why we need a federal, standardized election process -- aside from partisan shenanigans. Voting should be easy and the people should have faith in it. Teapublicans verge on treason and should be ashamed -- if they had a conscience that is.

JS in SD, you and a lot of other people missed the reason why so many people are against the voter ID law, it's not your ID that's the problem, it's the type of ID needed to vote.

Republicans are saying that your ID that tells the police who you are and they will accept it, your ID needed to buy liquor or cash a check, make a bank transaction, ID everybody accepts, is not good enough to prove who you are to vote, you will have to buy their special ID. That's an unneeded expense poor people cannot afford.

Republicans are the only ones pushing for voter ID laws because they know they are trying to get very shady people in office, so by limiting the number of people voting they stand a good chance of getting who they want in office.

Voter ID fraud is fake, republicans are only up to their usual dirty tricks.

Vincent-970634 wrote:

"With today' technology we shouldn't be having trouble with an "ID" system. We got the fingerprint and eye scan for identifications. Once you are in the computer system for voting it shouldn't matter where you vote in what State, county, city or part of the world. This should take away voter fraud also."

Oh good grief! Fingerprints and eye scans, now?

Hey, Vincent and the rest of you who are absolutely convinced that there is massive voter fraud in the US (because your political party is having trouble winning elections), ...why don't we just do this right and insert information micro-chips under the skin of the back of the neck and tattoo bar-codes on the forehead. That way the voters can be electronically scanned, twice for good measure, to prove who they really are. Like that idea?

I am sure the base of the Republican party will be "all in" for the idea; you know, those certifiable whackdoodles who insist that "the complete absence of evidence of voter fraud is just proof positive that it must exist, and we are simply not catching it."

I'm pretty certain as well that if the microchip and forehead bar-code tattoo idea catches fire within the Republican base, they will shortly thereafter also conclude that we really only need to micro-chip and tattoo the Hispanics/Latinos, the Blacks, the Asians, the Gays and anyone else who doesn't pass their "acceptable" ethnicity, sexuality, financial prosperity and socio-political-right-mindedness "smell test" (AKA: "The Xenophobic Bigots test") because EVERYONE KNOWS that it's the attempt to exercise their suffrage by THOSE types who raise the suspicion of voter fraud; not the prosperous, White, Evangelical, Heterosexual Republicans.

Hey, maybe after we get them all properly tattoo bar-coded and micro-chiped we can round them all up and concentrate them in camps, so we can keep an eye on them and make certain they don't try to exercise their "fraudulent" votes? Yeah, that's the ticket.

--------------------------------------------

Alternative approach: The Republican Party of the United States could abandon the divisive energy being expended fighting non-existent "voter fraud" and instead embrace the 21st Century (ie., let go of the 19th Century) and spend the coming few years moderating their extreme messages which have already alienated one subgroup and/or minority of Americans after another.

The Republican Party could try persuading voters with a message of "inclusion" rather than demonstrating "exclusion" by their words and their actions.

Ask yourselves the question: Why would ANY non-white, or non-heterosexual, or non-Christian, or non-economically advantaged citizen of the United States want to be a member of the Republican Party or vote for Republican candidates? They aren't doing it because of the Party's civil, hopeful, inclusive and tolerant message.

Food for thought ...

The strength and beauty of our country is that citizens can vote for our leaders. There should be easy and equal access to the voting booth for ALL citizens.

We are fortunate to have the 1965 Voting Rights Act which has aided citizens in having equal access to the voting booth.

I challenge ANYONE who's naive enough on this site to think illegals don't vote to become pollsters. I was a pollster at a polling station for years in Lakewood, Ca and I personally saw fraud perpetrated on numerous occasions by illegals and their 'supporters'.

How, your asking yourself...easy they vote provisionally. It happened the SAME EXACT WAY OVER AND OVER AGAIN DURING DIFFERENT ELECTIONS OVER MANY MANY YEARS. A young women would bring in groups of Hispanics, none of whom but the women spoke ONE WORD of English, and she'd say they were registered to vote, but not one of them was on our roll. Then she'd ask if they could vote provisionally, which by law, we were forced to allow. It was blatant, not hidden one iota.

I have no idea what happen to those ballots, but I hope they were (and are, if it's still going on) never counted and ended up thrown away (although we have to account for every ballot given out (provisional or not), because it disgusts me to think they ignored the OBVIOUS voter fraud (and if you can't speak English, why should you ever be allowed to vote in the first place?).

I'd love for our officials to go through the voter ranks and weed out all the fraudulent registered 'voters' too, I think the public would be appalled by how much fraud there actually is in our voting system.

I'd love to know where you don't have to use ID to cash a check (where they don't take a significant amount, like a check cashing place)? Or ID to buy alcohol? I'm 44 and STILL have to have ID at the register. Or to drive a car, sign up for school, get a job, heck even welfare wants your ID to collect a check (I work around the system, I'm not on the system), but VOTERS should have ID...Yeah, that makes sense, right?....right?

Sorry, didn't catch it in time to edit. Should have read, "but VOTERS shouldn't have ID..."

I believe the military term for the REpublicans strategy is a "rear guard action". THey are retreating and trying toc ut their lossses. but the die has been cast. THey are the new WHigs "leading AMerica into the 0th Century" is their mottto.

@Texana Deb,

I wasn't saying the government should help me, I'm perfectly able to afford it with readjustments here and there. I also wasn't saying the truck registration should be included. I was just pointing out that the minimum $70 in my situation can be a big stretch for some people, and the government should cover the costs of proving a person's ID if this goes through. The only reason I had to get my birth certificate is in 08, Oregon passed a law that states only citizens can get drivers licenses. So we have to prove our ID either the first time we get one after 08, or the first time we renew after 08.

In cases like yours, it's far more expensive, and citizens won't be able to afford that. So if the right truly wants the voter ID, then they need to work to eliminate any logical obstacles the left will throw down. The personal cost is the only one that I see makes any sense, because the left is using that as a call that the right is discriminating against minorities (obviously there are no poor white people in this country!).

Angela LD, what state do you live in that unregistered people can vote with just their word they're registered?? I'm a registered voter here in Michigan, I had moved and forgot to inform election officals, before I was allowed to vote, they checked my ID then checked where I used to vote. It wasn't until everything checked out was I allowed to vote, nobody took my word and let me vote.

If people in your state can vote with just their word you are inviting voter fraud, also you are allowing who knows how many people to simply give a different name and vote as many times as they want.

Under these circumstances, I find your letter very hard to believe.

This Election could spell the end of the GOP, thanks to the TeaHater Rightwing Movement !!!!!!!

I am really sick of all these false claims that voter ID laws are discriminatory. You need an ID to buy alcohol, to cash a check, to buy cigarettes, etc., etc.

yeah? boo hoo. All of these things are licensed for a reason. Voting in the United States is open to anyone over the age of 18 and you people who want to restrict it are not ever going to change that. It's a fundamental right.

If we were really interested in making sure things were on the up and up, no one would have to do anything but show up at the polls with something proving they were over 18, be it their face or some sort of ID.

You folks who want to suppress the vote are loony. Have you ever even encountered an illegal immigrant? The last thing they want to do is call any attention to themselves. They wouldn't be caught dead at a polling place. Many of them come from countries that cannot vote or where people get shot for showing up to vote.

And again, Really? Are you that out of touch? Do you really imagine that some tiny little segment of the population that doesn't even make minimum wage is mounting a huge national conspiracy to get all of their numbers to vote illegally? Dare I suggest you watch too much television?

You can scream and cry all you like, but much like Romney's budget plan, everyone can see you are naked and have no one's best interest in mind except to get your unelectable candidate elected.

Here is 2001 example of how the 1965 Voting Rights Act helped against an attempt in Waller County, Texas to suppress the vote--

Section 5 Enforcement Actions

Such an enforcement action, for example, was filed in Waller County, Texas, in 2004, in which the city of Prairie View is located. The county contains historically black Prairie View A&M University within the majority-black city of Prairie View. In the 1970s, the county registrar went to dramatic lengths to prevent most students from voting, on the alleged ground that they were not legal residents of the county. Only legal action under Section 5 prevented the registrar from doing so, in a case that went to the Supreme Court.222 In the early 1990s a number of students were indicted for “illegal voting”; all of the charges were subsequently dropped.

Two Prairie View students decided to run for local office in the March 2004 primary, including one for Waller County Commissioners’ Court, the county governing body. The white criminal district attorney, a former state judge, threatened the predominantly black Prairie View student body with felony prosecution for illegal voting if they voted in the election. Almost five weeks before Election Day, the university chapter of the NAACP and five students sued the district attorney, who shortly thereafter backed down.

The issue did not end there, however. Less than a week after the lawsuit was filed, and a month before the election, the Waller County Commissioners’ Court voted to reduce the availability of early voting at the polling place closest to campus, from seventeen hours over two days to six hours in one day. This was particularly significant because the students would be on spring break during the day of the primary and would have to vote early if they planned on leaving town for the break.

A Section 5 enforcement action was filed by the university student NAACP chapter to enjoin Waller County from implementing this change without Section 5 preclearance. County officials abandoned the change and restored the additional eleven hours, which technically mooted the lawsuit, although the objectives of the suit were fulfilled. About three hundred Prairie View students took advantage of the early voting period, compared to sixty who would vote on the day of the primary, and the Prairie View student running for a seat on the commissioners’ court narrowly prevailed in his primary contest.

.

The above is an excerpt from a report entitled The Voting Rights Act at Work 1982-2005 by The National Commission on the Voting Rights Act ...[This Commission was created by The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights]

To read the complete report click > protecting minority voters - The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights ...

Correction --the above is a 2004 example.

Good timing SCOTUS.... right on top of the issue..........

Look at what is happening on the state level in Florida--

.

From ...click> Daily Kos: Miami Herald: Koch brothers trying to buy FL Supreme ......We know that the Kochs are trying to buy the presidential election, but did you know they are also trying to.... click>> buy the Florida Supreme Court .......and pack it with Rick Scott appointees? Cheers to Carl Hiassen of the Miami Herald for calling them out:

The new stealth campaign against three Florida Supreme Court justices is being backed by those meddling right-wing billionaires from Wichita, Charles and David Koch. They couldn't care less about Florida, but they love to throw their money around. Last week they uncorked the first of a series of commercials from their political action committee, Americans for Prosperity. The targets are Justices R. Fred Lewis, Barbara Pariente and Peggy Quince....

The mission of the Kochs, hiding as always behind their super PAC, is to get the three justices dumped at the polls so that Gov. Rick Scott can appoint replacements.

This is worth repeating: If the Kochs have their way, Rick Scott — yes, that Rick Scott — gets to pack the Supreme Court with his own hand-picked crew.

Yikes is right.

Americans didn't intend to elect a Republican majority to the House of Representatives. Thanks to GOP-engineered redistricting, they did.

For link CLICK> Now That's What I Call Gerrymandering!

"Not only did redistricting make it easier for Republicans to keep control of Congress this election," Iyer and his colleague Keesha Gaskins >>wrote at the Brennan Center’s website, "but it also may have made it easier for them to keep control over the next decade." (My colleague Nick Baumann >>warned of exactly this two years ago.)

Voter suppression

What has happened to my home state of Kansas? I returned here after a 12-year absence, and what a shock.

First, the driver’s license. Even though I had previously been licensed here for 23 years, I now had to provide a copy of my marriage certificate.

The marriage was 40 years ago, so it took a while to get a copy.

A few days ago I voted early. An application was required.

Were we applying for permission to vote? I was told that the application would be checked against registration information, and “If you try to vote again on Tuesday, that info will pop up.”

It all clicked. The certificate, the application and the inefficient processes were all designed to make it difficult to vote at all. Kansas, land of voter suppression.

Marsha B.

TruePatriots stuff:

"Like so many people (especially rightwingers)"

"David doesn't think he is racist"

"A ballot bloated (I say on purpose) with trivial Republican amendments"

"How about you take your bigot arse and go away"

"Teapublicans verge on treason and should be ashamed"

"if they had a conscience that is"

And after all THAT cr@p you try to call OTHERS a bigot & insinuate they are racist? Even appears you are attempting to assign political leanings onto people you don't even know, other than a few paragraphs of internet writing. If that was the intent of your first sentence, then you don't have the tiniest clue about just how wrong you are.

click>Voter Suppression In Action in Florida, Ohio Over the Weekend ...

click> Florida Voter Suppression Law Meant Far More Provisional Ballots, Slower Lines

click> Lessons of 2012: Pushing Back Against Voter Suppression

Who is David Betray-us? He did Betray his wife, but did he also Betray-us?

Unlike the news reporters ... I am neither shocked nor stunned at at this all too human event.

I wonder if the investigation into what happened in Benghazi forced him to resign. Very sad.

My co-worker didn't know who Petraus was, "Is he another guy on the Zumba list?"

If you are up on small town scandals in Maine, you'll know what that is.

Sound like David P 'Got Some'. Looks like lots and lots of Repubs have to hate on the General now.

For many years to come.

Shame.

dangerfield

General Petraeus resigns..citing affair...

dangerfield comments...citing wrong article...

I had to go to BBC News to get the story! Why?

"dangerfield comments...citing wrong article..."

Yes.

Me some too.

(there was a first Read thread for the Patraes story??)

Sad, wish this didn't happen as he seemed to be a good man for the job. Were they worried about pillow talk? Or something more to it that we will never know.

Move over Fiscal Splat, we have a Marital Spat.

I find it funny Pigotgry how you go back to Betray-us, kind of hypacritical if you asked me. When he was operating under President Bush you called him Betray-us and put him on your "most wanted" list. Under President Obama you raised him up to "hero" and "valued leader" and put him on a pedistal. Now that he's fallen from grace (not sure what the real story is- just figuring what we hear is not all of it) then you throw him back under the bus. Nice.

Just hope that you never receive the same treatment.

Over the course of the years, Petraeus' wife somehow morphed into his grandmother.

You'd probably get a wandering eye, too.

The good general is an example of leadership and class. When you make a mistake you take responsibility and accountability at the same time. If more leaders in Washington D.C. had half the honesty they would resign for pursuing the mistress of selfishness over their promise to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States of America and serve it's people.

I wish him the best as he tries to win back the trust of his wife and family. Thank you for your service and example. It is often in mistakes you measure the character of a person. Most in Washington think they are flawless and above reproach...the truth is far from their self image.

The CIA director had an affair, eh?

It is not surprising to me that a director of a federal agency had an affair. But I am shocked at the notion that the man who runs an agency as adept at stealth as the CIA, couldn't figure out how to hide an affair.

???

Were they worried about pillow talk? Or something more to it that we will never know.

Yes, Al.....Pillow talk could be even more dangerous for the General, and as you say we may never know!

Bingo, "chilled"!

There are three problems as I see it with Petraeus' affair.

1. While I do not know for certain, it seems pretty obvious to me that any background check of any CIA employee is going to involve not just the employee himself/herself but also those individuals around him/her. A mistress for Petraeus is a new variable. What, if any, background information do they have on her?

2. It makes Petraeus vulnerable. What if there is an emergency and the need to find him but he's not home with his wife but is, instead, with the other woman? What if (forgive the "Cloak and Dagger" routine) someone gets to the mistress and uses her to get to Petraeus?

3. It's a matter of trust. If you break your solemn vow to your own wife doesn't it make you less trustworthy on a whole?

My dad taught me that if you have a secret the chances of it staying a secret decrease automatically based on how many people you tell that secret to. Yes, pillow talk is dangerous.

It is not surprising to me that a director of a federal agency had an affair. But I am shocked at the notion that the man who runs an agency as adept at stealth as the CIA, couldn't figure out how to hide an affair

James - Good point!

Wrong article?

NO respect...

Somebody should tell that guy what the Benghazi "cover-up" was really about and why the "coverage" effectively ended on Wednesday.

"Benghazi cover up". From what I've read of this, it's sad, and surely a lot of people involved are wondering what they could/should have done differently, but seems a lot of you are interested in interjecting pure speculation and conjecture as "fact" just to try to make the president out as the bad guy. Look. Bring some facts. And by facts I don't mean random @!$%# that some Right Wing nutjob site dreamt up overnight. Facts. That means something that can be independently verified by impartial people (or "liberally biased media" as they're known at Fox). Every time I see some allegation on this story that sounds bad, I look into the details and find out it's a bunch of made-up, Limbaugh-wet-dream crap. So come back with some actual facts. Until then, STFU!

Presdient Obama shuldn't have accepted his resignation.

Obama lost in all states that require voter ID, imagine that.

Who is David Betray-us? He did Betray his wife, but did he also Betray-us?

Both JFK and Clinton had extra marital affairs while in office, Do think that they betrayed us.

At least the General had the honesty to admit his mistake,faces the consequences and resign.

Maybe he should just have made some silly statement like "I did not have sex with that woman" or my personal favorite "It depends on what the definition of [is] is.

The general served his country for many years I highly doubt you can say the same.

The good general is an example of leadership and class.

So cheating on your spouse is now a show of class?

Obama lost in all states that require voter ID, imagine that.

Obama was re elected. Imagine that.

It's good to see that yet another article was dragged off topic from the get go. Got to tend to those agendas, right?

The landmark Voting Rights Act, passed by Congress in 1965 and renewed four times since then should be expanded to every state where voters were disenfranchised.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9TjVsQa57c

Is it not the time for the Feds to remove federal elections from State and Party control?

... and while they're at it, they can pass a comprehensive, no-loopholes publicly funded election law, with some seriously heavy-duty criminal sanctions for scum who try to buy influence at the expense of the common good. I'm opposed to capital punishment, but would be willing to consider bringing back the stocks and the chain gang. No more Club Fed- y'all are gonna do your time just like the blue-collar crooks do!

You do have to wonder, bcwc.

As to Petraus, would like more information on it before I venture an opinion. Does seem like we are hearing just the initial excuse.

Fox! How are you today! I agree with you, the story in this election is the effort to suppress the vote by state officials in Florida and Ohio as examples, and by private groups. There is NO question what groups they wanted to stop from voting.

Anyone who might vote for a Democrat.

I'm cool with that on the condition that they also take a hard look at groups like the new black panthers and who use thug behavior to intimidate and the NAACP who took over a polling station in Texas this year. If not, then all of it needs to be scrapped. The states should not have to beg an oppressive federal government to make changes in what are state areas.

"..and the NAACP who took over a polling station in Texas this year.."

Really? That actually happened?? Wow.

No police? No poll-workers to call police? Really?

Wow?

Did the panthers walk the voters to the booth at gunpoint? Hit them with sticks and clubs?? "taze" them?? Trash-talk about their moms???j What???

Do you have a link to the story?

Or a Glen Beck ind of link?

Or something?

I'd like to learn more.

Hi Newday,

I think cleanup involves an overhaul of the entire presidential election system. I do not advocate elimination of the Electoral College - but modification to make states like mine more relevant in the process. If all areas of the country had more or less equal relevance present problems would be negated. How to do that? I don't know.

I live in a middle and upper middle class area with a large population of people of Korean and Armenian descent. I was the only white guy in the place when I went to vote. Everyone was all smiles. Maybe it would have been more tense if California was a swing state, but therein lies my point - no state should be swing, everyone should have an "all smiles" voting experience.

Hi, Mark: I don't advocate the elimination of the Electoral College either.

But you do have to wonder why private groups can make frivolous challenges over a stranger's right to vote!

Mark in SoCal makes an excellent point:

I do not advocate elimination of the Electoral College - but modification to make states like mine more relevant in the process

It turns out there is an excellent solution that is already in place in two states.

Each state decides how its Electoral votes will be allocated. Not all states use the winner-take-all allocation. Nebraska and Maine allocate one Electoral vote to the winner in each Congressional District of the state, and two Electoral votes to the winner of the whole state.

As you may or may not know, each state has one Electoral vote for each US House Representative from that state and one Electoral vote for each Senator.

This keeps the Electoral College in place, but distributes the Electoral votes closer the actual popular vote, that is, at the Congressional District level instead of the state level. So in CA it's 55 Electoral votes could actually be allocated 27 to one candidate and 28 to another. Heck, even the Libertarian or the Green party could get an electoral vote if those candidates carried a District.

Each state legislature would have to pass this in each state, as NE and ME have already done.

@GreenTimer: That's actually an even worse solution. As opposed to a handful of states being competitive in a typical presidential cycle, it would only be a handful of districts. This means political campaigning then would become about catering to the agendas of an even smaller portion of the national population than under the current system.

The better answer is the past-timely death of the Electoral College and institution of national popular election of the president or negating the Electoral College with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

"It is time that the Feds take a hard look at groups like "True the Vote" who are using tactics of intimidation in voting districts"

But it's just fine when it's the New Black Panthers doing the intimidation,right?

True the Vote is under investigation for fraud and forgery.

All the NBP did was stand at the door and open it for people going in as he smiled at them. If you find that intimidating, you need to do something about your irrational fears of Black men.

Obama had to show a Photo ID when he voted in Chicago. I wonder why Illinois isn't being sued by Holder?

Slodon, anymore lies? I live in Illinois and you are not required to show an ID to vote. At my poll I was asked my address, the lady found my voter registration sheet, she took the sheet out, I signed said sheet, sheet was verified by another worker, I then voted, got my sticker and left...................no ID requested now or the past 3 elections since I moved back to Illinois.

The landmark Voting Rights Act, passed by Congress in 1965 and renewed four times since then should be expanded to every state where voters were disenfranchised.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9TjVsQa57c

Goodtimes

Maybe you should read the Early Voting requirements of Illinois.

"Voters don't need reasons or excuses to use Early Voting -- but voters do need to present government-issued photo identification to use Early Voting," according to the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

Soldon, the president of the United States of America does not need nor does he carry ID of any kind. Where the president goes, you can bet everybody know who he is, if you don't, the Secret Service will remind you, in ways you don't want them to.

topane, I rarely, if ever, agree with slodon, but the president did show ID when he went to vote.

you can bet he did it to mess with republicans because you know he didn't have to. Don't know for sure, but I'll bet no other president presented ID before they voted.

Who would ask the President of the United States for his ID?? For him to even have it, it Had to be a joke.

Al, Not long enough.

"Spanky, Caeser Augustus. Long time no hear."

Careful what you ask for. It's taken a LOT of righties to have the numbness receede, and have the feelings return to their brains to where they can trot out all manner of nonsense.

Hell- even Rove had said "the DEMS supressed the vote, or Mitt would have won!" I sh!t you not.

The logic? They provided a better argument for their guy, thus keeping more people for voting for an Etch-A-Sketch Trees-are-just-Right complete phony.

Good God, y'all.

" It's taken a LOT of righties to have.." SB taken a LOT of TIME for...

"thus keeping more people for voting for.." SB keeping more people FROM voting for...

Jeez- when I get the fat-fingers, I get it in spades.

Guess I need to start blaming the liberal media for these fat digits, huh? Or perhaps....ACORN?

Chris, compared to the bagger trash on the other threads, they almost come across as reasonable. Besides, I'm still waiting for the Spankster to get back to us on how all his predictions went :-).

Hi Fox--I tried to reply too, but something weird happened and my post didn't post--oh well try again!

I agree with you--the American people should be protected from voter fraud. This is another case of the TPGOP trying to step all over our rights. We were lucky (this time) that the voting machines owned by the Romneys didn't change the outcome of the election. It is certainly a conflict of interest for the candidate's family to own voting machines that will be used to count votes! In the same vein, wasn't Jeb Bush governor of Florida during the contested election that gave us "W" as president? It should all be investigated!

"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly

I've asked before- Why do people get so worked up, thinking a FEW 'illegal' votes might 'throw' the election one way or the other, but have no such fears that millions and millions from people like Adelson or Koch wouldn't also have the potential to 'throw' the election???

Speaking of 'big bucks', is anyone else as completely overjoyed- i.e. "cross-eyed with delight" as I am- that asswipers like Adelson, Koch Bros, Chambers of Commerce, CrossRoads contributors, et.al.- sunk so damned many millions and millions of THEIR dollars into the .......LIBERAL MEDIA'S bank accounts???

That right there, was worth the price of admission this year.

Ain't that right, Spanks?

Drive-by,

I suspect the money sunk in by the parties you mentioned pretty much amounts to chump change.

As Dr. Evil would put it "Who cares about millions...............when you have billions!!!''

I can't believe there isn't more outrage over what has happened in voting this year---blatant attempts by the GOP to disenfranchise millions of people. It is just wrong and it is wrong that we have to spend time, energy and money fighting them at every turn.

They probably spend more than that on a trip to Vegas.

"How does it come to pass that non-existent vote fraud by illegal immigrants and ex-felons merits more media attention than known, witnessed and bloody well recorded vote fraud by the Rethuglicans? Yeah, I gotcher "liberal media" right here, you thieving, freedom-hating punks."

And in Ohio,it was the Dems caught committing voter faud in major metropoltan areas-Cuyahoga county-(Cleveland) - Hamilton Co.- (Cincinnatti)- and Franklin-(Columbus)-caught-recorded,and removed from the polling places-a GOP member was also caught in Hamilton Co.

The "freedom hating punks" are the current democratic party,and the "libtard/regressive "movement"-just force your beliefs on the rest of the population-especially those in the enviro/animal "rights" groups-those from the coasts,and the big cities are forceing their extreme enviro-animal "rights" policies on those who actually live in the areas affected by these policies-if you want unlimited numbers of wolves-take a few packs in NYC,Chicago,Memophis,Nashville,New Orleans,Miami,Tampa,Atlanta,Birmingham,Houston,Dallas,Oklahoma city,Bismark,LA,Detroit,San Francisco,Minneapolis,Seattle,Spokane,take the Mexican gray wolves in Phoenix,Tuscon,west Tx, Taos,Deming,Santa Fe,etc. see how it is living with a re-introduced apex predator in YIOUR neighborhoods!

Been a farmer for a hundred or so years-forget it-theres a 3" fish in that river you have been getting your irrigation water from-you can no longer use it-tough luck-have to save the fish.

Been getting your residential drinking water from an existing reservoir for the past 50-60 years-too bad-go thirsty,do your laundry at a laundromat,can't use real plates,glasses or silverware,can't take a bath or shower at your home any longer-no water-the animal "rights" whackos tore down the dam to theEXISTING reservoir that a half-million people got their drinking water from due to yet another 3" fish.

The above 3 examples have already occurred-the wolf re-introduction fiasco in the northern Rocky Mtns, the Delta smelt in the San Joaquin river delta in CA,and the santa Ana sucker in also in CA.

Same group has made their living off of filing lawsuits against the government concerning animal "rights" issues for many years-the Center for Biologic Diversity-YOUR tax dollars pay their salaries too.

There's a long list of these enviro and animal "rights" extremists-all making money by suing the federal gov't.-all paid for by tax dollars.

THAT is what the Dems/progressives have brought to this country-by the way ALL of these groups believe that people are the problem,and there must be zero population growth,and more roads,bridges,dams,buildings,and golf courses MUST be torn down to improve animals lives.

Everyone must live in the big cities only-the rest of the land is for only animals-no using ANY natural resources,no eating ANY meat-everyone MUST become vegan.

The law should be struck down as it does not treat all states equally - as required by the Constitution of the United States.

Anti-discrimination laws like this one is part of the reason that discrimination and racism has not gone away. All it does is tell the caucasians in the regions involved that the minority race is, in actuality, preferred over any other citizen.

This is also why laws for gay rights is wrong. Why are those individuals worth more in the in the eyes of the law than I am.

If you truly want discrimination to go away you cannot favor any individual or group over another. Affirmative action laws may have helped at first, but they have far outlived their usefulness, and are much of the reason that racism is still alive today.

How long must the children make reparations for the sins of the father?

Cry me a river, Tammy, you poor little oppressed thing. You suffer such discrimination on a daily basis.Puh-freaking-leeze!

ok so we do it for every body not eliminate it will that make you happy or do you just WANT states to be able to discriminate against minorities?

Tammy, what provision in the Constitution expressly requires that the federal government treat all states equally? I am aware of none, and the petition from Shelby County to the United States Supreme Court cites to none.

To say that a law banning discrimination encourages discrimination is like saying that international laws against genocide encourages genocide. I grew up in Texas in the 70s, and, even though Texas wants to continue discrimination in voting, in other areas, discrimination in Texas is much much less than it was in the 1970s.

Tmess -

Try Section 8.

Perhaps you should read it yourself. It states that all states shall be treated equally.

By the way - for those of you with a guilty conscience about slavery. My forebears did NOT own slaves, why should I be passed over for a job just so that another, who is not qualified for the job, may have it? It happens all too frequently today and is part of the entitlement mentality that blacks, hispanics, gays, etc are OWED whatever they wish to the detriment of the country.

Tammy, have you any idea as to how you have just presented yourself??

Judging from your posts, Tammy, I'd say you are probably losing those jobs all on your own as a result of the way you present yourself in the interview.

And, you do realize, don't you, that it is just as illegal to hire a Black person for a job they do not have the qualifications for over a qualified white person, as it is to hire an unqualified white person over a qualified Black.

Perhaps you are more concerned about the fact that some well qualified Black people managed to beat you out of a job because they were MORE qualified than you. Stop blaming your losses on your color. It is really funny to watch a white woman try to play a race card, lol.

I totally agree with you, DOCJT.

I can hear white conservatives breaking out in Negro Spirituals all over the country, bemoaning the oppression and prejudice they have to suffer under, lol.

you -

People will think what they will. The general consensus on the left is that conservatives are 'racist bigots'. What they fail to understand is that they are, in actuality, the racist bigots because they let the color of a person's skin rule the way they react to the individual. I have seen the inner city welfare mentality with its attitude that everyone owes them. I've had to deal with it as an instructor in apprenticeship classes. They refuse to do the work and then wonder why they flunk the course. They expect the grade to be given to them just because they were 'disadvantaged' growing up.

Well, I grew up in housing that was substandard as we couldn't afford any better - was even homeless at one time as a kid because my dad couldn't get a job. We barely had the clothes on or back and food on a picnic table. My mother tried to get into subsidized housing and was told that the color of her skin was wrong. The difference is that I was taught to do my best because no one was going to hand me a living.

Oh, and I remember being called a Nazi when I was growing up because I had a German last name, so I know about racism and bigotry first hand.

I actually pity those who are to blind to see that affirmative action programs and the unequal treatment of the states due to problems that only exist today because of those types of laws keep it alive.

It's time for people to grow up.

Yes, Tammy, it is time for people to grow up. You first.

Your post has convinced me, with certainty, of one thing. I am engaged in a battle of the wits with an unarmed opponent.

Conversation done. I do hope, though, that you never end up in a tragic accident, and the only doctor in the ER to take care of you is a big, Black man. Or the only available organ to save your life comes from a Black woman. On second thought, maybe I do wish that for you. Every racist should have to walk around knowing that the only reason they have life if because of the generosity and skill of a Black man or woman.

Actually, Tammy, if you would actually read Article I, Section 8 (as I assume that is the Section 8 that you are referrring to as it is the only Section 8 in the Constitution), none of the clauses requires that Congress treat state governments equally. Clause 1 requires that the tax rate be uniform throughout the United States. Clause 4 requires a uniform law on naturalization of citizenship. None of the other clauses use the term "uniform" and none of them use the term "equal."

Nationally, according to exit polls, Latinos gave Obama 70% of their votes, Asian Americans 73% and blacks more than 90%. Voters younger than 30 went for Obama, 60% to 37%, and unmarried women sided with him by more than 2 to 1. Each of those groups made up a larger share of the electorate in 2012 than in 2008, except for blacks, who were steady.

Throughout American history, rising groups in the electorate have had an impact on policy. Already, Tuesday's results are being felt. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) gave a television interview Thursday in which he indicated support for changing the country's immigration laws. "A comprehensive approach is long overdue, and I'm confident that the president, myself, others, can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all," he told ABC's Diane Sawyer.

Earlier this year, Boehner had said that more modest immigration legislation could not pass the House.

----from article entitled "Nonwhite voters and cultural shifts make 2012 election pivotal " by David Lauter - November 10, 2012

Too true Fox--but the TPGOP rank and file think they're doing God's work!

Hey Fox, now for the reality check. Bush beat Kerry in the popular vote by 62,040,610 to Kerry's 59,028,444. A difference of 3,012,166 votes.

obama beat Romney by 61,170,405 to Romney's 58,163,977. A difference of only 3,006,428.

Its funny (and pretty sad) that, in your own words Bush was "barely squeaking out a win". and obama won "with a plurality of over THREE MILLION"

I know I am just an educated individual, but the "squeaking by" number is greater than the "plurality of THREE MILLION" number. How can that be? Perhaps a little more research before you post things that highlight your obvious lack of education.

Not a particularly bright individual or a math major are you? Now you can see why the educated are so disgusted with the results of this election. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

said that Hurricane Sandy reelected our President, while every informed commentator agrees that it cost him close to a million more votes.

Those votes lost would be in NJ/NY metro area, Predominantly Democratic voters and would not have affected the electoral college vote, However the immediate appearance that President Obama was doing so much more for Sandy victims than Bush did for Katrina victims influenced people from all states even though that appearance that Obama did more is just that an appearance, In reality the vistims of Sandy feel just as forgotten as the victims of katrina

or the Black Panther showing up again in Philly, which doesn't matter to Liberals unless they had white sheets on

or the Black Panther showing up again in Philly, which doesn't matter to Liberals unless they had white sheets on

Oh, here we go again!

Jerry Jackson, who was charged in the 2008 case along with Minister King Samir Shabazz, but later saw charges dropped by the Department of Justice, was seen early Tuesday outside a North Philadelphia voting site wearing the group’s trademark black beret, combat-style uniform and heavy boots. Fox News confirmed he is a designated poll watcher.

www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/06/new-black-panthers-back-at-philly-voting-site/

"I've asked before- Why do people get so worked up, thinking a FEW 'illegal' votes might 'throw' the election one way or the other, but have no such fears that millions and millions from people like Adelson or Koch wouldn't also have the potential to 'throw' the election???"

OK- viknat- what say you about this question I posted above? Tell us about your TOTAL views on'voter suppression'. Or, if you would rather not, here's a chance to answer an alternate queston: tell us about the number and locations of 'Black Pangther' that showed up in Philly, and exactly what it was that they did?

'K- go...

Hey, Noid- nice to be on the same thread with you. Long time, no see. Been busy working my ass off.

(didn't know libs worked, eh??)

I've asked before- Why do people get so worked up, thinking a FEW 'illegal' votes might 'throw' the election one way or the other, but have no such fears that millions and millions from people like Adelson or Koch wouldn't also have the potential to 'throw' the election???"

Because a fraudulant vote cancels out the legal vote of another, A fraudulent vote is actually voter supression, People spending their own money to try to influence a campaign does not actually cancel out any ones legitimate vote.

I wonder, Do you have a problem with the amount of money spent by certain News Media outlets that are biased to a certain politician, Or is it just that you do not want people spending their own money on candidates that you do not like.

Good for you Jody and I will too here in my state. The GOP think we are dumb ! They really do. It is no coincidence that all of these rush to voter ID states, just happened to be major swing states for the national election. Also , headed by t-party and rethug govenors. IF they think this voter ID is so imperative, then WHY trot it out at the last minute , 1 yr to 6 months before the national election , when there was no earthly way that all these ID's could be issued. Now that we will see a lot of these govenors up for re-election in 2014, not to mention t -thug congressmen, what do you want to bet that suddenly there will no longer be a rush to voter ID's? I will be leading my area in standing up for fair elections and no shenanigans by rethugs. Watch out t-billy Niki !

You can't get an ID in 6 months??? You need it for drivers license, open a bank account, cash checks, travel on airplane. That is unless you are a bum suckling off of the Replublican teat! It's not about intimidation it's about fraud! But no you libtards don't beleive in following the rules. We also have to expand voting from 1 day and absentee ballots so you low life can come out ot your convenience between welfare checks and your drunken stupor to vote over a months time... Wasting money and time for states poll workers.

Goodness, Kent! I'm glad you were able to get all that out of you. Hatred like that is a killer. Can't walk around with those toxic half-truths and blatant lies festering inside you.

The way that this court handles this issue will be very telling. As a mixed race 60+ year old man, I will be a very active citizen in the election in two years. I have had enough of this silly Democratic voter fraud effort. I ask all citizens, and especially senior citizens to stand up for fair play at all elections.

That is unless you are a bum suckling off of the Replublican teat!

Could you be anymore ignorant and arrogant at the same time?

Who says you have to drive? Who says you have to fly? I have not had to show ID in twenty years to cash a check at my bank.

But go ahead and live a life of ignorance. BTW, how can it be a Republican teat if the red states on average get more back than they put into the system?

NY is a blue state and gets less than $0.80 back for every dollar sent to the feds. What red state are we supporting?

Wouldn't it be supremely easy for people to just take ballots out of mailboxes in order to cast votes for their candidates? Election politics still aren't that different from what they were back when you got paid for your vote if you were lucky, and if you weren't, you were beaten up... I believe they still call that Chicago politics.

They still get paid to vote it's called Obama phone, welfare, union ownership of GM, 80 Billion to failed green companies...

@Kent Salmen, hey mister, this is really old news...move on...

Romney campaigned with a promise of an across the board 20% tax cut on top of the current Bush era rates , you won't get anywhere in the Republican party today without signing a treasonous pledge to Norquist and you think Obama paid for votes??

The Obama people were very smart and sneeky.

The Repubs did not even realize what was being done with all those phones the government was giving out for free.

I wonder if the cost of the phones used in his election were reported under election funding laws?

California's new system seems to be working well. We even got to watch two guys almost get in a fight on stage. They were both incumbents who got thrown into the same district.

Voting by mail has its problems. In my city we had a nice rain just before the election and a bunch of mail in ballots got flushed out of a storm drain. They never made it to the Post Office.

gato -

Actually, if you want to talk treason - Why won't Obama protect the borders of the US? As that is a duty of the government, and of the President in particular, it fits the definition of treason.>

>

As does taking no action to protect Ambassador Stevens.

kpm -

I doubt it. It was one of the many taxes that they forced through. The people who actually pay phone bills pay that tax.

Actually, if you want to talk treason - Why won't Obama protect the borders of the US? As that is a duty of the government, and of the President in particular, it fits the definition of treason.>

Please do elaborate on that with some specific examples. I am very interested in this.

As does taking no action to protect Ambassador Stevens.

Don't have a real good grasp on the inherent risks of serving as a diplomat, do you?

I doubt it. It was one of the many taxes that they forced through. The people who actually pay phone bills pay that tax.

Who is "they" and what tax specifically did they "force through"?

DOCJT, great counter questioning; where is her followup?

Some states,such as Ohio-would have gone to Romney,as the vast majority of votes for Obama were cast in the three major cities-(Cleveland,Columbus,and Cincinatti).

There are many things decided by people in big cites and far away big cites,by people who do not live in the areas affected by the results of said decisions-such as the re-introduction of the gray wolf to the northern Rocky Mtns. in '95. Then the decade plus legal battles fought by enviro/animal "rights" groups to break the original plan of 30 breeding pairs,or 300 animals to be removed from Endangered Species Act-that goal was reached over ten years ago-yet the never-ending stream of lawsuits continued,the enviro/animal "rights" groups and their lawyers were paid for these lawsuits from tax dollars,the researchers lived off of a plethora of grants to "study" wolves,it took an act of congress to have the gray wolf removed from ESA protection,and the population managed by the states-even after this happened-some groups are still filing lawsuits.

I used this example because we have property in N.W. Montana-where the wolves have decimated elk populations,killed off a lot of farm/ranch livestock.

Had the original agreement been honored,then the managemnt of the wolves would have been returned to the states many years ago,but no-the animal "rights" whacvkos want an unlimited number of wolves-not just in the Northern Rockies,but anyplaces the deem fit habitata.

If that is what they want-then packs of wolves should be relocated immediately to NYC,LA,Miami,Baltimore,D.C., Va, Md, other big cities like Chicago,Detroit,Pittsburg,Philly,all along the Appalachian trail,Memphis,St. Louis,New Orleans,Little Rock,Seattle,San Fran., Spokane,and big cities in every state. This way-all the researchers can have more wolves to study,the animal "rights" whackos can file more lawsuits-likely about how wolves should not be living near/in populated areas.

Splitting up each states electoral votes sounds like a good idea to me,just needs some fine tuning.
AS with my qwolf fiasco example-people in big cities should not be able to adversely affect the lives of those of us who live in rural areas.,nor should we be forced into living our lives the way they want us to-ie;no hunting,trapping,fishing, or raising animals for food.

HRDawg--

Unbelievable.

Spooky even.

What's next - review a woman's right to vote?

This is an important moment for us. We cannot go back.....there is a lot at stake in this case.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act should not be allowed to be weakened or eliminated.......especially Section 5 of it.

HR -

Women's suffrage is backed by an Amendment to the Constitution, and as such is Constitutional.

Where do you liberals get such stupid ideas?

Tammy.......Every citizen's right is backed by the Constitution and its amendments. That does NOT mean that some people's right to vote has not been suppressed by unfair means.

This is why the 1965 Voting Rights Act should not be touched.

Funny how no one saw anything wrong with the 1965 VRA until a Black man was elected to the highest office of the land, isn't it?

Merlin, great comment! I agree that felons should be allowed their right to vote!! I happen to be one and if I could be voting I darn sure would, They still count me on the census's, I pay taxes, and other outrageous and unfair penalties as far as I am concerned.. I think the politicians need to see that they are losing votes that could give them more power!!

You are soooo... correct! The real issue today is racism nationwide. I think some of my Georgia rednecks are fairly docile when compared to Idaho's White Supremacist cults. All states should be monitored under the Voting Rights Act!

Actually, if you want to witness racism go into Los Angeles or Chicago in the inner cities. Why do you think the gangs have turf wars?

Or how about the 'new' Black Panthers? NAACP? La Raza?

The 'reverend' Jessis Jackson? Louis Farrakhan? 'Reverend' Wright?

Tell me, don't they live in places like Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit and the like?

As I said, affirmative action laws are outdated and have actually hurt this country by lowering educational standards - as the inner city kids are often not taught to strive to better themselve when they can expect everything to be provided.

Gangs have "turf wars" over "turf". That is why they are called "turf wars".

What about the NBP? What about the old Black Panthers, for that matter?

What about the NAACP? What about Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Wright, or Louis Farakhan? What does the city they live in have to do with anything?

Obviously, you have never set a lily white foot in an inner city school, nor do you have an inkling of comprehension regarding how schools are funded, or you would understand that the inner city schools are the poorest districts in the nation.

Speaking of self improvement, I could suggest a few strategies for you, but I fear your racism is simply too toxic at this point.

DOCJT, I also wonder if Tammy understands, and, has knowledge about how those northern cites became populated my minorities.

boy kenny leave god out of it, get ready for fire and brimstone anyway cause its gonna come anyway.

We saw it the first time, Boy Kenny. Redundancy doesn't equal relevancy.

lmao

Federal law can, and should, mandate that voting waits not exceed one hour, and that where this has been a problem, states must expand early voting, and put more polling places in operation on Election Day. Election Day should be an observed Federal holiday in all 50 states.

I think this would definitely be helpful, Mare P.

That would be great.

And we can let the LOWV pay for all the poll workers, all the voting machines, the rents on all the polling places, etc.

What's this about the League of Women Voters, kpm??

Our democracy is worth whatever it costs our nation and states to have adequate voting facilities so long, unfair waiting lines are eliminated.

Also, what democratic example are we presenting to the world; America, where we are champions of democracy, yet our most important election is riddled with fraud, oh, and that peninsula state, yeah, it took 4 extra days to submit its presidential votes....such prowess.

I agree the law should apply to every state. However in Federal Elections, the Federal government has absolute responsibility to see that there is an even field. What I have read of the rules in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida makes me feel the Federal government DOES need to intervene in state and local elections as well.

gary--

perhaps you weren't around in the 1970's for the Big Boston Bussing controversy?

12 -

It has to be all or nothing, anything else is unconstitutional - by Section 8 of the Constitution. The present law is unconstitutional as it does not treat all states equally. The thing is, anti-discrimination laws - by their very nature - are discriminatory.

If people really want racism to go away, the affirmative action laws need to be done away with so that people can be hired and promoted based on merit and not by quotas. It's part of the reason our education of our children lags so many other countries.

Tammy--When you write

It has to be all or nothing, anything else is unconstitutional - by Section 8 of the Constitution. The present law is unconstitutional as it does not treat all states equally.

You are forgetting that those states were referred to by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act are the states that took away or could have affected the constitutional rights of citizens

Tammy appears to be a little confused. She seems to think that a state is nothing more than a geographic region and fails to account for the fact that a state is, indeed, comprised of the people living within it's borders. The Constitution and it's amendments are there to protect the people, not the land mass.

you -

And you have to realize that that problem no longer exists. It has been corrected. The requrement to carry ID is pervasive in this country today. If an individual does not have ID they cannot function in today's society, so it really is a moot point.

As for gerrymandering voting districts, it goes on on both sides of the aisle. In democrat-controlled states, redistricting favors democrats, in republican-controlled states it favors republicans. It always has and always will. The thing is, when redistricting is interfered with by the federal government it violates a state's rights, and with the voting rights act it interferes only in republican-controlled states at this time. It is a discrminatory practice and it needs to stop or apply to all states equally.

Tammy, I don't know if you are simply naive as a newborn baby, or willfully ignorant, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the naivete.

The problem has not been solved, poor, naive one. You just truly don't grasp it, or don't want to grasp it, or are afraid to actually grasp it, or just aren't capable of grasping it. I am really beginning to feel pity for you, living with such restrictions on your life.

Florida's governor in the 2012 election was proven to be tied to the group who are now under investigation for voter fraud in that state. What's with the sore loser red states? You'd think maybe their back room GOP agenda was like Texas Tom DeLay's former Speaker of the House under Bush...who ended up in unseated for his games with redistricting.

This country isn't divided. It's been handily knifed in half...Those who pay most of the taxes in blue state and get back little better than half a dollar for the dollars they pay and states like Alaska, Texas, MS, AL, NC, SC, GA, KY and TN who live off federal tax dollars while they hoard their state taxes.

Then, you take a look at just where most of the highest welfare is and it's always in the top 10 red states where salaries are anything but living wages and benefits are non-existent because employers who benefit soooo profitably from federal cuts, breaks, loopholes and subsidies refuse to play fair with the people in their own states.

Once you couple those lousy red state salaries that are absolutly in comprehensible given the plundering of their state corporations who earn obscene salaries, with lack of healthcare and pension benefits, what else could anyone expect but that they are living off the dole of the rest of the states?

These states cling to ever-growing obsolete industries in oil, gas and coal, knowing they are not sustainable far into the future and yet, they absolutely refuse to develop new industries that take them into the present and the future. Instead, they continue to stuff more and more of our tax dollars into their dying industries as if they are totally ignorant fools.

garyf.maynard...Nice try...but the federal government is now and always will be the final voice for people like you who want nothing more than total control in your states until you need FEMA, welfare of SSDI for your indigent and then your oh so conservative red state hands are out looking for more more more.

Your post is so indicative of what some angry while middle aged men and women want...to control voting so they get their way. It's about damn time all of the Daycare Generation middle aged infant mentalities face facts...NO Americans will never allow a state to take taxes from minorities and then deny them the right to vote if they are legal citizens. Who do these "ignernts" think they fool? It isn't those of us who know exactly what all that states' right BS is all about.

regarding #24.8.....well said, on point.

It would take a Constitutional Amendment to change it.

You are welcome to try.

i don't think that applies to America amymore and neither does. a government of the people for the people and by the people.what applies now is all about the minorites and special interest along with politcally correct.

@wolf,

At the end of the day, we are all Americans and must learn to work together.

That's what applies. That's what's important.

FORWARD!

You are right wolf. The current president would never have been elected in 2008 if not for political correctness. Its sad that people wanted to prove they are not racist so badly that they never stopped to consider the person they elected was an incompetent bumbling fool. Everybody shoud have noticed the only articulate speeches he could deliver were read from a telepromptor. I despise him deeply.

For someone that speaks against racism you sure can throw some words out

They flip-flopped in true tradition

The problem for some of these conservative carpers is they think "We, the people" is defined as white, middle-to-upper-class men who are superior in every way to any other entity. They were proven wrong Tuesday but the message has not as yet registered with them.

But they are not racist words. I would never judge a person based on race or creed. I'm not sure if you are saying I am flip-flopping, but if you are I would love to hear how that is. I never attacked the president based on his race. I have very close friends of African, Asian, and European descents. Saying the president is a bumbling, incompentent, fool is my opinion of the last four years. Its funny that when I say that about Bush, nobody has ever accused me of being a racist and yet no one on this forum can see my color. Just an observation on how obama'a supporters reach for the race card first thing because they are taught to believe that if someone thinks he is doing a bad job (he is the worst president I have ever seen in office) they must be basing this on color. A sad commentary indeed...

Bali Bob,

At the end of the day we all SHOULD be Americans. I agree. However, that is not the way the trend is running. I believe we are emphasizing our differences over our common traits and that will be our downfall.

Celebrate what we have in common and not our diversity.

The problem for some of these conservative carpers is they think "We, the people" is defined as white, middle-to-upper-class men who are superior in every way to any other entity. They were proven wrong Tuesday but the message has not as yet registered with them.

I agree with you, Jim.

yet no one on this forum can see my color.

Ah, but you see, we don't need to see your color to know the racism in your heart and mind. It comes through your words.

reach for the race card

The only people I have ever seen use this phrase are racist whites who say things like "I'm not racist. I have a Black friend."

The point is not what color you are (even thinking that it has anything to do with anything is racist in and of itself, btw), but the fact that your racism is so transparent even when you attempt to hide it. And that, I can guarantee you, is the result of having accepted white male priviledge your entire life without ever having done anything what so ever to earn any degree of priviledge.

Good, insightful post, DOCJT.

Same old, same old, docjt BS.

Poor kpm. Truth and reality have just given you a good old fashioned butt whuppin' this week, haven't they?

@TA:

"Teleprompter?"

ReallY?

Again?

Still using that teleprompter line?

PLENTY OF POLITICIANS, INCLUDING FORMER PRESIDENTS, HAVE USED TELEPROMPTERS!

Time for some originality, home-slice......

The following is from a report entitled The Voting Rights Act at Work 1982-2005 by The National Commission on the Voting Rights Act ...[This Commission was created by The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights]

.

The continuing impact of the Voting Rights Act can be fully appreciated only by understanding the historical context in which it was passed. From the beginning of the twentieth century, when southern blacks were almost completely disfranchised, until 1965, when many had regained the franchise and others were struggling to do so, key elements of the southern white power structure opposed black voting and ensured continued implementation of the myriad tests and devices designed decades earlier to prevent blacks from casting a ballot. Into the 1960s, black civil rights activists, along with their white allies, were threatened, harassed, jailed, beaten and even murdered as they encouraged and helped black citizens to register and vote.

Nonetheless, after the Supreme Court declared the white primary unconstitutional in 1944 and the Civil Rights Movement gathered momentum, southern whites, at least the more prescient, saw the handwriting on the wall. They began to prepare for the day when blacks would once again achieve the right to vote. White officials set about changing many aspects of the election systems they controlled in order to dilute the power of the black vote as it became more widespread. These changes were put in place at every level of government in the southern states, in many instances soon after a black was elected to office or came close to winning. Electoral districts were racially gerrymandered or abandoned entirely and replaced by at-large schemes. Majority-vote requirements replaced plurality-win rules. The numbered place system and staggered terms replaced rules allowing single-shot voting. Offices were changed from elective to appointive, or their authority was diminished. Municipal annexations or de-annexations were designed to increase the white percentage of cities’ population. In short, black vote dilution was white supremacy’s second line of defense when the first line of defense, massive disfranchisement, was breached—as it was in 1965.

The task of African Americans, who now had at their disposal a new and powerful weapon to secure their voting rights, was thus twofold: to put an end to massive disfranchisement, primarily in the South; and to dismantle the dilutive mechanisms designed to prevent them from electing their preferred candidates. The first task was accomplished, in the main, within a few years of the Act’s passage in 1965, as the gap in black-white voter turnout narrowed dramatically. In 2000, the reported black voter turnout nationwide, as a percentage of their VAP, was 53.5 percent; for non-Hispanic whites, it was 60.4. The percentage of blacks who reported voting nationwide in 2000 was thus almost as high as the percentage of blacks registered in 1964— 58.5 percent.318 While efforts to depress the black vote in the South and elsewhere have continued into the twenty-first century, the relatively high black turnout rate is a measure of the Act’s success.319

The attack on black vote dilution—and on minority vote dilution generally, as the Act’s purview expanded to include Latinos, Indians, Alaska Natives, and Asian Americans—was slower to gain force. Although both Sections 5 and 2 were used early on by the Department of Justice and private plaintiffs to dismantle dilutive structures not only in the South but around the nation, the battle has been lengthy, and the most dramatic manifestations of it— redistricting—continue to be fought at least once a decade, given the widespread persistence of racially polarized voting. This is not to deny that dramatic progress has been made on this front as well. However, the battle is far from over, and many knowledgeable observers and participants have expressed the belief that congressional failure to renew Section 5, a major bulwark against both disfranchisement and vote dilution, would be a serious step backward. Testimony at the Commission’s national hearings in 2005 addressed both problems.

To read the complete report click> protecting minority voters - The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights ...

From the above report--this excerpt concerns Native Americans:

Native Americans, described by the Census as American Indians and Alaska Natives, composed 0.9 percent of the total United States population in 2000, or 2,475,956 persons, and were concentrated in the West and Alaska.128 (See Map 4C.) Many of the political subdivisions in states such as Arizona, New Mexico, and South Dakota are covered by Section 203 for one or more Native American languages. Moreover, the entire state of Alaska is covered by Section 4(f)(4), as are subdivisions in other states. In 2003, Native Americans composed 19 percent of the population in Alaska, 11 percent in New Mexico and Oklahoma, 9 percent in South Dakota, and 8 percent in Montana.129 In Arizona, where Native Americans composed about 6 percent of the population, they made up approximately 78 and 30 percent, respectively, in Apache and Coconino Counties.130 In some other states as well—South Dakota, for example—Native Americans make up a considerably large proportion of certain counties than of the state as a whole.

Native Americans have long suffered high rates of disease and social problems resulting from their treatment at the hands of whites. According to a recent report, they are

670 percent more likely to die from alcoholism, 650 percent more likely to die from tuberculosis, 318 percent more likely to die from diabetes, and 204 percent more likely to suffer accidental deaths than members of other groups. Although the average life span of Native Americans has increased from 51 years in 1940 to 71 years today, it is still six years below that of other Americans.131

Without elected representatives to advocate solutions to these particularized needs, it is unlikely that such problems will be adequately addressed by government policy.

There is no comprehensive list of Native American elected officials, and so it is difficult to make general statements about their numbers and the conditions of their election. Moreover, given their44 Chapter Four

small numbers nationally, the census does not provide post-election data on their turnout rates. It is nonetheless true that many Indian candidates for office face the same types of problems as do other minority candidates, including racially polarized voting when they oppose whites.132 Dan McCool of the University of Utah has compiled a list of sixty-six lawsuits filed between 1966 and 2005 in which the voting rights of Native Americans were at issue. Plaintiffs achieved some measure of success in sixty-two of them, according to McCool. South Dakota and New Mexico tied for the highest number filed in their jurisdictions—seventeen each. But lawsuits targeted jurisdictions in several states, including Arizona, North Carolina, Minnesota, Nebraska, Maine, Wisconsin, Utah, Montana, Colorado, and North Dakota. Twenty-one of the cases involved Sections 5 or 203.133

The extent of discrimination against Native Americans has been described by civil rights lawyer Laughlin McDonald, executive director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project, in a recent law review article. He points to the testimony regarding discrimination against Native Americans in the 1975 House Judiciary Committee hearings on reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, as well as to statements on the issue made in the Senate debate.134 He notes, however, that "despite the application of the Voting Rights Act to Indians, both in the enactment in 1965 and extension in 1975, relatively little litigation to enforce the Act, or the constitution, was brought on behalf of Indian voters in the West until fairly recently."135 Significant cases were filed by Native American plaintiffs in the 1990s, and others were brought in the present century. Findings in these cases revealed a high level of racially polarized voting when Native American candidates appeared on the ballot, as well as the standard vote dilution schemes enacted by white lawmakers that have long been used by their counterparts elsewhere, most notably in the South.136

A significant judicial finding of vote discrimination against Native Americans appears in Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine,137 a case brought in 2001 by Alfred Bone Shirt and three fellow Indians, represented by the ACLU, against the state of South Dakota for failing to submit a legislative redistricting plan for preclearance. The district judge in 2004 invalidated the plan, which diluted Native American voting strength, and issued a 144-page opinion that contained a detailed history of South Dakota's discrimination against Native American voters, including several instances since 1999. Among these recent instances were illegal denials of the right to vote in certain elections, dilutive voting schemes in elections for county commissioners and school board members, barriers to voter registration, intimidation and unsubstantiated charges of vote fraud, non-compliance with the

The Primary Groups the Voting Rights Act Has Helped 45

Voting Rights Act's language assistance provision, and lack of access to polling sites. Legislators engaged in debate over an unsuccessful bill to make it easier for Indians to register were quoted in the opinion as expressing prejudice against Indians. Alluding to Indians, one legislator said, "I'm not sure we want that kind of person in the polling place."138

On the positive side of the ledger, there appears to be a notable increase in Native American voter turnout in recent years, which traditionally has been quite low.139 Moreover, largely as a result of prolonged voting rights litigation, eight majority-Native American legislative districts were recently created in Montana.140 (Eight Native American legislators now serve, as well.) The redistricting was conducted by a bipartisan committee appointed by the state Supreme Court, with a Native American tie-breaker.141 This success in Montana brought the number of Native American legislators nationwide in 2005 to 37 in 13 states.142 Native Americans composed 13.7 percent of Alaska's VAP in 2000. In 2006, both U.S. Senators and the state's U.S. Representative are white. However, there are seven Alaska Natives in the sixty-member state legislature.143

Despite these advances, Indians continue to face numerous obstacles to full political participation, a fact underlined by an election protection project carried out in twelve states with a significant Indian population in 2004. Among the complaints listed on Election Day were 182 regarding registration problems, 22 regarding poll judges, 3 regarding poll watchers, 29 regarding voting machines, 14 regarding provisional ballots, 37 regarding absentee ballots, 8 regarding intimidation, and 8 of a miscellaneous nature. There is no way to know how large a universe of actual voter problems besetting Native Americans these registered complaints represent, and they are not easy to summarize. However, a few examples suggest the kinds of difficulties Native Americans continue to face at the dawn of the twenty-first century.

• "Several poll workers made comments on how everybody should have to speak English in order to vote, or were questioning people based on their speech patterns." (Washington)

• "Native voters were not as consistently offered provisional ballots as White voters were." (Montana) • "Man taking photographs of voters was not asked to

stop or leave." (Michigan)

"Female went to go vote and was told by three men that she could not vote there, but instead had to 'go vote on the reservation'." (Washington) "A poll watcher photographed 4 Native voters at least two of whom cast provisional ballots." (Washington)144

Similar complaints were voiced by several persons from several

states in Indian Country who testified at the Commission's hearing in South Dakota in Rapid City. Among the numerous discriminatory practices mentioned there were intimidation by polling officials, racial gerrymandering, and gross malapportionment of districts—a practice outlawed by the Supreme Court in 1964.145

Professor McCool testified at the South Dakota hearing that among the problems Indians face are the false but "widespread perception" that Indians are not taxpayers, and thus shouldn't be allowed to vote, "especially in state and local elections"; the long distance from place of residence to polling stations, "especially over bad roads; polls that are not located conveniently or not on Indian reservations; hostility among election workers and public officials; the purging of voter lists; a poor understanding of election laws and procedures; difficulties and resistance when attempting to register to vote; and efforts to dilute the impact of Indian voting."146

McCool's concluding opinion was that while Indians are achieving "remarkable gains" in some places, the "Voting Rights Act, . . . including Sections 5 and 203, has played a pivotal role in providing American Indians with an opportunity to vote and elect candidates of their choice. The impact is enormous."147

“Roberts’ Iffy Support for Voting Rights:” Revisiting My 2005 LA TImes Oped

Posted on November 13, 2012 1:56 pm by Rick Hasen

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision to consider the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act this term, I thought it might be useful to reproduce my August 3, 2005 Los Angeles Times oped, which for some reason is not available on the newspaper’s website. [UPDATE: It looks like it is now availablehere.] It is below.

Roberts’ iffy support for voting rights

By Richard L. Hasen

At the beginning of the 1980s, African American voters made up about one-third of the electorate of Mobile, Ala. Studies showed clearly that these black voters preferred different candidates than white voters, but the nature of the electoral system in the city — in whichcandidates for city commissioner were elected by majority vote throughout the entire city –meant that the candidates backed by blacks were never elected. The two-thirds of the electorate that was white always outvoted the one-third that was black.
African American civil rights organizations sued, claiming that the at-large voting system unconstitutionally “diluted” their votes. But the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, holding that Mobile’s election system did not violate the 14th or 15th Amendments because there was no evidence it had been designed with the intent of discriminating against minority voters. In response, the civil rights community pushed to have Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 amended to allow such a “vote dilution” claim to go forward without proof of discriminatory intent. It would be enough to show that election laws such as Mobile’s had a discriminatory effect.
In the Reagan administration at that time was a 27-year-old lawyer named John Roberts. As a special assistant to Atty. Gen. William French Smith, Roberts was a major force behind the administration’s efforts to oppose the new Section 2, according to newly released papers. He drafted Op-Ed articles, questions and answers for senators and documents aimed at defeating the new Section 2.
In these documents, Roberts wrote that the new Section 2 would “establish a quota system” and “provide a basis for the most intrusive interference imaginable by federal courts into state and local processes.” He added that it “would be difficult to conceive of a more drastic alteration of local government affairs.” Imposing the new Section 2 nationwide, he concluded, would be “not only constitutionally suspect, but also contrary to the most fundamental [tenets] of the legislative process on which the laws of this country are based.”
One could perhaps argue that Roberts’ writings did not reflect his personal views and weresi mply the arguments of a zealous advocate for a client. But the papers I have seen suggest otherwise.
During the Senate debates, for instance, Roberts wrote that the attorney general had to “get something out somewhere soon” [original emphasis] explaining the administration’s position because the “frequent writings in this area by our adversaries have gone unanswered for too long.” He called on the administration to take an “aggressive stance” against the changes to Section 2. When it was over and Section 2 had been amended, Roberts wrote that “we were burned.”
None of these statements absolutely proves that Roberts is hostile to expansive voting rights legislation, but as he wrote in his talking points for the attorney general, circumstantial evidence (rather than a “smoking gun”) should be enough to prove intent.

How many fewer minority legislators would be in office in Congress and in state and local legislatures if Roberts’ position had prevailed in 1982? It is hard to say. But this is not just about the past; Roberts’ view of voting rights may also have an effect on the future. Portions of the act (though not Section 2) are set to expire in 2007, and Congress is expected to reauthorize them in some form. The most important provision up for renewal, Section 5, requires jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination — for instance, many cities and counties in the South — to get “preclearance” from the Department of Justice before making any changes in voting procedures. The Justice Department grants preclearance only when the jurisdiction shows that the changes have neither a discriminatory purpose nor effect.

When Congress reauthorizes Section 5, will the Supreme Court uphold it against charges that it tramples states’ rights? Some worry the court may not.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s votes in these federalism cases have been pivotal, and her vote in 2004 to uphold a provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act had given those in the civil rights community grounds to be optimistic that a renewed Voting Rights Act could pass constitutional muster.
Roberts’ writings, on the other hand, show much more skepticism of congressional power, particularly on voting rights. Because Roberts viewed the “effects” language in Section 2 as an “intrusive interference” that is a “drastic alteration” of American government and “constitutionally suspect,” why would he look charitably on a renewed Section 5?
I would not count on him to uphold it.
Credit: Richard L. Hasen teaches election law at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. The documents he referred to are posted on his website, electionlawblog.org.