The VRA loss is an opportunity.

[Recursion]

For people still smarting about the VRA decision yesterday, this is an opportunity.

As much as I hate to say it, the majority had a point: it's ridiculous that states still had to seek prior approval based on what was happening there in 1965. So Virginia has to submit to Federal scrutiny while Ohio gets a free pass.

We can come up with a much better system, and we need to, but we need a different House than we have now. And the fact that the old provisions were overturned before new ones were enacted means that will be harder to do. But that's why doing it is so important.

[uponit7771]

1. The majority does NOT have a point, Their whole point ignores recent history and it doesn't matter

...when the criteria was made if the logic to uphold it still is true.

[Recursion]

2. No, the VRA ignored "recent history". That's the problem

How is it possibly reasonable for Virginia to have a stronger inspection process than Ohio?

[atreides1]

9. Well

Because Ohio doesn't have the same history as Virginia, the South, and Arizona!

So, with no way for the federal government to insure that the people's right to vote isn't supressed...do you really believe that Republican controlled states are not going to be passing oppressive voter ID laws?

Texas and North Carolina are putting their laws into effect now...but how many election cycles will we have to wait before it becomes obvious that white Republicans have made it next to impossible for minorities and the poor to be able to vote?

[uponit7771]

13. Ohio doesn't HAVE VA's history. That's like saying to job applicants with different histories on the

...job should be seen equal...it shouldn't

[Recursion]

15. VA doesn't have OH's present

That's like saying the guy who's stealing from petty cash today doesn't need to be watched as much as the guy who did years ago.

[uponit7771]

16. That's not what the USSC said, they presented nothing to say Ohio is stealing like VA did

...therefore the rules are being applied unequally ... the five hacks said VA didn't steal today like it stole 40 years ago therefore there's no theft happening.

That is crazy

[LeftInTX]

3. It's a Catch-22

We need a different House, but it ain't gonna happen cuz voter suppression is gonna prevent it

[JustAnotherGen]

25. Plus 10000000

[Starry Messenger]

4. But with VRA overturned, it seems like our job flipping the house just got much much harder.

I don't see how this is a gain for that.

[JustAnotherGen]

7. Starry

You are correct. That's what folks aren't getting.

They aren't flipping the house next year.

They aren't flipping the house because some of these laws went into place immediately yesterday. And without oversight - they can bring back poll taxes, literacy tests, purity tests, etc. etc. They can now do whatever they want.


Which means they can flip the Senate and the White House too. . .


All it takes is Philadelphia and Southern Ohio.

[Starry Messenger]

8. It was already a tough road to get there.

This just kneecapped us. I think of all the people lined up for hours to vote already. Don't people remember 2004? It wasn't that long ago and that was before VRA was overturned. AA voters denied their rights to vote.

This is a gut wound.

[JustAnotherGen]

14. My friend Jill

Voted for the first time in Florida this past election. It took her HOURS. What a difference between voting there and in Central NJ.

And let's not forget how they got away with it in Ohio in 2004. It was deliberate. There is nothing to stop them from doing it again.

[jberryhill]

11. "They can now do whatever they want"

That's not really accurate.

They cannot "do whatever they want". Any unconstitutional voting requirement is subject to being overturned. The difference is that it will have to be challenged upon enactment, instead of being barred from enactment in the first instance.

It's going to soak up a lot of DoJ and other resources to fight these things as one-offs, which provides an opportunity for mischief, but the unqualified assertion "they can now do whatever they want" is not accurate.

[JustAnotherGen]

12. I disagree

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/texas-voter-id-law_n_3497724.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Harsh Texas Voter ID Law 'Immediately' Takes Effect After Voting Rights Act Ruling

WASHINGTON -- Texas will "immediately" enact a voter ID law that a panel of federal judges ruled last year would impose “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor," a top state official said Tuesday. The decision to go forward with a measure that those federal judges called “the most stringent in the country" comes after the Supreme Court ruled that a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional.

“With today’s decision, the State’s voter ID law will take effect immediately," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in a statement. "Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.”

In blocking those redistricting maps last year, a separate panel of federal judges ruled that the government "provided more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space, or need, to address" in their opinion. Attorney General Eric Holder cited the Texas redistricting case in his statement criticizing the Supreme Court's ruling.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed into law the voter ID measure and redistricting maps in question. Abbott took to Twitter to celebrate the death of the Voting Rights Act provision:

Understand - this is not something from long ago. My dad - a Green Beret and Army Captain - could not vote while home on leave in Talladega, Alabama for two weeks in 1964. He'd already been shot twice for this 'Federal Republic'.

That is how bad it can get. It's personal. It's direct flesh and blood.

But keep in mind - you will see if you search my posts/responses - I don't believe that America has ever absolved itself of the stain of Jim Crow. It is our burden. It has permeated everything. Right down to blacks in the eye of Hurricane Katrina being described as refugees.

This to me - was a public shaming.

I truly respect your optimistic view of the country. But I have less faith in my fellow citizens than you do . . . And you have to accept that perception. The one where I thought that sweet pea John Lewis was going to cry last night. That's this Federal Republic. That man's face and voice - that's what American REALLY is when we drop the ball.

And with THIS house - it's not going to happen. I'm sorry - but it's not.

[jberryhill]

30. And the lawsuit was filed yesterday against it

Now, given that it was thrown out when it was pre-emptively challenged, just what do you think is going to be the outcome of the suit filed the day after it was enacted?

[JustAnotherGen]

31. What do you think

Is going to be the outcome?

I'm a cynic.

[jberryhill]

33. If you're a cynic, the outcome won't matter

[JustAnotherGen]

34. But

You I get the feeling you are an expert (perhaps a concentration of study?) on Civil Rights and the personal histories of black Americans so - tell me. What do you think will be the outcome?

[jberryhill]

35. I am not an "expert on Civil Rights and the personal histories of black Americans"

But I am a lawyer, and I can read the court decision from the last time this provision was struck down. Since that case is pending appeal, the VRA decision doesn't matter:

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/06/texas-officials-have-no-legal-authority-to-unilaterally-implement-voter-id-law-supreme-court-scholar-says/

You seem to have gotten the impression that because the preliminary review that was required of certain states was struck down, that it follows "they can do anything". That's not what happened in this decision. It remains illegal to impose certain measures. The difference is that they have to be challenged after they are enacted instead of before. That makes the job more difficult and expensive, but by no means impossible.

It's sort of like saying, "Now that I have a driver's license instead of a learner's permit, I can drive as fast as I want and run red lights." No, it doesn't work that way.

[JustAnotherGen]

36. Then why didn't you say that

Credentials are important to me on certain subjects.

So - that said - do you think we should completely discount Lewis's response to the decision?

Since it's not that big of a deal in the long run? I.E. - Who is going to put him in his place on this?

[jberryhill]

37. Sigh.....

I did not say it was not a "big deal". In fact, if you read what I actually wrote:

"That makes the job more difficult and expensive"

Can I walk up a flight of stairs in my house? Yes.

Can I walk up the flight of stairs in the Washington Monument? Yes.

Is there a substantial difference between those two tasks? Yes.

Now, take a look at Ohio. Ohio was not required to pre-clear their voting procedures with the DoJ. Did that mean Ohio got to do "anything they wanted"? No. But it did take a lot more effort to undo what Ohio was trying to do, than it did to prevent Texas from doing what they wanted to do.

What it means is that some states will find ways to nibble around the edges in order to enact restrictions which are enough to have an impact, but not enough to trigger the expense and difficulty of a court action to stop it. Additionally, they will keep at it like Whack-a-Mole.

But "in the long run" there will be no "majority race" in this country, and certainly not in Texas. That's what the "long run" looks like.

There is a huge difference between your statement to the effect of "they can do whatever they want" and my statement to the effect of "No they can't do whatever they want, but stopping them has become more difficult".

[JustAnotherGen]

39. Thank you for the clarification

The next question - does anyone really trust them to NOT do whatever they like? I don't. I've never seen a Reagan Republican and beyond that had my best interests - hell - ANY - of my interest at heart! I don't trust them. I don't like them. And this was a 'Riley Freeman Quote Towards Santa' on the Republican appointed justices part.

[jberryhill]

40. "does anyone really trust them to NOT do whatever they like"

Sure, they'll try.

But that is no different from anything else. If you are looking for "the ultimate triumph of good over evil", then you have a long wait in store.

With the oversight provisions of the VRA in place, did that stop them from trying? No.

But the post where I came in was where you suggested they could bring back poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. Things like that are easy to get an injunction against.

They will try more subtle things. They will be challenged in court on them. At some point it becomes a question of who has more resources, the Texas AG or the DoJ and other plaintiff organizations.

This decision did not "make legal" any illegal restrictions on voting rights. It made them harder to fight. That's the upshot.

[backwoodsbob]

32. no they cant

this just means they aren't prescrutinized.
If they do something wrong the courts will deal with it

[Solly Mack]

38. +1

[eissa]

5. It's an opportunity in the sense

that voters in states where voter suppression is most likely to occur will hopefully galvanize and make sure their voices are heard on election day.

[atreides1]

10. Hard to Galvanize

Their voices will be heard in the gerrymandered districts that were created just for them...so taking back the House isn't even likely...now if enough are able to vote it may have an affect on the US Senate...but that would be it, at least until enough people move into the districts that were created by Republican legislatures.

[JustAnotherGen]

6. I'm not smarting

I'm diminished in the eyes of the law and less of a human being in America this morning - than I was yesterday. That simple.


Opportunity? We shouldn't have to fight anything again. But that said . . .

It's going to take white democratic voters going to the polls and voting, voting, voting, until there is a Democratic House, Senate, and President again. Until that happens - this is insurmountable.

Texas' laws went into place the minute (to quote John Lewis) that "dagger went into the heart" of the VRA. What else is out there?

And have no fears - this is going to go beyond Voter ID. It's going to get much uglier than that.

We've seen what 'they' are capable of. We know they would love nothing more than to 'look away' if they could.


I trust John Lewis - http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/courts-decision-puts-dagger-in-heart-of-voting-rights-act/

He's the Real Deal. He took a head bashing for me. He's been there and done that.


I trust him and only him on this issue . . .

[Recursion]

18. I think my silver-lining-ism was misleading: the ruling was an absolute disaster

I don't want to give the appearance that I think this was a good decision.

[JustAnotherGen]

23. I never thought you did! :-)

But I think now is a time for a March on Washington.

[Are_grits_groceries]

17. It laid waste to decades of progress.

There will have to be a MAJOR fight all over again for voting rights.
This could take years, and in the meantime, states will restrict voting in any way they can.

They should use a new formula, but instead of leaving rules intact until one can be developed, they have thrown many voters to he wolves.

[Recursion]

19. 100% agree there

They should have said "Congress has until X date to re-write this". But then again the Court can't really mandate Congress do something (Marbury v. Madison)

[AsahinaKimi]

20. As I understand it, it will take an act of Congress

The problem is, we still have to deal with the party of "No". Republicans have tried to prevent or block each bit of legislation that has come though congress, and I think this will be no different. The Racists may have won this, but it isn't over yet.

[Recursion]

21. Basically. The framework of the law remains, but its implementation was undone

The Court said "the VRA has to be nationwide and can't just be about the South".

In principle, I actually agree with that, which was kind of my point.

In practice, this is a very bad decision for us.

[AsahinaKimi]

22. I wonder if this will put into place another MARCH ON WASHINGTON ...

I wouldn't be surprised if plans were already in the works.

[JustAnotherGen]

24. I'm trying to figure that out

Reach out to John Lewis' office today and ask. We've all done it in my circle. Especially if you are not in a Former Clear Cut Jim Crow state - it might warm his heart to know that we've got his back and will be there.

[CreekDog]

26. and in the meantime, everyone can just get screwed

are we even on the same side?

[Recursion]

27. If the backlash gets our turnout up, we can use that

The decision was a disaster, but the framework of the law is still in place. With a better House we can use this as the impetus to rewrite the VRA for the facts of 2013 rather than 1965.

[CreekDog]

28. how many people will be barred from voting?

[Recursion]

29. More than are now, and one is too many (nt)