Anonymous wrote:

2. Massachusetts was a lock for Barack Obama.

Are you saying African Americans don't vote unless Obama needs their vote?

To say that Obama raised the percentage of AA voting in the South in a way that did not occur in Massachusetts is not the same as what you concluded.

2. Massachusetts was a lock for Barack Obama.

Are you saying African Americans don't vote unless Obama needs their vote?

Anonymous wrote:The voting percentage of African Americans voters among the AA population is significantly higher in Southern states than in Massachusetts.

There are actually two problems.

1. The margin of error on the Massachusetts data is almost 12%. They didn't get many people because Massachusetts has so few AA.
2. Massachusetts was a lock for Barack Obama.

What's both hilarious and infuriating to me is how the conservative majority can use the justification that "the times have changed" to overturn the VRA but when it comes to just about everything else from the 2nd amendment to gay marriage they are passionate originalists or strict constructionists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, one would only need to be 66 to have voted pre-VRA (passed in '65, which was 48 years ago, plus 18 years of age to vote). Given that most of the jurisdictions in question have made continued efforts to suppress the votes of people of color, which were fortunately stymied by the preclearance required by VRA, the sins are far less than 48 years old.

You had to be 21 to vote in those days. So, it was 69-not 7-. My bad.

Thanks for the correction. Still... "When Congress last voted to extend it until 2031 — by overwhelming votes of 390-33 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate — it cited about 2,400 proposed voting changes blocked during the previous quarter-century."

Two questions: How can you still consider the sins 40+ years old when there have been almost 100 laws per year attempted and rejected in just the last 25? And how can Scalia rectify his outrage over the DOMA ruling on grounds that it steps over the legislature when he just overturned one of the most widely supported laws in the history of Congress?

Because he's a hypocritical jacka$$...

Anonymous wrote:The voting percentage of African Americans voters among the AA population is significantly higher in Southern states than in Massachusetts.

Yes, BECAUSE of the VRA.

This argument is akin to someone selling their umbrella because, hey, they haven't gotten wet during a rain storm in years.

The voting percentage of African Americans voters among the AA population is significantly higher in Southern states than in Massachusetts.

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, one would only need to be 66 to have voted pre-VRA (passed in '65, which was 48 years ago, plus 18 years of age to vote). Given that most of the jurisdictions in question have made continued efforts to suppress the votes of people of color, which were fortunately stymied by the preclearance required by VRA, the sins are far less than 48 years old.

You had to be 21 to vote in those days. So, it was 69-not 7-. My bad.

Thanks for the correction. Still... "When Congress last voted to extend it until 2031 — by overwhelming votes of 390-33 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate — it cited about 2,400 proposed voting changes blocked during the previous quarter-century."

Two questions: How can you still consider the sins 40+ years old when there have been almost 100 laws per year attempted and rejected in just the last 25? And how can Scalia rectify his outrage over the DOMA ruling on grounds that it steps over the legislature when he just overturned one of the most widely supported laws in the history of Congress?

Actually, one would only need to be 66 to have voted pre-VRA (passed in '65, which was 48 years ago, plus 18 years of age to vote). Given that most of the jurisdictions in question have made continued efforts to suppress the votes of people of color, which were fortunately stymied by the preclearance required by VRA, the sins are far less than 48 years old.

You had to be 21 to vote in those days. So, it was 69-not 7-. My bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Aren't conservatives all about "personal responsibility"? Isn't increased scrutiny one way that a group of people take responsibility for prior bad acts?

You'd have to be over 70 to have been voting before the VRA was passed. Why should all those under 70 have to pay for something that occurred before they were born?

Actually, one would only need to be 66 to have voted pre-VRA (passed in '65, which was 48 years ago, plus 18 years of age to vote). Given that most of the jurisdictions in question have made continued efforts to suppress the votes of people of color, which were fortunately stymied by the preclearance required by VRA, the sins are far less than 48 years old.

Aren't conservatives all about "personal responsibility"? Isn't increased scrutiny one way that a group of people take responsibility for prior bad acts?

You'd have to be over 70 to have been voting before the VRA was passed. Why should all those under 70 have to pay for something that occurred before they were born?

Aren't conservatives all about "personal responsibility"? Isn't increased scrutiny one way that a group of people take responsibility for prior bad acts?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do you really think Maryland's map is fair? Why shouldn't they have to submit their map?

(1) Maryland did not have a history of extreme and persistent voter discrimination against minorities.
(2) The court cannot interfere unless there is such an injustice. The power to draw boundaries was given by the Constitution to the states.

Would you feel that way if Maryland had redistricted to favor Republicans?

No, because that is not the reason the voting rights act was passed. It was not a simple matter of how districts were drawn.

Just remember, the court is supposed to interpret--not make laws.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:Did anyone notice the Voting Rights ruling? Looks to me like the most activist decision since Citizens United. Senate votes 97 to 3 -- Scalia says: What do they know?

What are your thoughts?

I'm a liberal, and I am not entirely against the decision. I get the point, namely that the test for jurisdictions requiring preclearance is set on a benchmark that is decades old. A lot has changed, and how can you not update that?

My fear is that the current Congress is so dysfunctional that they can't address the court's concerns. But I'm not sure that such considerations are SCOTUS' problem. That said, it may become their problem if the legislature does not put up a new formula.

This.

I don't like the decision. But I can accept that perhaps these justices did feel compelled by the law to vote this way. Congress has to do their due diligence and come up with modern, reasonable data. The fact that Congress will be INCAPABLE of doing anything is not the SCOTUS' problem. But the Scotus must know that the defacto impact of this decision will be increased discrimination at the polls and consequently, a change in voting that may impact upcoming elections.

I read an analogy yesterday saying that this ruling is like intentional grounding in football-- Throwing a pass when you know there is no one there to catch it. A penalty, in the NFL!