(June 26, 2013 at 11:36 am)Minimalist Wrote: Tell me again how wonderful the republicunts are, Cato.
Huge stretch, you know damn well I made no such claim. I even quoted Roberts directly giving tacit agreement to the fact that the discrimination exists.
I didn't read the entire article, but have some observations regarding some of the initial claims.
The author invoked states wanting to implement voter identification requirements to get a ballot as demonstration of violation of the VRA. The established law on this is quite clear which is why even Georgia has a voter ID law in place. States have a legitimate concern that the person casting the ballot is who they say they are, one person one vote. To me this is the only legitimate reason for voter picture identification and something I support. I also agree with the court's previous rulings on this matter relative to the VRA. The first is that there cannot be any undue burden on the voter for acquiring appropriate identification which is why states are obligated to issue a voter ID card if the citizen does not have a driver's license, passport, military ID, etc. The Votor ID must also not have a cost, as the court has rightly interpreted any such fee as a poll tax. My point here is that voter ID laws serve a valid purpose so long as they don't run afoul of the VRA. The precedent is clear and most cases appealed to the Supreme Court by the idiots enacting bad ID legislation have lower court rulings upheld without a hearing.
The author also gives an example of Florida wanting to arbitrarily change early voting hours. The reason is obvious, and is the same reason why the Supreme Court stomped Ohio's dick for the same violation during last year's election. Ohio is not a preclearance state. The Supreme Court also swatted Pennsylvania last year (I can't recall the specific violation), again not a preclearance state.
Gerrymandering. Necessary evil and why the state legislature swing in 2010 was critical. There was a study conducted looking at the number of seats that swung due to gerrymandering. Democratic controlled redistricting resulted in two additional seats, nonpartisan redistricting resulted in 4 additional Democrat seats, and Republican controlled redisctricing resulted in 13 additional seats. This can be used as a clear indication of which party is more nefarious than the other. Something that isn't as obvious is the Democrats picking up 4 seats when the redistricting is nonpartisan. As a generalization, I can conclude that the populace as a whole shifted Democrat, not just a party motivated attempt to make sure the votes are in the right place.
