It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The 5-4 ruling rewrites a key tool of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which for five decades has given the federal government unprecedented say in everything from how some states draw their congressional maps to where they place polling locations.
But the justices said after five decades, the law has had a dramatic effect in ending discrimination in voting, and said Congress must now come up with new ways of deciding who still needs federal oversight.
Beneath the legal ruling is a broader social statement, with the justices saying that a state cannot be perpetually held responsible for past discrimination if there’s no evidence that it still exists.
The ruling leaves in place many of the protections of the 1965 law, such as banning literacy tests. But it said the federal government can no longer treat some jurisdictions differently because of discrimination that may have ended decades ago.
“If Congress had started from scratch in 2006, it plainly could not have enacted the present cover- age formula. It would have been irrational for Congress to distinguish between states in such a fundamental way based on 40-year-old data, when today’s statistics tell an entirely different story,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.
Originally posted by neo96
Well that was a load of crap so how about some facts?
The 5-4 ruling rewrites a key tool of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which for five decades has given the federal government unprecedented say in everything from how some states draw their congressional maps to where they place polling locations.
But the justices said after five decades, the law has had a dramatic effect in ending discrimination in voting, and said Congress must now come up with new ways of deciding who still needs federal oversight.
Beneath the legal ruling is a broader social statement, with the justices saying that a state cannot be perpetually held responsible for past discrimination if there’s no evidence that it still exists.
Read the rest:
Source
There was nothing 'racist' about that decision.
Originally posted by Metallicus
reply to post by jimmyx
Do you have any actual evidence to support your rant or are you just playing Chicken Little?
The act was outdated and used outdated data.edit on 2013/6/25 by Metallicus because: ETA
Originally posted by madmac5150
It is about damned time that antiquated laws like this get dumped. And why is it, that anytime a bill is passed that attempts to verify that an individual is a legal voter, the liberals throw a fit? I guess if laws like that are passed, the illegals can't vote and the dems lose out...
Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by jimmyx
When I go to the voting booth in Texas I have to produce either my voter's registration card or my state issued ID either of which is verified by scanner to prove that I am a registered voter. At the pooling place there are always people of all races, but no matter what if you cannot prove you are a registered voter you are not allowed to cast your ballot. As registering to vote is FREE any legal citizen over the age of 18 may do so without cost. There are shuttle services available to those who do not have transportation. What exactly is racist about that?
Originally posted by jimmyx
Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by jimmyx
When I go to the voting booth in Texas I have to produce either my voter's registration card or my state issued ID either of which is verified by scanner to prove that I am a registered voter. At the pooling place there are always people of all races, but no matter what if you cannot prove you are a registered voter you are not allowed to cast your ballot. As registering to vote is FREE any legal citizen over the age of 18 may do so without cost. There are shuttle services available to those who do not have transportation. What exactly is racist about that?
did you have to wait 8 hours in line because of too few voting machines?....guess what...in predominately minority polling districts...they did....I know...I think in 2014 in every heavily republican white voting district, they only allow 3 voting machines for every 100,000 voters....maybe you should get a TASTE of PATRIOTIC AMERICAN DEMOCRACY!!!!
Originally posted by caterpillage
Strict voter ID laws sound like a winner to me.
The cries of racism loose their strength more and more, soon maybe those that keep racism alive for political gain will die out and we can move forward as one.
Originally posted by madmac5150
I guess the Black Panthers were committed elsewhere that day... they could have brought their ball bats...
black panthers??... really?.... a defunct group from 50 years ago?....
Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by jimmyx
black panthers??... really?.... a defunct group from 50 years ago?....
Don't you watch the news? This last presidential election the new Black Panthers were bringing in people by the bus loads in Houston, which is good- but then they started shoving people out of the way and assaulting folks to push the people they brought to the front of the line....a good many of which weren't even registered to vote. They were threatening people and acting ugly and the police had to be called to get them to stop.
Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by jimmyx
black panthers??... really?.... a defunct group from 50 years ago?....
Don't you watch the news? This last presidential election the new Black Panthers were bringing in people by the bus loads in Houston, which is good- but then they started shoving people out of the way and assaulting folks to push the people they brought to the front of the line....a good many of which weren't even registered to vote. They were threatening people and acting ugly and the police had to be called to get them to stop.