SCOTUS to take a fresh look at the VRA

posted at 12:31 pm on November 11, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

On Friday, which turned out to be a rather busy news day indeed, the Supreme Court announced that they have agreed to hear yet another high profile case which could determine the future of a key section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The case deals with Section 5 of the law, which requires specific (mostly Southern) state and local governments to obtain “preclearance” from the federal government before making any changes to voting laws.

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would take a fresh look at the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the signature legacies of the civil rights movement.

Three years ago, the court signaled that part of the law may no longer be needed, and the law’s challengers said the re-election of the nation’s first black president is proof that the nation has moved beyond the racial divisions that gave rise to efforts to protect the integrity of elections in the South.

The law “is stuck in a Jim Crow-era time warp,” said Edward P. Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, a small legal foundation that helped organize the suit.

Civil rights leaders, on the other hand, pointed to the role the law played in the recent election, with courts relying on it to block voter identification requirements and cutbacks on early voting.

Section 5 – along with much of the act itself – is just one of those pieces of legislation which has always been at the center of controversy. Its goal was clear and easy to support, given the undeniable history of certain elected officials passing laws intended to keep black voters from the polls. But at the same time, the Act carried with it disturbing aspects from a constitutional perspective. One of the largest was the way that it imposed oversight requirements on certain states and municipalities but not others, dealing with one of the most fundamental rights of Americans. The argument has been made that if you are to require one state to obtain preclearance before altering their election laws, then you should require them all to do so. And that’s an idea which nobody seemed interested in.

Among those who don’t wish to see this review, a chief complaint appears to be that it would gut the Voting Rights Act and set back equal rights by half a century. Doug Mataconis, an attorney who has been digging into this question, disagrees.

Even if the Court rules in favor of Shelby County in this case later this year, that doesn’t mean that the Voting Rights Act is “obsolete.” For one thing, the other enforcement provisions in the law remain in full force in effect. Their Constitutionality was upheld in 1965 and has never been seriously challenged, even the majority in the Utility District case, as well as Justice Thomas in his Dissent, accept the overall Constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act. The question that the Court will be dealing with is whether the re authorization of Section 5 for another 25 years in 2006, based at it is on data that was 40 years old at the time, was a proper exercise of Congressional authority under the 15th Amendment. Even if the Court were to strike the re-authorization down, Congress would still be able to go back and re-authorize a new version of the law based on newer, more current and more relevant data if it wanted to. So, the doom and gloom that Serwer is preaching here is more than just a bit exaggerated.

The other aspect of the Voting Rights Act which probably should be under review, but won’t be, is the question of who it continues to apply to. (Or, in the opinion of some, who it should apply to.) Some of the states still under these restrictions have clearly established a lasting record of equitable treatment in their voting laws and deserve a fresh look based on their current record. And, playing devil’s advocate for a moment, opponents still claim that some states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania are trying to use changes in voting laws in ways which should fall under federal scrutiny. Either way, don’t expect these questions to be entirely resolved when the high court rules on this one narrow section under review.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Determining voting districts based on race quotas, I can’t see what’s unConsititutional about that. /s

LoganSix on November 11, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Sins of our fathers.

iurockhead on November 11, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Too bad they aren’t dealing with voter ID? Or have they already?
L

letget on November 11, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Civil rights leaders, on the other hand, pointed to the role the law played in the recent election, with courts relying on it to block voter identification requirements and cutbacks on early voting.

Except the state supreme court in PA, which is not covered by Section V, suspended the ID requirements in the PA law for election day voting.

Red herring argument, there, “civil rights leaders.”

Wethal on November 11, 2012 at 12:39 PM

I think we’ll see voting requirements for people of non-color in the future when this VRA change goes through.

People of non-color will have to answer a five simple questions before being considered eligible to vote.

1) Ludwig Wittgenstein was the father of what modern trend in Philosophy?

2) Define the general implications of “c” in “E=mc2″.

3) Heraclitus’ expression “Panta Rhei” means what in plain English?

4) Give the exact figure for the melting point of lead on the Centigrade scale?

5) George Washington owned how many slaves during his lifetime?

That’ll level the playing field.

profitsbeard on November 11, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Too bad they aren’t dealing with voter ID? Or have they already?
L

letget on November 11, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Already upheld a voter ID law (IN, IIRC), so the general principle is constitutional.

The difficulty in all voters ahving an ID, including non-drivers, and the poor, is the only area in which states must be careful.

Wethal on November 11, 2012 at 12:44 PM

But does the VRA address issues like these?

http://www.punditpress.com/2012/11/what-luck-obama-won-dozens-of-cleveland.html?spref=tw

http://www.punditpress.com/2012/11/breaking-st-lucie-county-florida-had.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4aKOhbbK9E

Don’t count on the DOJ to investigate, but hopefully some states will.

iurockhead on November 11, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Since it’s post Roberts coming out of his leftard closet, don’t expect much.

Blake on November 11, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Whats with the early voting crap?

Wade on November 11, 2012 at 12:47 PM

That’ll level the playing field.

profitsbeard on November 11, 2012 at 12:42 PM

One of my history professors in college worked in civil rights in the 1960s. He once said the LA “literacy” test was a 100-quesiton exam on the LA constitution, which was a Byzantine mess of Spanish and French civil law.

Perhaps the Internal Revenue Code would suffice now :)

Wethal on November 11, 2012 at 12:47 PM

The difficulty in all voters ahving an ID, including non-drivers, and the poor, is the only area in which states must be careful.

Wethal on November 11, 2012 at 12:44 PM

So start making them available now for the next election.

No more excuses.

iurockhead on November 11, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Roberts will find some way to botch this one up as well. Count on it!

pilamaye on November 11, 2012 at 12:48 PM

The case deals with Section 5 of the law, which requires specific (mostly Southern) state and local governments to obtain “preclearance” from the federal government before making any changes to voting laws.

Don’t worry, it’s totally constitutional–after all, the burden on those local/state governments is really just a tax, and therefore totally acceptable.
/

Mr. Prodigy on November 11, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Chief Justice Roberts will do as he is told by Obama and the Justice Department. We saw that in the Obamacare decision.

The tool of that section of the VRA is too important to their efforts to prevent Voter ID. Voter ID would cut into Democrat vote fraud, and therefore even if we to go Potempkin elections in the future, would put the Left at risk. Section 5 also allows the Left to continue to punish the South for the Civil War and slavery, which is ironic. Because the Confederate government was made of former Democrats, and those fighting civil rights for Blacks in the South were Democrats [yeah, Lefties, look it up].

There is a saying that the Supreme Court does follow the election returns. And Leftists always support Democrats. With Roberts in Obama’s pocket too, he already has a tame Supreme Court. In any case, the Supreme Court will uphold Section 5, and actually may well extend it to all states in the name of “equal protection under the law”. That way, all elections fall under the control of the party that holds the presidency.

Subotai Bahadur

Subotai Bahadur on November 11, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Too bad they aren’t dealing with voter ID? Or have they already?
L

letget on November 11, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Already upheld a voter ID law (IN, IIRC), so the general principle is constitutional.

The difficulty in all voters having an ID, including non-drivers, and the poor, is the only area in which states must be careful.

Wethal on November 11, 2012 at 12:44 PM

If the correct people install, maintain, and collect votes from the electronic voting machines, none of this matters.

slickwillie2001 on November 11, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Whats with the early voting crap?

Wade on November 11, 2012 at 12:47 PM

OH (which I don’t think is covered by Section 5, was going to suspend early voting the weekend before the election, but still allow the military to vote then. A lawsuit got early voting extended to everyone. Black churchs had a “souls to polls” bus service planned.

Wethal on November 11, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Wethal on November 11, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Thanks for your information. I have let my drivers license expire, don’t drive any longer health issues, but have other ID. As for the poor, don’t they have to have ID for all the ‘free stuff’ they get? Even the illegal aliens get ‘free stuff’ aslo, don’t they have to have some ID?
L

letget on November 11, 2012 at 12:54 PM

… the Supreme Court will uphold Section 5, and actually may well extend it to all states in the name of “equal protection under the law”. That way, all elections fall under the control of the party that holds the presidency.

Subotai Bahadur

Subotai Bahadur on November 11, 2012 at 12:49 PM

But the SCOTUS has already upheld voter ID in Indiana. So wouldn’t “equal protection” suggest it should be upheld in other states, if they apply the same conditions as those in Indiana?

iurockhead on November 11, 2012 at 12:54 PM

If the correct people install, maintain, and collect votes from the electronic voting machines, none of this matters.

slickwillie2001 on November 11, 2012 at 12:50 PM

True. Voter ID doesn’s matter if GOP poll watchers are thrown out and have to go to court for several hours to get back in. In that time, the votes of all dead, moved, and no-shows are logged in.

“Hey, while you were in court, an amazing number of people showed up, and they all had valid ID. Imagine that.”

Wethal on November 11, 2012 at 12:54 PM

What a joke! These America Hating scumbags have been holding on to this provision, in order to allow “Voter Fraud” and continue the destruction of America! The voter fraud the Democrats have instituted, are destroying all confidence in the system and will bring angry people to the wrong actions in defense of Country!
Fight the Obama Enemy media or Kiss the Constitution Goodbye: http://paratisiusa.blogspot.com/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-those-who-should-know.html?spref=tw

God Bless America!

paratisi on November 11, 2012 at 12:55 PM

How quaint. Venezuela of the north is going to pretend it’s concerned about legal elections. It’s so cute the way we pretend the Constitution is still the law of the land. Bless those little justices hearts.

Rational Thought on November 11, 2012 at 12:56 PM

As for the poor, don’t they have to have ID for all the ‘free stuff’ they get? Even the illegal aliens get ‘free stuff’ aslo, don’t they have to have some ID?
L

letget on November 11, 2012 at 12:54 PM

I have always wondered how poor people can apply for welfare, food stamps or public housing without ID.

Illegals can ge fake licenses on-line, and CA may now give them valid licenses. Once you have a valid license in one state, you can go to another, and usually get a new valid license.

Wethal on November 11, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Rest assured whatever they do it will favor the left and it’s shenanigans. That’s what we’ve all come to expect and that’s what we will get.

rplat on November 11, 2012 at 12:59 PM

This is like being on the Titanic and the captain is convinced it’s gonna float.

Starlink on November 11, 2012 at 12:07 PM

First Constitutional test:

“Has the federal government, through the VRA, created unequal treatment of voting rights between the several states?”

Answer: “Yes”

It must be struck down.

BobMbx on November 11, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Slightly OT, but I thought I would pass this along to everyone on HotAir who wants to go John Galt: there is a doable way to accomplish that by getting residency in Puerto Rico. Since we’re NOT a territory as many people in the USA think but actually a freely associated STATE, we run our own tax code and there is no Federal tax here – taxes are owed to the local government (except for FICA). But Puerto Rico does not tax foreign income. And as a resident of Puerto Rico, you are exempt from paying foreign income back to the U.S. Treasury as you would if you were a citizen working elsewhere. A normal citizen who moves to, say, France from the U.S. has to remit taxes back home – but if the same person becomes a resident of Puerto Rico, there is no need to do that anymore. It’s a nice loophole, and I am astonished most people have never heard of it. As a U.S. citizen, you have every right to come here, buy property, and be a resident. So you come here, get a small residence, then go work somewhere else. You will not owe a dime to the U.S. Treasury, nor to the Puerto Rico Hacienda either. And it’s all 100% legal and above board. Maybe PR is Galt’s Gulch?

JoseQuinones on November 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM

But the SCOTUS has already upheld voter ID in Indiana. So wouldn’t “equal protection” suggest it should be upheld in other states, if they apply the same conditions as those in Indiana?

iurockhead on November 11, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Little noticed to citizenry, the definition of “equal” has been changed.

We’re now playing under a “handicap” system, much like golf.

BobMbx on November 11, 2012 at 1:03 PM

JoseQuinones on November 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Dang, don’t let bho/team get wind of this, NO telling what their evil minds will come up with to stop what you posted?
L

letget on November 11, 2012 at 1:05 PM

always the glass half-full type…how does the Obamacare mandate (where everybody has to prove he/she/it has coverage) play into the “disenfranchising” argument? seems to me that a database will be required which could also serve as voter verification (I know I know…”that’s different”…sigh).

teejk on November 11, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Won’t it be cute watching the high court discuss this, all serious and academic? Like it will matter. Like the things they say or do will be followed as the law of the land. Bless their hearts. Do you think that they, with their degrees and their learnedness, actually still believe that they, and the US Constitution, have any relevancy at all? That is so cute. They are just darling.

Rational Thought on November 11, 2012 at 1:07 PM

we just had an election where a POTUS was elected with 80% of the non-white vote, and only 40% of the white vote

All arguments in defense of the continued need for the VRA as horseshit

Let’s just gut the VRA for once and for all

We deserve payback from Roberts after f-ing us over with Obamacare

Time to level the playing field a little before Obozo gets his 3 SCOTUS appointments and the Court is a permanent leftist institution

thurman on November 11, 2012 at 1:10 PM

So start making them available now for the next election.

No more excuses.

iurockhead on November 11, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Oh, they will, but as I noted above, the Dems will throw GOP pollwatchers out (it happens every time, but not on the broad scale as this time), and once the GOP comes back with court orders, the Dem votes will have been racked up on the machines.

No one is required to keep any info on the IDs, just check off that one was shown.

Wethal on November 11, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Let’s just gut the VRA for once and for all

thurman on November 11, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Raaaaaacist.

Wethal on November 11, 2012 at 1:13 PM

“Has the federal government, through the VRA, created unequal treatment of voting rights between the several states?”

Answer: “Yes”

It must be struck down.

BobMbx on November 11, 2012 at 1:00 PM

It likely will. the last time they looked at Section 5, they broadly hinted that the Congress should just repeal this part of the VRA. (SCOTUS first defers to the legislative branch for the institution for changing laws). Congress did not take the hint.

Wethal on November 11, 2012 at 1:17 PM

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem”.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on November 11, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Won’t it be cute watching the high court discuss this, all serious and academic?

Rational Thought on November 11, 2012 at 1:07 PM

It doesn’t matter.

Let.It.Burn.

#Revenge

JPeterman on November 11, 2012 at 1:17 PM

SCOTUS probably ignored the 23 wards that voted 99% in Philly for Obama and the 141% that voted against Allen West in Florida. Our Supreme Court will be liberal within the next four years, it’s bad now, can you imagine it getting worse?

mixplix on November 11, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Prediction – Roberts and his fellow Lawgivers-In-Black unilaterally extend the VRA “Southern states” requirements to all states.

Steve Eggleston on November 11, 2012 at 1:17 PM

It doesn’t matter.

Let.It.Burn.

#Revenge

JPeterman on November 11, 2012 at 1:17 PM

No, it doesn’t matter. And it will burn. Eventually. But we’ll have to endure lots more of this quaint, anachronistic pretending that we are still a nation of laws. It’ll be so adorable to watch that. The Supreme Court. I actually laugh a little when I say that now, so adorable they are, imagining that what they say has meaning.

Rational Thought on November 11, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Civil rights leaders, on the other hand, pointed to the role the law played in the recent election, with courts relying on it to block voter identification requirements and cutbacks on early voting.

Well there you go right there. It’s so nice seeing those “Civil Rights” leaders being so concerned about making sure that the democrats can continue to perpetuate vote fraud. Voter ID doesn’t solve all vote fraud, but it is apparently sufficiently important that the “Civil Rights” groups are willing to go to the mat to ensure that no voter ID will interfere with the democrat fraud machine.

Oh, when JustMakingUpTheFactsJack was in here yesterday stinking up the joint, it asserted that “Florida has voter ID” so the assertion that photo ID will stop fraud was silly or that Florida couldn’t be tainted by fraud because of the ID requirement (not sure which assertion). Well, looking at the laws, yes, Florida has an ID law, but it is another one of those weak ID laws. The following are accepted as valid forms of voter ID, I’ve highlighted the ones that require minimal effort to forge:
Florida driver’s license
Florida ID card issued by the Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles
U.S. passport, Debit or credit card (not easily forged, but certainly readily obtainable by an illegal alien), Military identification, Student identification, Retirement center identification, Neighborhood association ID (Really?), Public assistance identification (don’t know, can illegals get one of these?)

So, once again, whenever one of the resident trolls asserts something as fact, make sure you do a deep dive.

I was surprised to find that Arizona does not have a strong voter ID law; I thought photo ID was required, turns out that you can vote with any two of the following (easily faked ones highlighted):
Utility bill of the elector that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election (A utility bill may be for electric, gas, water, solid waste, sewer, telephone, cellular phone, or cable television), Bank or credit union statement that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election, Valid Arizona Vehicle Registration, Indian census card, Property tax statement of the elector’s residence, Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification,
Arizona vehicle insurance card (does nothing to stop the illegal alien vote), Recorder’s Certificate, Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification, including a voter registration card issued by the County Recorder, Any mailing to the elector marked “Official Election Material”. In AZ the registration card is a simple postcard on pasteboard with no specific indicators that I am aware of as having come from the county registrar rather than Office Depot or OfficeMax. Just two non-photo items from the list are all that are needed to vote.

AZfederalist on November 11, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Wethal on November 11, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Thanks for your information. I have let my drivers license expire, don’t drive any longer health issues, but have other ID. As for the poor, don’t they have to have ID for all the ‘free stuff’ they get? Even the illegal aliens get ‘free stuff’ aslo, don’t they have to have some ID?
L

letget on November 11, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Or even easier questuon, don’t the poor buy booze, what ID do they show when they buy alcoholic beverages? This thing with the poor who don’t have IDs, it’s quasi impossible that someone over 18 in this country has never been required to show a govt issued ID at one time or another. How do they use a doctor ‘s office, or even the ER, what do they show when they enter a bar/ pub and are required to identify themselves? When they apply for welfare benefits, what ID do they show to prove they are who they say they are.. When they get hired anywhere, the HR office will ask for a form of ID (sometimes just the SSN). the sad part though is that you can steal elections, even with voter IDs in place, most of the former Soviet countries had ID requirements for voting, yet they stole the elections all the time, and in recent times think Putin and Chavez. In certain areas Putin got 150% of the vote (kinda like Barry here), I mean they went a little over the top with fabricating votes, just to b on the safe side :)

jimver on November 11, 2012 at 1:42 PM

In certain areas Putin got 150% of the vote (kinda like Barry here), I mean they went a little over the top with fabricating votes, just to b on the safe side :)

jimver on November 11, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Guess Barry’s not satisfied with us being like Europe, we now need to be like Russia as well.

So, any sane people here have an answer to the assertion that in St. Lucy county, they were counting voter cards and each voter got two cards (which should have come out to 200% rather than 140%)? Not looking for inputs from the trolls because democrats lie, so they can’t be trusted.

AZfederalist on November 11, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Quick!..appoint 2-3 more Obamatrons to life time positions!
That’ll help!

Mimzey on November 11, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Time to level the playing field a little before Obozo gets his 3 SCOTUS appointments and the Court is a permanent leftist institution

thurman on November 11, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Once that happens, watch how “concerned” the court will be with maintaining the tradition of stare decisis. Whole lot o’ old law gonna get reviewed…

bofh on November 11, 2012 at 1:53 PM

jimver on November 11, 2012 at 1:42 PM

I find it strange that eh same party which is supported down the line by poor urban blacks and the very poorest city dwelling whites can ignore many issues including gunfight slaughters in major urban areas like that in Chicago.

Now we have kids missing too much school from the earliest grades in Chicago.

In addition to education and economic woes, we have teen pregnancy, a general family malaise with young men and women dead in the street to cap it all off.

The same party can’t wait to pick up the colors of the crowd without photo ID or the energy to get some. Even with some chilling effect, how many could there be?

There are hundreds of thousands dying or facing a life of poverty from those other issues.

Could they be worried about millions of fraudulent voters?

IlikedAUH2O on November 11, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Look for fake sexual harassment claims and alleged cheating scandals to embroil SCOTUS, as a way of early retirement of conservative justices.

faraway on November 11, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Toss the whole commie cr@p legislation.

Paint yourself black, speak Ebonics and see if you don’t get to vote.
Heck you’ll probably get two or three ballots in some areas.

Better yet, walk in with a child and claim he’e thirty and wants to vote. Let them tell you no. Tell them to prove that he’s not thirty.

We need national voter ID laws as well as state-level voter ID laws.
Otherwise the GiveMeFreeSh*t crowd will just keep walking away with elections.

The next time some charity calls for money tell them to get it from the gubmint and the GiveMeFreeSh*t crowd.

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!

Quit running RINOS!
Quit running Romneycare vs. Obamacare.
First purge the GOP of RINOs.
Run conservatives!
During WWII the Brits were preparing to fight “Jerry” in the streets of London.
They sank the French fleet days after they fought alongside them to keep those ships out of Hitler’s hands.
We need to practice politics like this.

Bubba Redneck on November 11, 2012 at 2:05 PM

The difficulty in all voters ahving an ID, including non-drivers, and the poor, is the only area in which states must be careful.

Wethal on November 11, 2012 at 12:44 PM

You’re saying that none of the poor smoke nor drink? Or bank? Or cash their checks somehow?

This argument is so tired by now. 100% not true. EVERYONE has a picture ID of some sort.

I left my “picture ID” at home, while just walking around in a mall we stopped by at Verizon store a few weeks back. When approached by a sales rep told him we’re just looking at phones and thinking of upgrading, he then spent an hour going through models and a deal to make this happen that day, all this with his store manager in it. Asked me for my acct, accessed it via Verizon system, this included not only my Verizon login id and password, but last 4 of my Social Security. We then decided to take the deal he offered and guess what, even after all of that I was asked for a picture ID to finish the deal. All this after THEY instigated the conversation and me giving them all the info required to access my account. We’re talking Verizon, not voting here.

This picture ID BS is way beyond laughable by now in this age, only illegals, and only some of the illegals do not have a picture ID today.

Time to retire this argument.

riddick on November 11, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Paint yourself black, speak Ebonics and see if you don’t get to vote.
Heck you’ll probably get two or three ballots in some areas.

Bubba Redneck on November 11, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Nah, stay white if you want to,no need for body paint if you want to vote multiple times.

A friend was on his way to hunting in AZ, via Las Vegas, on election day. As we picked him up and drive around town I pointed out car after car with CA license plates, at least as many as we usually see here on weekends. I knew that CA crowd votes at home and then drives here to vote yet again, similar to how many in NY area vote at home and then at their or relatives’ houses in FL. He said “No way this happens.”

Well, after they announced more people in NV voting, BY FAR IN HISTORY, this is no longer in doubt.

And media are still trying to convince us that the turnout was “less than in 2008″. Right. It all depends on who counts the votes.

riddick on November 11, 2012 at 2:20 PM

In certain areas Putin got 150% of the vote (kinda like Barry here), I mean they went a little over the top with fabricating votes, just to b on the safe side :)

jimver on November 11, 2012 at 1:42 PM

They OPENLY brought in boxes of “votes” to a good number of precincts. They OPENLY destroyed boxes of votes.

What we saw here last week was nothing but a copy of what happened in Russia earlier this year. Putin got less than 30% of the vote, but numbers reported indicated that not only absolutely every man, woman and child voted for him, but 24% more than actual ENTIRE population of Russia. Never mind other candidates having votes to their names.

As can be seen in Phillie and I am sure in OH and FL, at the least, this was similar Yellow Book election here last week, they pre-filled the votes weeks prior to election and slipped them in. While then systematically deleting/destroying R votes in the process. Hussein and Co. keep copying Soviet methods with wild success rate, at an ever increasing rate.

Too bad that GOP is fine with all of this. I can see this crap happening from now on in our elections now that this massive fraud was proven a success.

riddick on November 11, 2012 at 2:29 PM

I find it strange that eh same party which is supported down the line by poor urban blacks and the very poorest city dwelling whites can ignore many issues including gunfight slaughters in major urban areas like that in Chicago.

IlikedAUH2O on November 11, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Why? Its the same group that created Planned Parenthood to control black population growth, from their point of view the more blacks die in Chicago ghettos (and elsewhere) the better.

You’re looking at it wrong. As do blacks.

riddick on November 11, 2012 at 2:32 PM

I’m wondering…

… when it all comes burning down, do the Supremes think their robes are fire proof?

/

Seven Percent Solution on November 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM

But the SCOTUS has already upheld voter ID in Indiana. So wouldn’t “equal protection” suggest it should be upheld in other states, if they apply the same conditions as those in Indiana?

iurockhead on November 11, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Voter ID is only part of the powers of Section 5, so they would not have qualms about extending Section 5, and just saying that such is necessary to make things “equal”. And I could easily see the court reversing itself on voter ID now that it is Leftist and saying the states that already have voter ID have to justify it before the Justice Department to make sure things are equal. And after all, this is the Supreme Court. You expect consistency, legality, or constitutionality out of them?

It likely will. the last time they looked at Section 5, they broadly hinted that the Congress should just repeal this part of the VRA. (SCOTUS first defers to the legislative branch for the institution for changing laws). Congress did not take the hint.

Wethal on November 11, 2012 at 1:17 PM

In Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193, 129 S.Ct. 2504 (2009) the Court, with the opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, explicitly said that it decided on statutory and not constitutional grounds. He wrote that while it was theoretically possible that conditions could change in the country enough to warrant a constitutional challenge, that they would not do so and would defer to the Legislative branch. That is a very weak reed to lean on. The VRA was last renewed, for 25 years, by Congress in 2006.

Congress literally cannot overturn Section 5 since the Northwest Austin decision, because the Democrat Senate has literally refused to bring anything wanted by the Republicans up for a vote. Including budgets, taking the “power of the purse” away from the Legislative Branch and giving it to the Executive.

Thus, Congress’ last word is that it is renewed until at least 2031. Roberts was only theoretically discussing overturning Section 5 and concluded against doing so. Since then, he has been placed in Obama’s pocket, and created the doctrine that the Federal government could violate the Constitution at will so long as they did so in the guise of a tax.

Do not look to the Courts to enforce the law or Constitution against the almighty State, but only against the people.

Subotai Bahadur on November 11, 2012 at 2:50 PM

True. Voter ID doesn’s matter if GOP poll watchers are thrown out and have to go to court for several hours to get back in. In that time, the votes of all dead, moved, and no-shows are logged in.

“Hey, while you were in court, an amazing number of people showed up, and they all had valid ID. Imagine that.”

Wethal on November 11, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Exactly. While you were gone, we had 100% turnout. And they all voted for Obama. Nothing to see here. Move along.

talkingpoints on November 11, 2012 at 2:57 PM

It’s obvious that the Chicago Thugs have gotten to certain “conservative” judges. Expect NO good news from this court – ever again.

stenwin77 on November 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM

riddick on November 11, 2012 at 2:14 PM

That was the argument in PA, that these poor people didn’t have IDs, or money to order birth certificates to get IDs, or couldn’t get them in time…..

To get into a Philly courthouse (state or federal), you need an ID.

Wethal on November 11, 2012 at 3:26 PM

test

Harbingeing on November 11, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Subotai Bahadur on November 11, 2012 at 2:50 PM

True, although Shelby County may e able to show that conditions have changed so much in their county that Section 5 no longer applies.

The Court could still put the burden on DOJ to show that there were certain backward, raaacist counties that still needed supervision and send it back. Of course, there would have to be a cleary enunciated standard for what is still “backward.”

Wethal on November 11, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Who knows how Roberts will rule, after Obamacare.

He is on record as saying the way to stop discriminating by race is to stop discriminating by race.

Whether they’ll flat out overrule O’connor’s fairly recent precedents of Grutter and Gratz on AA is questionable.

Wethal on November 11, 2012 at 3:38 PM

I’m wondering…

… when it all comes burning down, do the Supremes think their robes are fire proof?

/

Seven Percent Solution on November 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM

No, they’ll be whisked to the airport to board “Justice 1″ and fly off to France for asylum.

BobMbx on November 11, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Either way, don’t expect these questions to be entirely resolved when the high court rules on this one narrow section under review.

But DO expect the corrupt, race-baiting Left to hyperventilate and accuse whitey of “disenfranchising”!

KS Rex on November 11, 2012 at 4:57 PM

1) Ludwig Wittgenstein was the father of what modern trend in Philosophy?

Bullshit

2) Define the general implications of “c” in “E=mc2″.

With the imposition of a carbon tax, the equation will need updating…”E=mc”.

3) Heraclitus’ expression “Panta Rhei” means what in plain English?

Rihanna is hot

4) Give the exact figure for the melting point of lead on the Centigrade scale?

Lead is outlawed, so what do I care?

5) George Washington owned how many slaves during his lifetime?

The fact he owned any at all tells you all you need to know about white people.

BobMbx on November 11, 2012 at 4:58 PM

How quaint. Venezuela of the north is going to pretend it’s concerned about legal elections. It’s so cute the way we pretend the Constitution is still the law of the land. Bless those little justices hearts.

Rational Thought on November 11, 2012 at 12:56 PM

…amen!

KOOLAID2 on November 11, 2012 at 5:20 PM

I always get a sad chuckle out of people who claim this is a “free country” and the best place to live in the world. The truth is that the US government is the most effective propaganda machine ever created. I guess if one good thing has come out of this election it is how many eyes have been opened to the truth.

woodNfish on November 11, 2012 at 5:48 PM

How quaint. Venezuela of the north is going to pretend it’s concerned about legal elections. It’s so cute the way we pretend the Constitution is still the law of the land. Bless those little justices hearts.

Rational Thought on November 11, 2012 at 12:56 PM

+1000

All your votes were meaningless. The election was rigged.

Sorry, veterans. Your efforts were wasted.

The Rogue Tomato on November 11, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Frankly, if you do not own property you should not be allowed to vote on any issue relating to property taxes. If you are on welfare you should not be allowed to vote at all. If you cannot read the ballot in english then you cannot vote in any election. These requirements need to be put into the US Constitution.

Bubba Redneck on November 11, 2012 at 6:13 PM

To get into a Philly courthouse (state or federal), you need an ID.

Wethal on November 11, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Unless escorted by the police and wearing something brightly orange.
Probably voted that way as well.

Bubba Redneck on November 11, 2012 at 6:16 PM

The VRA is unconstitutional on its face. The Constitution states that FedGov shall guarantee republican Government to the states. If a state has to get approval for voting law changes, then the FedGov is preventing republican government at the state level. This isn’t even close to being hard. If SCOTUS is not lawless, and I think they are, they will throw out the VRA.

Quartermaster on November 11, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Question: What race was most important to Democrat voters in this election? Local? State? National such as POTUS? Ballot initiatives?

Young woman explains what is most important to her – in a single word.

opaobie on November 11, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Question: What race was most important to Democrat voters in this election? Local? State? National such as POTUS? Ballot initiatives?

Young woman explains what is most important to her – in a single word.

opaobie on November 11, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Thanks for this. Jimmy Kimmel played it last week but I was not able to find a link for it.

slickwillie2001 on November 12, 2012 at 12:14 AM