You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
If the question is about applying different oversight and regulation to those specific southern states, then the only constitutional answer that stands up is that this language needs to be stripped from the law, that it is unconstitutional because it treats individuals in states A different than individuals in states B based on past discriminatory practices. If you want to end poll taxing and Jim Crow, you end it every time it raises its head. You don’t deny individuals in some states the right to self-determination in their processes but not others. One way around this, which might not be a bad idea for any nation, is to have all election regulations the same throughout the nation. There’s a right way and a wrong way to do things. Leave it to politicians to find the wrong way. So why did the court decline to take the case that would have overturned the citizens united decision? This was a footnote in a story the tribune published yesterday but didn’t even include in its online version.
Yes I agree. I just can't trust the south to do the right thing.
I want to know if this applies to Philadelphia, Chicago and other areas where the Black Panther intimidate people at polls?
"I just can't trust the south to do the right thing" - Maybe it's time for a national voting standard in federal, state, amnd local elections so everyone is on the same playing field. The politicians weren't so busy boosting their parties, maybe we could have some people elected to boost the people like this.
George W Bush said it best, "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — [pauses] — shame on you. Fool me — [pauses] — You can't get fooled again"
Why should the law be different for different states? Well, it's because those states where this law applies spent years circumventing the law in order to prevent non-white people from voting.
And as you can see, the conservatives are again trying to get rid of this portion of the law so that they can again circumvent the law to prevent non-white people from voting because they feel that non-whites tend to vote for democrats.
I suppose in all the hoopla over hanging chads and the supreme court refusing to force Florida to enforce its own law in the 2000 elections we've forgotten that African Americans in some parts of Florida were stopped and harassed on their way to the polls. And that wasn't in the bad old days of the old south. That was just a few years ago in a state that was at the time run by George W. Bush's brother.
Kagan and Santamayor signed a blood oath to support whatever Obama tells them two in exchanbnge for their unwarranted appointment to the court,so their otes are written in stone. the wild card here is actually Roberts. Roberts allowed Obama's takeover of healthcare to be judged Constitutional solely because Robert's feared rioting and civil unrest by obama's supporters if it was struck down. Roberts may in fact support bias against everyone but minorities ( Blacks and Hispanics only) and uphold this discriminatory act in it's entirety. A law that requires minority dominated voting districts is absolutely outrageous.
Isnt this discrimination on everyone in the US? it says theese areas cannot change their own voting laws but other areas done need permission. Seems to me that this isnt equal treatment under the law. This should be overturned since some parts need Fed permission on other parts do not. The law applies to everyone equally.
Anything to stack elections in conservative favor.
Eleanore - Maybe it's time for a national voting standard in federal, state, amnd local elections so everyone is on the same playing field. ---------- We can start with campaign contributions.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks