HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » My problem with Voting Ri...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:15 PM

My problem with Voting Rights act pre-clearance provision

It should apply to all 50 states.

11 replies, 710 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 11 replies Author Time Post
Reply My problem with Voting Rights act pre-clearance provision (Original post)
ashling Feb 2013 OP
LeftInTX Feb 2013 #1
JaneyVee Feb 2013 #2
LeftInTX Feb 2013 #3
JaneyVee Feb 2013 #6
uponit7771 Feb 2013 #7
joeybee12 Feb 2013 #4
ashling Feb 2013 #10
joeybee12 Feb 2013 #11
uponit7771 Feb 2013 #5
Scuba Feb 2013 #8
ellisonz Feb 2013 #9

Response to ashling (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:20 PM

1. I'm upset about what I'm reading about today's case

Ari Berman tweets:
"Voter suppression attempts in last election didn't even come up during SCOTUS arguments about Voting Rights Act".


https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/306820514461138944

In depth analysis about today's case:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9890

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftInTX (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:21 PM

2. Jeez, that is the brunt of the entire argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:24 PM

3. I know..........



Doesn't sound like there was enough evidence/arguments from Voting Rights advocates. I don't know why this was. Very sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftInTX (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:28 PM

6. Probably because they were shot down before election 2012, but that doesn't mean they aren't

AGGRESSIVELY trying to suppress voting for future elections. Which they are, aggressively.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftInTX (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:29 PM

7. what the?! Caging in 2000? hmmmm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:26 PM

4. Doesn't it? If there was a history of discrimination, it applies...

Just happens that the places they found a history of discrimination is down south, but if there's an area elsewhere, wouldn't this apply there as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 05:47 PM

10. A federal court can order it

if there is a show of discrimination

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 06:29 PM

11. Thanks...

Seems like Kennedy wants something more specific in the law, or at least that's what it seems like from what someone posted...he could go either way on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:28 PM

5. AMEN! Not having it as a requirement is avoiding human nature

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:32 PM

8. We sure need it here in Wisconsin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:36 PM

9. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread