HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Conservative Group Attemp...

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 06:03 PM

Conservative Group Attempts To Block New Hampshire's Bailout From Voting Rights Act

Source: Huffington Post

Conservative Group Attempts To Block New Hampshire's Bailout From Voting Rights Act
Posted: 01/02/2013 4:59 pm EST | Updated: 01/02/2013 5:10 pm EST

WASHINGTON -- The state of New Hampshire and the Justice Department agree that the state shouldn't have to seek permission from the federal government before making changes to its voting laws. But a conservative group that doesn't think any state should be subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires certain jurisdictions to pre-clear any such changes, is trying to block New Hampshire's so-called bailout, alleging it's all part of a scheme to trick the Supreme Court.

The Center for Individual Rights filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit last month to attempt to block New Hampshire from getting out of Section 5, alleging the 10 New Hampshire towns or townships covered by the provision aren't entitled to a bailout under the law.

Section 5 is one of the toughest weapons the federal government has to fight racially discriminatory voting laws. All or parts of 16 different states with a history of racial discrimination are required to have either the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division or a panel of federal judges in Washington, D.C. sign off before they make any changes to their voting laws.

But with the constitutionality of Section 5 before the Supreme Court this year, the Center for Individual Rights is alleging that DOJ is interpreting the law "very liberally" in an effort to create a "false impression" that it is easy to bail out of the requirement. The federal government will likely argue that Section 5 is constitutional because states with a clean record can get out of it.


Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/new-hampshire-voting-rights-act_n_2397801.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

5 replies, 2025 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 5 replies Author Time Post
Reply Conservative Group Attempts To Block New Hampshire's Bailout From Voting Rights Act (Original post)
Judi Lynn Jan 2013 OP
TxVietVet Jan 2013 #1
reformist2 Jan 2013 #2
starroute Jan 2013 #3
bucolic_frolic Jan 2013 #4
davidpdx Jan 2013 #5

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 06:15 PM

1. The conservanazis just don't give up, do they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 06:34 PM

2. I'd argue that *more* states need to be put on probation, not fewer.


Far from being an outdated law, the Voting Rights Act is needed more than ever, sadly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 06:44 PM

3. The CIR is a notorious anti-affirmative action group

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Individual_Rights

The Center for Individual Rights claims it opposes discrimination but its agenda is to oppose affirmative action and other programs that attempt to restore racial/gender/sexual equality by favoring those who have been traditionally discriminated against.

They supported the Boy Scouts in their effort to exclude homosexuals. . . .

The Center is also representing video provocateur James O'Keefe. In March of 2011, the Center "filed a motion in federal court to strike down a California anti-tape recording statute that CIR contends violates the First Amendment. In that statute, California has made it a criminal offense for a person not affiliated with law enforcement to record his own 'confidential' conversation with any other person, unless that person consents to being recorded." Juan Carlos Vera, a former ACORN employee is suing O’Keefe for civil damages with regard to the series of videos he filmed about ACORN in 2009.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 07:29 PM

4. Yes,

I'm sure the Supreme Court would like to accept many cases where
they are forced to decide if paranoia of the plaintiff is justified by the
dirty tricks of the defendant.

It's difficult enough to decide a case on facts and merits and law, how
do you also ascertain the motivations of the participants?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 03:32 AM

5. Fucking loonies

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread