[quote=4] Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
The incarceration of drug criminals is in fact racial.
Most drug dealers are white.
Most drug prisoners are black.
4.7 million people currently are disenfranchised from voting.
Take away enough rights and you will get unwanted resistance.
Again, the equal and opposite reaction thing.
Keep trying to disenfranchise people. 36 states are currently going after voters to exclude them from the process by various means. These are all Republican proposals.
The intolerant Republican party of fear, blame, NO and exclusion.
Action equals reaction, always.
The Republicans will meet Karma and they will not be happy.
People that don't want others to vote are people who are afraid of what will happen in a fair election.
A long-running dispute over the denial of voting rights to those convicted of serious crimes — a dispute that some civil liberties advocates say is the next major battleground over voters’ rights — has so far not gained review in the Supreme Court. It may elude review again, as a conflict that had developed among lower courts has now been put in doubt. The Justices considered, at their private Conference today, a new case on the issue from Massachusetts; they did so after lawyers for that state had notified the Court of the possible end of the lower courts’ disagreement.
The new case is Simmons, et al., v. Galvin (09-920). It tests whether it is a violation either of the Constitution or of federal voting rights law to deny the right to vote to individuals when they are in prison, when most people sent to prison are minorities. Since 2000, Massachusetts has withheld the right to vote from anyone of voting age serving prison time for a felony, although the right is restored once the inmate is released. Only two states, Maine and Vermont, permit convicted felons to vote while they are in prison.
When lawyers for a group of Massachusetts inmates filed the Simmons case in the Supreme Court on Feb. 1, there was a conflict among federal Circuit Courts: the First, Second and Eleventh Circuits had upheld restrictions on felons’ voting rights, while the Ninth Circuit had ruled twice that disenfranchised felons’ challenges could go forward under Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act. However, on Wednesday of this week, the Ninth Circuit ordered rehearing en banc on the issue, thus setting aside the latest panel ruling. The letter from Massachusetts’ lawyers to the Supreme Court, notifying the Justices of this development, along with a copy of the Ninth Circuit Court’s en banc order, can be viewed here.
The theory on which the felons’ challenges usually have been based is that criminal justice systems in the states tend to be racially discriminatory, putting more minorities in prison with one consequence, among others, of depriving them of the right to vote. Since federal voting rights law forbids race-based discrimination in voting, when the bias is the practical result of official policy even if not the specific intention of such policy, felons contend that imprisoning more minorities is a discriminatory result in voting rights under Section 2. States have defended their laws against felon voting with the argument that inmates are denied the right to vote not because of their race, but because of felony convictions.
The Supreme Court has three times refused to hear inmates’ challenges on the issue — twice in 2004, in New York and Washington State cases, and once in 2005, in a Florida case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the only member of the Court now who has taken a position on the issue; in 2006, when she was a judge on the Second Circuit Court, she dissented when that Court ruled en banc against the inmates’ claim. Whether that position would lead her to disqualify herself from a Supreme Court case, if one were granted review, is not clear at this point.
Justice Department Blocks Texas Voter Identification Law Tuesday, March 13, 2012
On Monday, the Justice Department blocked a new Texas voter identification law on the basis that the law would disproportionately affect Hispanics and that it violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The law would have required all Texas voters to show some form of photo ID before voting. This past December, the Justice Department blocked a similar law in South Carolina, saying it adversely affected African-American voters. ...
April 27, 2012 Voting Right Restrictions Under Scrutiny
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) is requesting that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) carefully review highly restrictive photo identification voter requirements that are under consideration or recently signed into law in several states that could potentially disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters.
In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Bennet—along with fifteen other senators expressed concerns about voter identification laws, which could disenfranchise American voters.
“These measures have the potential to block millions of eligible American voters without addressing any problem commensurate with this kind of restriction on voting rights. Voting is the foundation of our democracy, and we urge you to protect the voting rights of Americans by using the full power of the Department of Justice to review these voter identification laws and scrutinize their implementation,” the Senators wrote in the letter.
“These laws are a solution in search of a problem,” said Bennet. “Instead of protecting the integrity of our voting system, many of these laws effectively disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters. Voting is integral to the strength of our democracy, and we should be working to increase voting participation, not keeping valid voters from having their voices heard.”
Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, DOJ is granted significant authority to review laws before they are implemented in covered jurisdictions. Covered jurisdictions have the burden of proof to establish that changes in their laws will not have a discriminatory impact on minority voters. In states not covered by Section 5, DOJ can exercise vigilance in overseeing whether these laws are implemented in a way that discriminates against protected classes in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. DOJ also has authority under the Voting Rights Act to require that all individual’s qualified to vote in a jurisdiction be held to the same standards, practices and procedures.
Since January, voter ID laws have been passed in Wisconsin, South Carolina, Alabama, Texas, Kansas and Tennessee; Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are also considering proposals.
These laws have the potential to disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters and disproportionately affect particular populations. Studies have shown that as high as 11 percent of eligible voters nationwide do not have a government-issued ID. This percentage is higher among seniors, racial minorities, low-income voters and students. Research has turned up few cases of the kind of voter fraud photo ID laws would prevent, and voter impersonation already is punishable by up to five years in prison and $10,000 in fines under federal law.
In response to the request Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights said, “The civil and human rights community welcomes the senators’ request to the Department of Justice to examine state voter identification laws to make sure that eligible voters are not denied the right to vote,"
Henderson added, "Voting is our most fundamental right as citizens; it’s the right that makes all other rights possible. Yet instead of making voting more accessible, these measures would deny voting rights to the 11 percent of voters who do not have government-issued identification— and an even higher percentage of seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, people with low incomes, and students. That fact alone requires additional vigilance.
The Justice Department must vigorously enforce our voting rights laws so that every eligible voter is permitted to cast a vote and to have that vote counted. Our nation has come too far and has too much at stake to allow new forms of discrimination to suppress this fundamental right.”
Thanks for the link. I actually think the drug laws and "the war on drugs" (over $3 trillion spent) are a waste of time and resources. I'm just not a fan of blanket statements, and if you make one you should at least supply the documentation to back it up. JMHO
The Supreme Court ruled that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws. In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana’s strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.http://gds44.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/11627/ US appeals court upholds photo ID provision of discriminatory Arizona voting law By John Burton 23 April 2012 Last week, an eleven-judge “en banc” panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—which covers the western states—upheld the provision of an Arizona law requiring voters to produce a valid, current photo identification when casting ballots. Without any dissent, the Ninth Circuit rejected the claim that requiring people to purchase an identification card, such as a driver’s license, before casting a ballot violated the constitutional ban on poll taxes. All but one judge voted to uphold the law despite the evidence that it discriminated against Latino voters.
So-called “voter-ID” laws are the principal weapon being used in an intensifying national campaign to suppress voting rights, which gained momentum when the Supreme Court engineered the theft of the 2000 presidential election for George W. Bush by ordering a halt to the counting of Florida ballots on spurious legal grounds, calling the very right to vote for president into question. (See: “The 2012 elections and the assault on voting rights in the US.”) http://www.wsws.org/articles/2.....p; Georgia Supreme Court upholds voter ID law Rules photo ID requirements are not burdensome Posted: March 7, 2011 - 4:34pm By Associated Press ATLANTA — The Georgia Supreme Court today upheld a state law requiring voters to show identification before they cast ballots, dismissing objections from Democrats who contended lawmakers had no proof when they approved the new rules that anyone had tried to vote illegally.Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/g.....id-law#ixzz1tGRrFcic
our elected make laws to 'make us feel safe'.....when in fact they treat us as the children of a bad divorce.....
action = reaction choice = consequence
the elected divide up the plebs and place them against each other, all the while talking out the other side of their mouth about tolerance/zero tolerance/diversity etc etc.....ears are being tickled and the plebs get trained like Pavlov's dog.....
we must be very very careful about what 'namesake laws' we push/allow/support....NO AMERICAN IS MORE EQUAL THAN ANOTHER.....laws made for 'special crimes'? really? what 'special crimes' are there? does that mean there are special victims/special criminals?
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! they become podium pucks for votes........shame on us....shame shame shame......
Jacob's law Megan's law Jessica's law
do we like to be used to make some more equal than others? is this what America is about? Look's more like American Idol to me........
oo....oo...oo....Mr. Kotter...pick me....I'm important because something bad happened to me.......vote for me because 'I care'.......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Just because they temporarily block a law doesn't mean that it's permanent. There is settled law where the Supreme Court says that the STATES have the right to regulate their voter ID laws as long as they don't deny people the right to vote based on the Constitution. Same is true of the Second amendment, people have the right to bear arms yet some states regulate and deny people from owning guns ie felons.
Operation Steal the Vote 2012: Dept. of Justice Blocks Texas Voter ID Law
John Hill, Stand With Arizona, March 12, 2012
The Obama Administration continued its assault upon the sacred right to vote, by blocking the Texas’ Voter ID law passed overwhelmingly last year, and signed by Governor Rick Perry (R).
Texas’ common-sense law is intended to make sure that voters prove they are legally authorized to vote by doing what they do every time they want to board an airplane, or take out a library card: show ID.
But the Administration is hell-bent on using (and abusing) every ounce of legal muscle to try and stop states from making sure that illegal voters do not influence the critical elections this year. Their baseball bat of choice is the outdated Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Section 5 of the Act gives the U.S. Department of Justice or the federal courts the authority to review laws that would affect voter participation before they are enacted. And the DoJ is vigorously using that authority to harass states who have passed Voter ID laws, having already taken on provisions in Arizona and South Carolina, in a clear effort to bury them before the 2012 elections. And now it is Texas’ turn to experience the tyranny and perversion of law we have come to expect from this Administration when it comes to racial politics.
Under the law, voters in the state would be required to present one of seven types of government-issued photo identification, including a driver’s license, a passport or a concealed handgun permit. Those lacking the ID would be given a provisional ballot, and the voter would have to present an approved document to the registrar’s office within six days after the election.
This is unacceptable to [Civil Rights Division Chief Thomas] Perez:
“Even using the data most favorable to the state, Hispanics disproportionately lack either a driver’s license or a personal identification card. Under the data provided in January, Hispanics make up only 21.8% of all registered voters, but fully 38.2% of the registered voters who lack these forms of identification,” Thomas Perez, head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, wrote in the letter to Keith Ingram, the director of elections for the Texas Secretary of State.
Uh, ok. But if you want to vote and lack a driver’s license, Texas provides a FREE election ID certificate. Not a problem if you can provide proof that you are truly eligible to vote. Therefore, under the Texas law, only the ridiculously lazy or illegal aliens would be “disenfranchised” by having to provide a photo ID to vote.
But this has nothing to do with ensuring the integrity of our electoral system, and everything to do with enabling voter fraud—to win elections for Democrats that they would otherwise lose.
As Roger Hedgecock proved in his shocking report from the 2010 midterms in California, the Democrat Party is very organized in their voter fraud efforts, registering illegal aliens and felons to vote using “Motor Voter”, and then using shill voters to vote in their name come election time.
it will be made damn sure that our drivers/voters/health/credit score all live together.....THAT will be the new collective 'us'......
pay attention......smartphones/microsoftpoints/gift cards/store discount cards etc etc etc.......the highways are merging....who will get to be the railroad wo/man?
add in some conscience legislation ie: hate crimes/crimes against women/crimes againt animals etc etc......and ya have some podium pucks.....the merging highway and the loss of the sight of the horizon will be missed by many because of podium pucks....the 'outing' of the 1%'ers will have been in vain......
paradox
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Logged
I actually think the drug laws and "the war on drugs" (over $3 trillion spent) are a waste of time and resources. I'm just not a fan of blanket statements, and if you make one you should at least supply the documentation to back it up. JMHO
....nah, never mind.....
