| Author |
Message |
    
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1520
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 1:12 pm: | 
|
There is no valid reason not to renew this bill. The VRA has been one of the key pieces of legislation that have enabled minorities to participate in our democracy.
It should have been a no contest vote on renewing this, and in fact in the committee it was voted for in a 33-1 vote. Somehow when the bill gets to the floor there are issues.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060621/ap_on_go_co/voting_rights_act |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 945
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 1:20 pm: |
|
There is no valid reason not to renew this bill. The VRA has been one of the key pieces of legislation that have enabled minorities to participate in our democracy.
But what if minorities rarely vote for your party? That's a valid reason, isn't it? |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1523
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 1:26 pm: |
|
Madden, your right. Once again Republicans place party before country. |
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1745
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 1:40 pm: |
|
Yup, that's got to be it Madden/Hoops, sure can't pull one past you guys huh?
Sorry for interrupting your little circle jerk but the answers for GOP concerns are right in the article. Did you bother reading it?
And the Democrats never engaged in poll taxes/literacy exams? oooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk....
-SLK |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 947
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 1:44 pm: |
|
Democrats have since moved out of the Jim Crow mindset...have Republicans? |
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1746
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 1:46 pm: |
|
of course the Dems have...silly me....
can you please provide me one example of the Jim Crow mindset the Republicans have that the Democrats don't...?
-SLK |
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 866
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 1:50 pm: |
|
You beat me to it, SLK:
Quote:Several Republicans, led by Westmoreland, had worked to allow an amendment that would ease a requirement that nine states win permission from the Justice Department or a federal judge to change their voting rules.
The amendment's backers say the requirement unfairly singles out and holds accountable nine states that practiced racist voting policies decades ago, based on 1964 voter turnout data: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.
Westmoreland says the formula for deciding which states are subject to such "pre-clearance" should be updated every four years and be based on voter turnout in the most recent three elections.
"The pre-clearance portions of the Voting Rights Act should apply to all states, or no states," Westmoreland said. "Singling out certain states for special scrutiny no longer makes sense."
---
Quote:It should have been a no contest vote on renewing this, and in fact in the committee it was voted for in a 33-1 vote. Somehow when the bill gets to the floor there are issues.
That's because Congress has a lot more than 34 members.
Heaven forbid that Congress take the time to discuss something before it takes a vote. |
dougw
Citizen
Username: Dougw
Post Number: 847
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 2:01 pm: |
|
I would like to dispell the myth that minorities don't vote republican. African Americans do vote disproportionatly Democrat, but they are not all minorities. Also African Americans are shrinking as a % of the total population. Here are the results from the 2004 Presidential Election per CNN.com
TOTAL Bush Kerry
White (77%) 58% 41%
African-American (11%) 11% 88%
Latino (8%) 44% 53%
Asian (2%) 44% 56%
Other (2%) 40% 54%
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3476
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 2:04 pm: |
|
I don't disagree with updating the "pre-clearance" part of the bill, but I am concerned that the GOP will use the opportunity to twist the bill into something that is deliberately designed to re-enable disenfrachisement of certain voters.
By the way... Southerner loves this. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1524
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 2:06 pm: |
|
SLK and Albatross. The issue that these republicans are bringing to bear are exactly the provisions of the act that can hold the states in question to the act. Its called oversight and its something that republicans are known to avoid at all costs.
Summary -
Among its other provisions, the Act contained special enforcement provisions targeted at those areas of the country where Congress believed the potential for discrimination to be the greatest. Under Section 5, jurisdictions covered by these special provisions could not implement any change affecting voting until the Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia determined that the change did not have a discriminatory purpose and would not have a discriminatory effect. In addition, the Attorney General could designate a county covered by these special provisions for the appointment of a federal examiner to review the qualifications of persons who wanted to register to vote. Further, in those counties where a federal examiner was serving, the Attorney General could request that federal observers monitor activities within the county's polling place.
They no longer want the feds looking at what they are trying to do in order to suppress minority voters.
Read the act for yourself Here
The states that want to opt out are the states that are identified by the formula put forth in the act as states that have issues with voting rights. Of course those states representatives dont want the act reintroduced. It reduces their control.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11897
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 2:06 pm: |
|
SLK. how about the new Georgia voter ID cards. You can pick one up in every small town in the state, but Atlanta only has one location where they are available. Jim Crow updated? Imho probably.
Jim Crow was the brainchild of the Dixiecrats. In fairness to the Dems they overturned this and let the south go to the GOP and Nixon. Good politics? No! Principaled? Yes! |
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1747
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 2:17 pm: |
|
Bob K-
The "principaled" Democrats let the South go to the GOP?
Holy shite!  |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3406
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 2:22 pm: |
|
SLK, you're not really that obtuse are you? You did understand Bob's point and are simply playing, right? |
dougw
Citizen
Username: Dougw
Post Number: 849
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 2:22 pm: |
|
In a generation the Dems won't know what to say when we elect a Female President of Mexican descent from the GOP!
Oh wait they will say she "sold out" or "is not really a minority"... |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1525
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 2:26 pm: |
|
the only way a female of Mexican descent is nominated for the republican party is if her family are super billionaires with firm ties to oil and media corporations. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3407
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 2:30 pm: |
|
Doug, given that the Dems are the only major party that has put a Non White Male on a Presidential ticket (to a devastating loss), I'd be amazed if the Republicans put a NWM on the ticket in my lifetime.
I could care less - whoever is picked will be more qualified than the current administration. And since I vote by qualification not party affiliation, I'd be glad to have two or three highly qualified candidates on the ballot, no matter what their background.
Heck, these days I'd settle for one moderately qualified candidate. |
dougw
Citizen
Username: Dougw
Post Number: 850
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 2:32 pm: |
|
Sounds like she's not a real immigrant to you. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1527
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 2:33 pm: |
|
what is a real immigrant?
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3409
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 2:34 pm: |
|
Actually, you didn't say anything about her being an immigrant. You just sid she was of Mexican descent. |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 116
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 2:38 pm: |
|
obtuse = kneejerk simpleton |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3410
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 2:39 pm: |
|
I truly prefer to believe that SLK is simply being funny, and did understand what Bob meant. |
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 867
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Hoops:
Thank you for your post RE: oversight. Unfortunately, you completely missed the points of my post, which were:
- There *are* valid reasons to *consider* modifying the bill which were described in the linked-to article. (The question of national government oversight is centuries old and arises from our federal system.)
- Members of Congress outside of the Judiciary Committee are allowed to raise issues after the bill leaves the committee. There's *supposed* to be discussion in Congress. Considering that the law does not expire until 2007, there shouldn't be that much of a problem.
Please also note that I was not and am not taking a position on the issue of oversight. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1838
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 3:11 pm: |
|
Okay, since this is "led by" Westmoreland, if you haven't already seen this from Tom's thread, you must:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=veIU0Jwu54w
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5139
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 11:09 pm: |
|
I think it needs to be expanded to cover Ohio, where the Secy of State consistently makes moves designed to raise the bar for minority voters. Which also answers SLK's 1:46 post about Republican Jim Crow tactics. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 254
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 8:14 am: |
|
From the Yahoo story:
The shift came after a private House GOP caucus meeting earlier Wednesday in which several Republicans also balked at extending provisions in the law that require ballots to be printed in more than one language in neighborhoods where there are large numbers of immigrants, said several participants.
This doesn't sound unreasonable to me. I'm not a big advocate of amending the Constitution, but an English language amendment would not be a bad thing. All ballots and documents should be printed in English only, all government offices should conduct business in English only. Of course, anyone would be free to hire a translator. Why cater to people who can't be bothered to learn our language?
Cheers
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5141
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 9:57 am: |
|
Anyway, the candidates' names wouldn't change. How do people get to be Citizens without a working knowledge of English? |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page