After reading more of the hysterical, sneering attacks on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, I have concluded that I initially neglected to recognize the deep bias and contempt for basic rights that underlie them. The critics have no legitimate arguments to support allowing the current formula set out in the Voting Rights Act to continue, except that they believe trampling on innocent citizens’ rights is acceptable government practice if it makes the civil rights establishment happy, and allows the myth to be perpetuated that Republicans sit up late at night trying to figure out ways of stopping blacks from voting. “It may be unconstitutional, but it works!” is the best of their claims, a pure embrace of that hallmark of corrupted ethics, the ends justify the means. Note that this is also the justification being offered by the Obama Administration for drone strikes, PRISM, and tapping the phones of reporters. This isn’t an argument but a philosophy, and one that is offensive to core American values.
The Times, no longer the premiere news source in the country but certainly the premiere Democratic Party ally masquerading as a news source, clinched it for me. In its scathing editorial condemning the decision, the only arguments it could come up with were…
- The Court shouldn’t have struck down a provision because of an admittedly outdated and unfair formula used to execute it, because it knew Congress and the President wouldn’t be able to revise it properly as they should. Everyone knows they are incapable of doing their jobs. Now, normally, one would react to such a development by saying, “Yup, that needs to be fixed forthwith. Come on, Editorial board, we need to put responsibility where it belongs, and get those slackers to do their jobs!” Because 2/3 of the dysfunctional institutions are controlled by Democrats, the Times adopts the Bizarro World reasoning that the Supreme Court is obligated not to do its job either. This theory, the foundation of virtually all the critiques of the majority’s decision, is wrong, and ethically indefensible. It is neither responsible nor logical for the U.S. Supreme Court to refrain from striking down an unconstitutional measure because the legislative and executive branches won’t be able to agree on a replacement. Imagine if the Court had avoided its conclusion in Brown v. Board of Education on the theory that segregation was the best system our legislatures would be able to agree on.
- What’s the proof that conservatives are plotting to take the vote away from blacks? Why, voter ID laws, of course. The Times, like the Democrats who cleverly and dishonestly used this canard to convince its base that Republicans wear their sheets rather than sleep under them, ignores the fact that voter ID measures have been upheld by liberal SCOTUS majorities as reasonable, and that all the flurries of fake statistics and law suits about the proposed measures last year managed to produce no potential voter who would actually be prevented from voting by an ID requirement. Suppression of black votes used to mean actual obstruction of efforts to vote—now, it apparently means that if some minority voters actually have to invest some effort in order to help the voting process maintain its integrity, that’s the equivalent of literacy tests….at least to the Times.
- “For the most part,” the states that still engage in efforts to suppress black voting rights are the states fingered under the old, old formula for pre-clearance. “For the most part!” Thus does the Times airly dismiss the fact—fact—that the citizens of some undetermined number of states have the federal government, rather than their elected representatives, deciding what their laws should be even though their state’s culture has changed from the days of “Mississippi Burning” and is no more inherently racist than Connecticut. Can one imagine the screams emanating from the Times and elsewhere if the Roberts Court had struck down the Voting Right Act with the argument that blacks in the U.S. could vote without unconstitutional restrictions “for the most part”? “For the most part” is not good enough where rights are involved, and there once was a time when American liberalism championed that. No more. Today, the fact that “for the most part” deserving white kids aren’t deprived of admission to the colleges they are qualified to attend because of the employment of racial bias (under the euphemism of “affirmative action”) is good enough to justify the continuation of the unconstitutional practice of using legal current discrimination to show penance for illegal past discrimination. What the Times is admitting is that it only believes some citizen’s rights are worth being vigilant about protecting.
The Times also mentions gerrymandering as one of those sinister anti-civil rights measures. In practice, what allowing “pre-clearance” of partisan districting has meant is that GOP legislatures’ gerrymandering is “suspect” while Democratic gerrymandering is assumed to be benign. In an op-ed in the same Times edition, University of California professor Richard Hasen writes, “Now Texas can also redistrict, freed from the constraints of Section 5, splitting Latino and black voters into different districts or shoving them all in fewer districts…” Wait—how can exactly opposite strategies both be presumptively racist? Political scientists continue to disagree whether it is better for African-American interests to have their voting strength pooled in majority black districts, allowing them to ensure the election of African-American representatives, or to spread their votes over numerous districts, forcing candidates of both parties to seek their support. Both alternatives must have racist motives, you see, because, after all, it’s Texas. In a nice, good, Democratic state, however, the exact same gerrymandering strategies are presumed to be pursued only to gain political advantage, but not because of racism. “As chief justice, Mr. Roberts [who authored the majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder] has famously written that ‘the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.’ Colorblindness is fast becoming his signature issue,” Hasen writes. The Horror. Colorblindness! In the hands of a conservative Supreme Court justice, that must be racially motivated too. Maybe the Supreme Court decisions should be “pre-cleared.”
I’m sure the New York Times would approve.
Sources: New York Times 1, 2
67 thoughts on “The Progressives’ Attacks On Shelby County v. Holder: Unethical and Ominous”
Speaking as someone who could not renew my license due to an extended hospital stay and now can’t vote or change banks because I am presumed a threat to other citizens, the voter laws are barriers to law abiding citizens.
But “for the most part” they aren’t!
Well, barring EVERYONE going to the hospital and not renewing their licenses simultaneously during an election season, I’d submit your scenario is a very exceptional case.
You know who else voter ID laws pose a barrier to?
People who want to cheat.
Was that your only ID?
So you can’t renew your license now? Is there something now preventing you? Was this stay something that happened just before election day?
In other words, what the precise fuck is keeping you from renewing that license now?
Jack, it sounds like you miss William Safire!
“for the most part” : I thought the NYT’s was referring to the fact that precincts in Manhattan and Brooklyn and other northern areas were also included in the Voting Rights Act.
Good theory. So it didn’t have the guts to tell its NY readers directly that its Ok if they are unjustly treated as racists as long as Voter ID can be blocked in Texas. I wonder how that would have gone over.
Everyone should miss Safire…
Richard Posner, not a person anyone would call hysterically leftist, covers arguments contrary to the majority opinion in less vague language than the Times editorial, in a piece in Slate. (The link’s incredibly long, but it’s easy enough to find.)
Wow. What an intellectually dishonest piece by Posner, a commentator who is not especially partisan or predictable, and one I usually respect. His assertion that the states, absent a genuine and overwhelming reason, have no constitutional right not to be treated less equally than other states is 1) bizarre, as it suggests that the government can discriminate against citizens of those states as well, and 2) his personal theory, which like many of Posner’s theories, would be unlikely to find much judicial support elsewhere. I’d call his piece more specific and also more desperate than the Times editorial.
He also plays tricks with the word “dated.” I agree…dated itself is not a flaw. I run a theater dedicated to plays other people call dated. Basing substantive policy on dated and INACCURATE data, however, especially when it impacts a state’s right to govern itself, can’t be defended, so Posner doesn’t bother to try.
The irony is that Posner wrote an opinion, affirmed by the Supreme Court, upholding voter ID.
I have doubts that coverage formulas are consistent with separation of powers. A court could certainly find an electoral jurisdiction in violation of the VRA or 15th Amendment or other federal law, and prescribe a preclearance requirement as part of a remedy. But Congress’s coverage formula effectively declares certain jursidctions guilty without opportunity for a trial.
That question was not before the Court, and will have to wait another day.
I’m starting to change my mind about Voter ID requirements, but just because I am sick to death of all the ink wasted on this issue. My solution would involve a grandfather clause. So, if you have an existing valid voter id card, you don’t need a picture ID. But, if you are renewing or applying for a new voter id card – moving, age, etc. – then the agency that issues the card snaps your picture (at no cost to the citizen) and puts the picture on the Voter ID card. For people who don’t think a blanket rule discriminates however, I don’t think you have an understanding of what it means to be poor and/or live in a rural area. For low wage workers, taking a half day or full day off of work (even assuming your employer will allow it) and paying for transportation to go hang out at a government agency to get a picture ID might mean that you can’t pay your rent or buy groceries that week. For similar reasons, the poor benefit from early voting because it offers more flexibility from job and child care obligations.
“Not as easy for some people as others” isn’t discrimination, however. Because I have an artificial hip, I have to get sexually molested half the time when I travel. I don’t think the TSA has it in for me. The fact that people who are healthy, young, well-connected, lucky and wealthy can take care of the crap of life relatively easily doesn’t mean everyone else is being discriminated against. I have a polling place three minutes from my house…others in Virginia have to drive for 20 minutes. If they don’t have a car, they have to find a bus, or pay for a cab. Is that discrimination? Of course not.
Jack — that’s a ridiculous analogy. There are recent and numerous examples of states attempting to alter voting times, id requirements, etc. on the belief that this will result in lower Democratic voter turnout. So the intent is to discriminate against a group of people exercising the most basic American right. The TSA doesn’t want to sexually molest you – you just drew the short end of the stick. Just like my bra’s underwire sets it off every time, or I have to go through extra scrutiny if I am traveling with babies and premixed formula. My compromise that I outlined above is a good one – and I’m sure Democrats would get on board to that kind of deal.
How do you discern that the choice to impose a completely reasonable measure to ensure the integrity of voting is done solely or substantially for discriminatory motives, and even if it is, so what? Doing the right thing for partially unethical reasons doesn’t turn it into the wrong thing, and certainly not an illegal thing. Voter IDs are logical and reasonable, and if some bigot somewhere in the process (or more likely a non-bigoted political operative who would be happy to let rocks vote if they went his party’s way) says, “And the beauty part is, I bet this keeps some (poor/black/old) Democratic voters from voting!” That means the reasonable measure is no longer reasonable?
Ok. So, we’re agreed then. Voter IDs going FORWARD for expired or new voters. Otherwise:
Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, who said:
“I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”
There was Jim Greer, former chairman of the Florida Republican Party:
“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told the Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only…’We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us.'”
There was Dallas Tea Party activist Ken Emanuelson who admitted:
“I’m going to be real honest with you. The Republican Party doesn’t want black people to vote if they are going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats.”
There was Republican state representative from Pennsylvania, Mike Turzai, who said:
“Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania? Done!”
I want people to vote who actually understand the issues and know who and what they’re voting for. That’s maybe 30% of the population, being optimistic about it.
I would agree as well… but there is just one question that needs to be answered:
Who will decide whether a prospective voter understands the issues and knows who or what they vote for?
Obviously they have to be the judge of that. Responsible people who know they don’t know what they are voting for shouldn’t vote. Both parties, however, think its fine to corral ignorant voters, tell them who to vote for, and bring them to the polls. The most despicable examples of this are members of nursing homes and mental hospitals, who can even have their escorts go into the booth with them to “help” them.
I’d settle for people to be able to name their Representative, both Senators, and the President and Vice President.
I would settle for that plus also naming all nine Justices of the SCOTUS.
I’d settle for 6 of 9…
OK — I have no solutions for that! 🙂
Well if we did that then Presdients like Jackson for one would never have gotten elected.
I already did — earlier in this post.
No you didn’t. You quoted four people, and you miss-characterize one of them.
Look, I know that you are one of the most intellectually dishonest people I have ever interacted with, but PRETEND like you have a damned clue and cite five examples of states taking active measures to suppress Democrat turnout?
You’re an idiot. I could cite dozens. Read a freakin’ book. I’m not here to educate you.
You could cite “dozens” of examples of states trying what you claim, and yet you don’t.
That’s because you are a fucking liar.
I’m going to explain something to you…
When you make a claim, it is your job to actually back it up. It isn’t my job to prove your argument.
But it doesn’t shock me that you would want me to do the work, since you know that you can’t do it.
You claim there haven’t been discriminatory practices — why don’t you comb through the last decade or so laws/practices that were deemed discriminatory by the DOJ and/or the courts? Why don’t you begin by defending attempts made during just the last election to enact last minute voter id laws? You can start with Pennsylvania. Hell, why don’t you try just explaining comments made by Republicans that they want to do this to keep minorities from voting? You’re such an ass it’s unbelievable. I don’t need to prove that the sky is blue or that the earth is round. Voter ID laws and discrimination go hand in hand.
What a shock – more deflection.
You are the most intellectually dishonest person here.
You beat out tgt and Gregg by a wide, wide margin.
Beth, if you start with Pennsylvania ( without believing it is either, a measure designed to impede voters of the other party and measures to impede someone’s rights because of their color are two different things completely, and the 1965 Act was not directed at the former), then you have proven why the Section was over-turned. Pennsylvania’s not on the list. Because it’s out of date.
1. August, 2012: Early voting stations in Ohio’s heavily Democratic counties will only be open between 8 am and 5 pm, while Republican counties have expanded their hours to allow voting on nights and weekends.
2. In recall elections for the Wisconsin State Senate in 2011, Americans for Prosperity (a conservative organization that was supporting Republican candidates) sent many Democratic voters a mailing that gave an incorrect deadline for absentee ballots. Voters who relied on the deadline in the mailing would have sent in their ballots too late for them to be counted.
3. A Florida law passed in 2011 by the Republican-controlled Florida legislature which reduced the days available for early voting, barred voter-registration activities of groups like the League of Women Voters, and made it more difficult to vote for voters who since the last election had moved to a different county within the state was part of a voter suppression effort, according to several former senior GOP officials. A majority of early voting ballots cast in 2008 were cast by Democratic voters, and minority voters are more likely to move. The reason given by Republican politicians for the law was to reduce cost and to deter voter fraud, however the former senior Republican officials revealed that the true drivers of the law were GOP political consultants who were seeking ways to suppress the Democratic vote.
4. GOP operative Colin Small was busted by BradBlog throwing out hundreds of voter registration forms in Virginia. Small was connected to Strategic Allied Consulting, a company owned by Nathan Sproul, that was contracted to receive more than $3 million from the Romney campaign. On the other side of the ledger, the firm reportedly filed hundreds of faked voter registration forms in Florida this year. Small was arrested in the Virginia case, but the state’s right-wing attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, declined to investigate or prosecute the infraction.
5. In Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Spanish-language Election Day information mailing accidentally told voters to make sure to cast their ballot on Nov. 8—two days after the election.
I’m going to use the standard of the Left for these – if there were no convictions, they didn’t happen.
I mean, that’s the usual counter to voter fraud claims, right?
Are you really suggesting that poor people in rural areas should be allowed to drive without driver’s licenses because it would be too much trouble for them? Can they refuse jury duty, too?
As someone who lives in a poor rural area, your assumption that it takes half a day to get a driver’s license is ridiculous. This isn’t the big city. The last time I needed my driver’s license renewed, it took 15 minutes (the most it has ever taken me is 30 minutes and I have had driver’s licenses in 6 states). To change my voter registration, it took 5 minutes from from the time I got out of my car. The DMV is also open on Saturdays for people who work M-F and it is open 8-6 so most people who work M-F can make it before or after work.
I live in a neighborhood with large black, hispanic, and Indian populations. What makes it harder for them to do these tasks than me?
Good for you. I grew up in a rural area and my place was 40 minutes away. Also, I have spent days of my life at DC’s DMV getting the most basic stuff done. And when I did, I was a waitress so it was a huge financial hardship.
I can’t for the life of my figure out why DC’s DMV would be so poorly run, surely it has nothing to do with the criminals running the city.
Maybe if DC had a voter ID law the council might actually have an incentive to straighten the DMV out, just saying 🙂
Maybe the government should let out driver’s licensing to private agencies as they do here in New Zealand.
I can see a common thread in how “progressives” have conducted themselves over some issues in the last five years.
With regards to the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couple, they had no problem declaring people who honestly and sincerely believe differently than them to be bigots, and to say that there is no other possible reason. In discussions online, they have no problem trampling over the consciences of photographers, bakers, and florists who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, threatening them with financial ruin if they do not go against their consciences. Over a wedding cake? Photos? Floral arrangements?.
The IRS scandal also falls into this category. Here, we had the President of the United States facing serious political trouble because of the rise of the Tea Party. The IRS then ended up harassing and targeting that entity in earnest from the moment Obama’s health care bill was signed. Why? Because if the Tea Party was not impeded, then Romney may very well have won. The AEI did a study showing that the Tea Party could have brought as many as 8.5 million votes to Romney in the 2012 election. And many progressives have been trying to dismiss this as a scandal. We have Jim McDermott (one of the most progressive members of the House), pretty much saying that the victims of IRS harassment had it coming. The subtle message here: Those who dissent from progressives have no right to equal treatment.
In essence, the progressive argument is that the people are not capable of governing themselves, but that they need to be ruled by “elites” who will set everything right, providing justice and equality.
This has just been a glimpse. I once said that thuggery, thought control, and bullying was a feature of gay marriage. In that sense, I was looking at things too narrowly. Thuggery, thought control, and bullying are features of the “Progressive” movement. Over the last three years, the Progressives have declared at least 45% of America as their enemies.
Gay marriage is the issue they will use to justify turning the government on practicing Mormons, Catholics, and the Religious Right. They already justify taking from the rich to “spread the wealth” because of the War on Poverty. They don’t tolerate disagreement – for all their talk of tolerance, they sure don’t practice it very well.
Ultimately, this will lead us to a bad place. The country is very seriously divided – probably at a level not seen since the 1850s. It may be a question of when someone fires the first shot.
I’m sorry that you can’t see a legitimate argument here. I have a hard time seeing your side, but I accept that its an honestly held opinion. For me, it’s obvious that the spirit behind the various ID initiatives is an intent to drive down Democratic voting.
I think it’s beneath you to label all with this view as front men for Al Sharpton and his friends.
I don’t think I did that, Bob. I wrote that 1) Sharpton and others predicting a return to Jim Crow because of the legitimate disapproval of an admittedly unfair system was dishonest and irresponsible and
2) As a separate matter, argue that voter IDs, since they are obviously of utility and reasonable, don’t suddenly become sinister just because GOP legislatures support them with the knowledge that they may discourage voters who aren’t willing to devote the time and minimal resources to get them, and that those voters will primarily be Democrats.
Apparently those laws requiring photo ID to buy Sudafed are designed to prevent Democrats from getting cold medicine.
And these proposals for universal background checks to buy firearms, which would presumably include photo ID requirements, are intended to disarm Democrats.
You are on to something here…
Well, since Democrats are the only party we know – for a fact – to engage in wide-spread voter fraud.
So yes. Yes it is intended to drive down Democratic voting. Because they are fraudulent votes that should never have been cast in the fucking first place!
I’m reacting to ” deep bias and contempt for basic rights that underlay” opposition to the S.C. decision. I have neither, I think.
My point is that it takes deep bias to make someone shrug off the Justice Department presuming to tell the states—and thus their citizens—-what their voting regulations can be based on 40 year old data and presumptions of racism. And note that I was speaking of the hysterical, sneering attacks. I would expect your attacks to be civil, measured, and reasonable.
Is it really such a crazy narrative, given statistics about the black vote that you’ve quoted yourself, that some members of the Republican Party would be corrupt enough to attempt to disenfranchise black voters? I mean this as a sincere question. Is it really beyond reasonable belief that this is a thing that could happen? And if it’s a thing that could happen, aren’t some states’ cultures more likely to have this occur? And if so, is it really so egregious to keep safeguards in check for it?
There are ridiculous cries of racism in this country, yes. And indisputable voter fraud that shouldn’t be tolerated. But do you have some unshakeable faith in a major political party that there couldn’t possibly be corrupt measures that a) resemble corrupt measures made in the past and b) would be of benefit to said party? I mean is that really something so difficult to imagine?
And some of them are corrupt enough to try to pass laws to disarm black people.
Wait – yes, it’s crazy? Or yes it’s possible?
You mean statistics that don’t even begin to suggest anything like you claim could prove something you only suggest MIGHT happen?
Again, it wasn’t the Republicans who elected a Klansman to the Senate, or a White Supremest to the House. It wasn’t the Republican Party that started the Klan, it wasn’t Republicans that filibustered the CRA.
The fuck you did.
And this is how I know that was a damned lie.
Voter ID laws are not, unless you are either fucking insane or a fucking liar, even remotely like Jim Crow laws.
Yes, Voter ID Laws would benefit Republicans, but only because it would stop your side from fucking cheating.
You should read the bulk of the commentary in this article about the first court ruling to cite the recent anti-DOMA ruling.
The sad thing is, all of the commentary in that page is much more coherent and intelligent than the inflammatory rhetoric criticizing the Holder ruling.
A pity for that court they will get over-turned because Michigan can, in fact, deny those benefits. Supreme Court said so.
Commentary from that article:
“Guest Mobley22 • 16 hours ago −
If anyone is going to need lots of health ins benefits it’s going to be gay men. That part of the body is an exit, not an entrance, and there are physical repercussions for this type of activity. I hope they will all enjoy wearing a diaper.”
Much more than the commentary cited by Jack Marshall regarding Holder.
I called the ruling poorly written in this comment . As such, it is quite open to either interpretation.
I tend to agree. But both the reaction to the Holder ruling, and the DOMA ruling reflect the same thing about “progressives” and their mindset:
They believe they have a moral right to either dictate to a substantial portion of their fellow citizens. They literally view those who disagree with them as immoral monsters who are racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobes who are not enlightened enough to govern themselves.
From this durned furriner’s perspective:
1. I see nothing wrong with requiring voter ID – provided that such ID is issued free of charge by merely registering to vote, or better yet, automatically issued at age of majority.
2. The SCOTUS in its opinion that times had changed – which they have – and that at least some of the districts under this restriction no longer require it. What they did not do was to go into this in detail, as the Congress supposedly did when it last renewed this legislation. I don’t think it was in their scope so to do, it’s a matter properly left to a functional legislature. Unfortunately, the legislature isn’t functional.
Under these circumstances, analysis should have been restricted to “do least harm”. Is most harm done by continuing in the same old way, with un-necessary and restrictive impositions on districts that no longer require it, or by allowing districts open slather to resume their harshly undemocratic and unconstitutional voting restrictions?
They didn’t consider this. I think that’s unfortunate, as we have four states now openly admitting that they’re putting in place new boundaries and other rules whose only purpose is to favour the ruling party. Two other states are also implementing similar laws.
Again, I see nothing wrong with requiring voter ID, as long as there is no obstacle to particular groups in obtaining that ID. There is though. Worse, the redistricting and closing of polling booths, and times they’re open to disenfranchise legitimate voters is … well, we used to say “UnAmerican” but these days, more like “Typically American”.
I’m assuming your called out paragraph is a news item or something. You didn’t provide any source comment.
Nothing in that article (assuming it isn’t well crafted opinion) directly states “XX state is excited to be able to discriminate again”. It merely states “XX state is excited to no longer be unfairly scrutinized and able to conduct business like ALL the other states”. By your assumed interpretation of that citation, you should be comfortable with the comment “California and Massachusetts and Oregon are all excited also that they haven’t undergone any scrutiny over their potential to discriminate”
Additionally, there is no obstacle against ‘certain groups’ getting voter IDs, because as far as I know and what has been demonstrated in multiple posts, any governmental ID card suffices. Not some new card bein designed for the specific purpose of voting.
Also, in terms of your item #1, nothing is free.
A required Voter ID that isn’t free is a poll tax. There’s nothing inherently racially discriminatory about it – nor with a literacy tax – but the real-world application of such laws, in the not-so-recent past, targeted minorities. Not always, not everywhere, and not due to one particular political party.
Parts of the VRA singled out states for pre-clearance, but those states weren’t chosen out of a hat. The historical record was considered.
The majority opinion takes the position that times have changed enough that such singling out isn’t necessary. If you agree with the decision, then I’m curious at what date you think the tides changed and that preclearance became more of a burden than it was worth. Or is it that it was always an unfair burden, that there was no particular reason to keep an eye on certain states’ treatment of black voters in 1964?
I never said an individual would directly purchase one.
I merely identified that nothing is free. Because nothing is. Unless you know of some mystical rain dance that produces ID cards from thin air I’m fairly certain some sort of tax will pay for them.
At what date I think the tides changed?
That’s a ridiculous question and an impossible standard.
A group of people with motivations don’t wake up one morning thinking “oh hell I really suddenly like XX notion”
No, ideas change over time. You’re intellectually dishonest question proves nothin. Other than you are willing to play cheap games to pretend like there is an advantage.
I have some for you: what exact date and time did Abolitionists feel the need to oppose slavery? (Guess what, it took decades)
At what exact date did Americans decide they didn’t like tyranny? (Guess what it took decades)
At what exact date did the Roman Empire decline? (Guess what? It took centuries)
At what exact date did Europe come out of the incorrectly named ‘dark ages’?
Precisely my point. Change is slow. Thus I’m not in favor of defanging a 1965 law. I don’t think enough time has gone by. I was curious when you think the tide turned. I didn’t expect an answer like “Wednesday Septemer 28th at 5:03 PM,” but I was curious about when you thought that was, approximately.
In my state, state IDs are issued with an individual fee.
Certainly the large scale examples I gave. If you don’t think things have changed you aren’t paying attention. If you do seriously believe in precaution then all states should have the same stringent measures placed on it. Of course that only centralized the potential biases in election controls.
But since this has become rather circular, you not presenting any new objections after yours have been debunked and you repeat them anyway, this grows tiresome.
If you don’t want to talk, nobody’s making you. You know, it’s perfectly possible to discuss ideas and get different points of view without declaring people opponents or intellectually dishonest or debunked. I asked an honest question. If you think the VRA should have been altered 5, 10, 20 years ago, that’s interesting to me.
It’s similar to the Theseus Ship paradox. You can’t pick a specific time that it should have been done. But you can clearly see now that its standards are unfairly focused unfairly focused on a few entities that are clearly different.
Unfair that it doesn’t give those entities credence that they are clearly different. Unfair that it doesn’t put into consideration other places that may have developed biased attitudes and practices.
Any electoral regulation will be unfair. The question is if new regulations will be more or less unfair than the VRA as it stood, and the potential for abuse of either scenario. Trusting local election officials to be less corrupt than the DOJ, or that an injunction would have a smoother ride with Voter ID laws than previously, seems incautious, as I’ve said.