Former GOPers Admit: It Was All About Voter Suppression

[Indy]

[uebermann]

Well, I don't think one man can speak for an entire party and it seems he would have a reason to say things like this to hurt them (true or not), however I think this issue points to a larger problem which is that we should have a neutral entity in charge of voting and not the various local/state governments of each state.

There have been a few power plays (such as going to judges of a certain party affiliation to get them to shut down polls early or extend polls or whatever) that make it very apparent that neither Republicans nor Democrats have a true interest in being fair, but rather to take whatever advantage they can get to win elections.

[Indy]

Then impose a national standard where everybody plays by the same rules, no exceptions.

If we're going to walk the walk about loving freedom, liberty and the Constitution and all that, we're going to do everything in our power to make sure that voting is easily accessible to all those who are eligible and we're going to deal with people playing these kind of games as harshly as possible.

BTW the article cites four people, not just the one, including former governor Crist.

[Professor]

You know, I wonder - could these laws be challenged based upon violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? That law says that any law that is discriminatory in nature, or as an effect of being discriminatory, is null and void.

If this law would have a disproportionate negative impact upon those of a protected class (racial minorities, national origin minorities, etc.), then the state law could be preempted by Federal law.

Of course, this makes the assumption that:
a) the law prohibits more Dems than GOP from voting, and
b) Dems are more likely to be of those aforementioned protected classes.

Those seem to be safe assumptions, though.

[Dobby]

[Indy]

Interesting.

A covered jurisdiction that seeks to obtain Section 5 Preclearance, either from the United States Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, must demonstrate that a proposed voting change does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of discriminating based on race or color. In some cases, they must also show that the proposed change does not have the purpose or effect of discriminating against a "language minority group." Membership in a language minority group includes "persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage." The burden of proof under current Section 5 jurisprudence is on the covered jurisdiction to establish that the proposed change does not have a retrogressive purpose.[14]

They should amend it to include "discriminating based on political affiliation, either known or assumed."

[John Galt]

[Indy]

[Dobby]

[exploited]

I have no idea how Americans can tolerate this sort of partisan nonsense in regards to something as simple as voting. It seriously blows my mind.