Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman
So you make a statement that it targets African-Americans
I ask How? as in "How does it target them, specifically?"
I think it would target all people who can't produce proof of citizenship, not just blacks. which has absolutely nothing to do with race
so your answer is....You don't know....
If your going to make a statement, shouldn't you, at the very least, know why you're making it...I mean, if you were my crazy uncle in the nursing home I might let you slide on why you say the things you say.
but you made that statement with such conviction....you may want to know why
....and you also told me to look it up....so I did.
they....not he (it was a 3 person appeals court) Ruled that the person who made the change to the form, requiring proof of citizenship, wasn't authorized to do so. Nowhere in their ruling did they say that it was going to “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” just that he didn't have the right to make the change.
and of the 2-1 decision....one judge was a Democrat and one was a Republican
But feel free to insert Racism between the lines.....it's so 2016 now
so, again, how does requiring proof of citizenship to vote "“target African-Americans with almost surgical precision”?
|
only a blind white guy wouldn't see Racism but it seem the courts saw things differently all over the county .. must be another liberal conspiracy
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/ar...-black-voters/ same phrase Discrimination with “almost surgical precision”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/op...ng-rights.html
In the last few weeks, voting rights groups, in some instances working with the Department of Justice, have posted a series of victories that seemed unlikely when their cases against these laws were first brought. The rights of hundreds of thousands of voters are at stake.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, perhaps the most conservative federal appeals court, ruled 9-6 last month that Texas’ strict voter identification law had a racially discriminatory effect on African-American and Latino voters. Not only did the Fifth Circuit send the case back to the trial court to establish a procedure to make it easier for those who lacked one of the narrow forms of identification to be able to vote, but also to decide if Texas had acted with racially discriminatory intent. Such a finding could lead the courts to put Texas back under direct federal supervision.
Last Friday, a Fourth Circuit panel ruled that a North Carolina voting law, possibly the largest rollback of voting rights since the 1965 Voting Rights Act, was enacted with racially discriminatory intent. The court threw out not only the state’s strict voter ID law, but also other voting restrictions that could make it especially hard for minorities to vote.
In the Seventh Circuit, a panel of conservative judges gave a trial court permission to soften Wisconsin’s strict voter identification law. In response, the trial court recently issued an order giving people who lacked one of the few IDs accepted for voting in Wisconsin the chance to vote by filling out an affidavit of identity. Then last week another federal court threw out more of Wisconsin’s strict voting laws. On Monday, a federal court told North Dakota to soften its ID law, which adversely affected Native Americans.
Meanwhile, over in the Sixth Circuit, two federal judges have held that Ohio’s rollbacks of early voting violate the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act by making it harder for African-Americans and others to vote. Another case on appeal challenges Ohio’s planned voter purge. In Michigan, a district court judge rejected the state’s elimination of straight-ticket voting. Finally, in Kansas, federal and state courts have beaten back numerous attempts by Secretary of State Kris Kobach to make voter registration harder in the name of preventing noncitizen voting (a minor problem in Kansas, to say the least).
These battles are not over, and further appeals could still lead to reversals. But there are two reasons to be optimistic that we are nearing the end of an era of increasingly restrictive voting rules imposed just about exclusively by Republican legislators and election officials over the objections of Democrats and voting rights groups.