Jeff, I don’t know where you got this post but it is wrong. The part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that was remanded to a lower court (not struck down) was that portion (not the entire bill), that requires certain Southern States to get Federal Court approval before they change any part of any voting regulation. Yes, it was critical in 65 when poll taxes and literacy tests were common. Yes it was critical when Blacks were regularly threatened and intimidated, but that is not what is happening in 2013. The City of Austin, got a new congressperson, the State of Texas several. Before there could be a primary, maps had to be redrawn for the entire state and approved up to and including the entire Court of Appeals sitting in Banc. That was a 12 month process and served to enrich the attorney’s for the R’s and the D’s. Joshua Daniel Katz Esq. and the firm of which he is a partner in made a boat load of money, and in all honesty did nothing to improve or diminish the voting integrity or equality of Texas. In the 10 impacted states Black and Hispanic voters are the majority of those registered. No one votes in large numbers anymore so I guess there is the chance of fraud just like Chicago. There is nothing in the ruling today that precludes Congress from re-enacting the restrictions, or the Supremes from imposing sanctions should any violation be brought to judicial attention. This attached story is just plain wrong. As for the Constitution not guaranteeing the right to vote, here are the pertinent amendments to the Constitution which speak directly to various facets of voting: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 19 22 23 24 26 Hmmm, do you think the article might be a bit biased?
Posted on: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:00:23 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015