I forget who wrote the Tweet yesterday, they come so quick, but it went something like “If they can drive down to the polling place, they can drive down to get an ID”
(WRAL) Voter identification legislation in North Carolina will pick up steam again now that the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down part of the Voting Rights Act, a key General Assembly leader said Tuesday.
A bill requiring voters to present one of several forms of state-issued photo ID starting in 2016 cleared the House two months ago, but it’s been sitting since in the Senate Rules Committee to wait for a ruling by the justices in an Alabama case, according to Sen. Tom Apodaca, R-Henderson, the committee chairman. He said a bill will now be rolled out in the Senate next week.
The ruling essentially means a voter ID or other election legislation approved in this year’s session probably won’t have to receive advance approval by U.S. Justice Department attorneys or a federal court before such measures can be carried out.
Texas and other states will now move ahead with their plans to require ID, something that the vast majority of citizens have or can purchase for a small amount. NC’s bill may reduce early voting as well as eliminate Sunday voting and same-day registration. One would think that the integrity of our election process might be important to Democrats, too, based on all their talking points, yet, they are most certainly against any attempts to make sure that the person who is voting is actually eligible. For Southern states like my home state of North Carolina, this is much about making sure illegal and legal aliens do not vote. Along with the shenanigans Democrats like to pull.
What the SCOTUS decision said is that the small part of the Voting Rights Act which required that certain states obtain “pre-clearance” from the federal Department Of Justice (which has become a heavily politicized agency) for any voting changes within certain state counties be changed. It did not strike it down. Pre-clearance made a lot of sense back in the days it was passed, as Democrat run government looked to stop Blacks from voting, and the DOJ was able to deal with the states and counties which were the biggest offenders (and run by Democrats). In 2013 it makes no sense, especially since the last time it was re-authorized in 2006 they used 40 year old data. Times have changed. If there are states, counties, and localities that look use racism/bigotry to block minorities or other groups from voting legally, then the DOJ can jump in. But modern data is needed.
This ruling has obviously turned Democrats into start raving barking moonbats, and make them remember the days when things weren’t good….during Democrat rule
The Rev. William Barber, president of the North Carolina chapter of the (Democrat) NAACP, one of the plaintiffs that sued over the 2011 maps, urged Congress to redo the formula so that areas of the country with a history of racial discrimination will still be monitored closely.
“Clearly, the avalanche of attacks we are seeing leveled at voting rights and the intense attempts at voter suppression in state houses around the country remain a constant reminder of the constitutional and moral necessity for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,” Barber wrote in an email.
Of course the article spends more time quoting those who are against voter ID, the liberals at the station are certainly against it as well. And they, like hyper-agitator William Barber never acknowledge that Democrats were the ones instituting harsh measures to stop Blacks and other minorities from voting.
Anyhow, the NY Times is in full apoplexy, but fails to understand that this is 2013, not 1965. The President is in full uproar, whining as he usually does, demanding that Congress Do Something, without specifying what they should do. Jonathan S. Tobin points out that Democrats are living in the past (and aren’t very bright). Bloomberg notes that Jim Crow (a Democrat policy) is dead, let’s go by the Constitution.
(WSJ) “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder, “Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.” The Constitution requires that the federal government treat states equally, and the Voting Rights Act’s selective restrictions were only warranted under extraordinary circumstances. “Current burdens,” Justice Roberts wrote, quoting a previous case, must be justified by “current needs.”
Democrats would prefer to live in the past, ginning up racism (which they themselves were the leaders of said racism) where it doesn’t exist in order to continue the money train and whip up a frenzy. And they say Republicans live in the past. Sheesh!