How do you all feel that Eric Holder thinks he should be in charge of Texas voting laws? Do you realize that it took only 11 years for the U.S. to forgive the southern states (end of reconstruction) for the Civil War and that they can't forgive the south for the Civil Rights Act after 49 years? It is especially ironic that many of those people served in administrations for years afterwards. So let me ask you, do you think that you are all children and need to be treated like children by Eric Holder?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-Voting-Rights
- JD Barleycorn
- 08-09-2013, 11:50 AM
- timpage
- 08-09-2013, 11:55 AM
July 26 Dallas Morning News Editorial that actually discusses the reasons for the DOJ action.
The Dallas Morning News Published: 26 July 2013 06:13 PM
Updated: 27 July 2013 09:39 PM
Related
When a three-judge federal panel says a law “imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor and racial minorities in Texas,” one would hope state leaders take it to heart. Instead, Attorney General Greg Abbott reinstated the offending voter ID program within two hours of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month that rendered the panel’s decision moot.
Another three-judge panel ruled — also in 2012 — against the state’s redistricting maps, concluding that minority groups had “provided more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space, or need, to address here.” That ruling was also made irrelevant by the high court decision.
Two rulings within the past year that found Texas had passed discriminatory laws; two rulings invalidated by the Supreme Court decision striking down Section 4 of the popular Voting Rights Act, which determined which jurisdictions needed pre-clearance for election changes.
No wonder, then, that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has targeted Texas to be the first state “bailed in” to pre-clearance requirements under a different part of the Voting Rights Act, the little-known, rarely used Section 3 (c). Section 3 (c) authorizes federal courts to place jurisdictions that deliberately discriminate against minorities into the pre-clearance category.
This newspaper supported the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County vs. Holder to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, because the formula unfairly singled out 16 jurisdictions, including Texas, for extraordinary oversight using decades-old data. However, the Department of Justice’s decision to try now to place Texas into pre-clearance is a sound move based on current information. We commend Holder and the Department of Justice for their aggressive protection of minorities’ voting rights.
For the moment, the Justice Department is supporting an existing lawsuit, filed by minority groups in a San Antonio federal court, that attacks Texas’ redistricting effort after the 2010 census and asks that Texas be placed into pre-clearance for 10 years. However, don’t be surprised if Holder eventually joins another lawsuit filed in a Corpus Christi federal court seeking to stop the voter ID program.
“This is the department’s first action to protect voting rights following the Shelby County decision, but it will not be our last,” Holder told the National Urban League on Thursday. “Even as Congress considers updates to the Voting Rights Act … we plan, in the meantime, to fully utilize the law’s remaining sections to subject states to pre-clearance as necessary.”
Holder’s words correctly placed the burden on Congress. It is up to lawmakers to rewrite the pre-clearance formula in Section 4 that was invalidated by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, it’s important for the Justice Department to use all the means at its disposal to protect voting rights.
The Dallas Morning News Published: 26 July 2013 06:13 PM
Updated: 27 July 2013 09:39 PM
Related
- Attorney General plans to seek federal oversight of Texas election laws
- Greg Abbott invokes states' rights in defending Texas
- Editorial: Court makes right move on Voting Rights Act -- with caveats
- Texas could be headed back onto pre-clearance list
- Eric Holder launches an end-run around Texas on voting rights
When a three-judge federal panel says a law “imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor and racial minorities in Texas,” one would hope state leaders take it to heart. Instead, Attorney General Greg Abbott reinstated the offending voter ID program within two hours of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month that rendered the panel’s decision moot.
Another three-judge panel ruled — also in 2012 — against the state’s redistricting maps, concluding that minority groups had “provided more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space, or need, to address here.” That ruling was also made irrelevant by the high court decision.
Two rulings within the past year that found Texas had passed discriminatory laws; two rulings invalidated by the Supreme Court decision striking down Section 4 of the popular Voting Rights Act, which determined which jurisdictions needed pre-clearance for election changes.
No wonder, then, that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has targeted Texas to be the first state “bailed in” to pre-clearance requirements under a different part of the Voting Rights Act, the little-known, rarely used Section 3 (c). Section 3 (c) authorizes federal courts to place jurisdictions that deliberately discriminate against minorities into the pre-clearance category.
This newspaper supported the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County vs. Holder to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, because the formula unfairly singled out 16 jurisdictions, including Texas, for extraordinary oversight using decades-old data. However, the Department of Justice’s decision to try now to place Texas into pre-clearance is a sound move based on current information. We commend Holder and the Department of Justice for their aggressive protection of minorities’ voting rights.
For the moment, the Justice Department is supporting an existing lawsuit, filed by minority groups in a San Antonio federal court, that attacks Texas’ redistricting effort after the 2010 census and asks that Texas be placed into pre-clearance for 10 years. However, don’t be surprised if Holder eventually joins another lawsuit filed in a Corpus Christi federal court seeking to stop the voter ID program.
“This is the department’s first action to protect voting rights following the Shelby County decision, but it will not be our last,” Holder told the National Urban League on Thursday. “Even as Congress considers updates to the Voting Rights Act … we plan, in the meantime, to fully utilize the law’s remaining sections to subject states to pre-clearance as necessary.”
Holder’s words correctly placed the burden on Congress. It is up to lawmakers to rewrite the pre-clearance formula in Section 4 that was invalidated by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, it’s important for the Justice Department to use all the means at its disposal to protect voting rights.
- CJ7
- 08-09-2013, 11:59 AM
lol ... its more about Holder isn't it JD?
- JD Barleycorn
- 08-09-2013, 12:12 PM
Great another paste without any input from the paster.
So when are they going to look into Florida and their redistricting that created new democratic districts by disenfranchising of one race by adding them to a district that overwhelmed their voice.
This is all about winning isn't it?
I loved the fact that the newspaper (that way Timmie can deny he said it) said it was racist policies without stating those policies for us to decide whether the paper was being realistic.
So when are they going to look into Florida and their redistricting that created new democratic districts by disenfranchising of one race by adding them to a district that overwhelmed their voice.
This is all about winning isn't it?
I loved the fact that the newspaper (that way Timmie can deny he said it) said it was racist policies without stating those policies for us to decide whether the paper was being realistic.
- CJ7
- 08-09-2013, 12:16 PM
- zme
- 08-09-2013, 01:41 PM
Seems like the newspaper article neglects to mention that the *Supreme Court* decided that the federal panel incorrectly interpreted the law when it made that statement to begin with. You would think that when the Supreme Court says that lower courts and the government are incorrectly interpreting the provision of the voting rights act the government would apologize and appropriately defer to state rights - to be consistent with what the Supreme Court states are the laws of the land.
In addition you would think that the government would pay heed to the reasoning used by the Supreme Court - if the government is so concerned with voting rights then how does it make sense to have a law that says that special protections will only be applied to a very small handful of states and not the rest of the states in the Union? If the same protections were equally applied everywhere that would make complete sense would it not? Are voters in Ohio or Nebraska less worth of protection? Is it acceptable to somehow flag a minority of states (that coincidentally don't happen to support the existing administration) and apply unique restrictions - that also coincidentally happen to favor the ruling administration?
When I lived in Massachusetts I did not see any government having any concern about the blatant gerrymandering that dwindled the state republican representation at the federal level to zero. I did not see the government get all uptight that a section of voters were being singled out unfairly. Nor do I see Holder too concerned at the blatant gerrymandering in his home state of Illinois where the maps have been drawn to minimize the chances of Republican success. Are those voters not worthy of protection?
The answer really is no. The democrats won MA and IL and they got to draw the maps. And the same is true in Texas. If the feds are concerned about protection they can draw up standards for all states and implement them equally everywhere. As the Supreme Court pointed out. The Civil War is long over and minorities like me don't really have anything special to fear in any state. Or at least there are no unique concerns in Texas that are not equally true in other states.
In addition you would think that the government would pay heed to the reasoning used by the Supreme Court - if the government is so concerned with voting rights then how does it make sense to have a law that says that special protections will only be applied to a very small handful of states and not the rest of the states in the Union? If the same protections were equally applied everywhere that would make complete sense would it not? Are voters in Ohio or Nebraska less worth of protection? Is it acceptable to somehow flag a minority of states (that coincidentally don't happen to support the existing administration) and apply unique restrictions - that also coincidentally happen to favor the ruling administration?
When I lived in Massachusetts I did not see any government having any concern about the blatant gerrymandering that dwindled the state republican representation at the federal level to zero. I did not see the government get all uptight that a section of voters were being singled out unfairly. Nor do I see Holder too concerned at the blatant gerrymandering in his home state of Illinois where the maps have been drawn to minimize the chances of Republican success. Are those voters not worthy of protection?
The answer really is no. The democrats won MA and IL and they got to draw the maps. And the same is true in Texas. If the feds are concerned about protection they can draw up standards for all states and implement them equally everywhere. As the Supreme Court pointed out. The Civil War is long over and minorities like me don't really have anything special to fear in any state. Or at least there are no unique concerns in Texas that are not equally true in other states.
- LexusLover
- 08-09-2013, 02:33 PM
Seems like the newspaper article neglects to mention that the *Supreme Court* decided that the federal panel incorrectly interpreted the law when it made that statement to begin with.
. Originally Posted by zme
Damn it, zme. Don't you know better than to fault Holder!
He's in charge. Not those snooty, ivory tower, gray-beards!!!!
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...ce-ruling.html
Besides Holder's Boss is a "Law Professor" and he knows better than they do. Just listen to him.
How in the hell do you expect Hillary to win Texas without a little help from her friends?
- WTF
- 08-09-2013, 04:12 PM
- CJ7
- 08-09-2013, 04:50 PM
Damn it, zme. Don't you know better than to fault Holder!see how fast it morphed from Texas to Holder and Obie then on to Clinton ?
He's in charge. Not those snooty, ivory tower, gray-beards!!!!
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...ce-ruling.html
Besides Holder's Boss is a "Law Professor" and he knows better than they do. Just listen to him.
How in the hell do you expect Hillary to win Texas without a little help from her friends? Originally Posted by LexusLover
told ya ...
- Jackie S
- 08-09-2013, 05:51 PM
Texas has a long way to go before the likes of Eric Holder can turn it To a liberal shit hole.
- EXTXOILMAN
- 08-10-2013, 09:51 AM
- CJ7
- 08-10-2013, 10:10 AM
- Guest040616
- 08-10-2013, 10:15 AM
How do you all feel that Eric Holder thinks he should be in charge of Texas voting laws? Originally Posted by JD BarleycornCould it be that Eric Holder is the Attorney General of the entire United States of America and not just the states JD prefers? Since JD (and his wayward band of Brother & Sister Idiots) has thus far been unable to convince enough residents of Texas (and Colorado for that matter) to secede from the Good 'ol US of A than it stands to reason that AG Holder still maintains a significant level of authority over legal matters in Texas. If for no other reason than to ensure the states conform to Federal laws and regulations. DUH!!!!!
Whether JD and/or his kind get their soiled panties in a wad is of little or no consequence.
I suspect this in all actuality, is yet of another of JD's
"States Rights" threads?JD, are you planning to immigrate to Texas? If so, let me offer some unsolicited advice:
"Don't mess with Texas!"
In simpler terms (for the simple minded), stay the fuck out of Texas!
- JD Barleycorn
- 08-10-2013, 11:31 AM
Tex, you might as well put on a skirt and crouchless panties because Eric is coming for you.
Ahhhhhhh, don't you look just fabulous
Ahhhhhhh, don't you look just fabulous
- Guest040616
- 08-10-2013, 11:37 AM
Tex, you might as well put on a skirt and crouchless panties because Eric is coming for you. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn"Eric is coming" for me? Not in this lifetime! I can assure you that is the very least of my worries.
I will let the Idiot clan lose sleep at night over the possibility that "Eric is coming for" y'all!
