The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
This irritates the crap out of me. Some of the "changes" that they have rejected have been shown in court NOT to be discriminatory. That some agency says so should not be taken as fact. Courts are deciders of fact but bureaucrats should not be. And in fact it still doesn't address the main point to me. Sure there may still be a need but it shouldn't be justifiable to override other constitutional issues over data that's 40 + years old. If there is still a need then have it set for todays facts.with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writing that the court is essentially saying the Voting Rights Act has been so successful that it should be ended.
But Justice Ginsburg said discrimination still exists in voting laws ranging from racial gerrymandering to changing representation formulas — what she called “second-generation barriers.”
She said this was proved by the number of changes that the Justice Department rejected as discriminatory, acting under its Voting Rights Act powers.
Ugh, I think I just had a minor stroke attempting to read the moronic comments to that article.Jason K wrote:....and AG Abbott is wasting no time....
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com: ... bbott.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The analysis I've seen today says that this is exactly what today's decision does. It requires that any need be justified by current facts, not 40 year old facts, because by any measure, the VRA was so successful that those 40 year old facts no longer apply. In fact, before the bill was passed, only a small percentage of black Alabamans were registered to vote. Today, 25% of Alabama registered voters are black, and blacks represent 26% of the state's population......so they vote in higher numbers than Alabaman whites do. There is no more need for the VRA in Alabama.EEllis wrote:If there is still a need then have it set for todays facts.
How does Texas compare?The Annoyed Man wrote:The analysis I've seen today says that this is exactly what today's decision does. It requires that any need be justified by current facts, not 40 year old facts, because by any measure, the VRA was so successful that those 40 year old facts no longer apply. In fact, before the bill was passed, only a small percentage of black Alabamans were registered to vote. Today, 25% of Alabama registered voters are black, and blacks represent 26% of the state's population......so they vote in higher numbers than Alabaman whites do. There is no more need for the VRA in Alabama.EEllis wrote:If there is still a need then have it set for todays facts.
You know, I don't know. I got some of the Alabama information here: http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/i ... xml&coll=2, but it doesn't mention Texas. But my guess is that Alabama is representational of the south. Minority voter intimidation is a thing of the past that largely only exists in the fevered memories of race hucksters who largely live in the north. I would go so far as to say that the voter fraud rampant in the large leftist cities of the coasts, the midwest, and the northeast, is SO bad that they need the same kind of Justice Department oversight formerly reserved for the southern states. In the south, people have had to figure out how to accommodate one another and live in the same communities together. But in the north, where democrats have had a lot more success dividing people along racial lines, the corruption of the voting process is legendary.sjfcontrol wrote:How does Texas compare?The Annoyed Man wrote:The analysis I've seen today says that this is exactly what today's decision does. It requires that any need be justified by current facts, not 40 year old facts, because by any measure, the VRA was so successful that those 40 year old facts no longer apply. In fact, before the bill was passed, only a small percentage of black Alabamans were registered to vote. Today, 25% of Alabama registered voters are black, and blacks represent 26% of the state's population......so they vote in higher numbers than Alabaman whites do. There is no more need for the VRA in Alabama.EEllis wrote:If there is still a need then have it set for todays facts.
That could be a long time (if ever) with the way the Congress is split right now. This has been a long time coming, and I'm glad it was finally stricken down!RoyGBiv wrote:I reserve final judgment until the "new formula" is announced.
Yea, that makes no sense. The voting rights act went into effect in 1965. Are you saying that minority-rights focused groups didn't exist back then and that's why southern states were successfully getting laws on the books?anygunanywhere wrote:The Voting Rights Act is no longer needed since we have groups like the New Black Panthers making certain voting is conducted fairly.
Anygunanywhere
Sarcasm, and the New Black Panthers have everything to do with it because they INTIMIDATED WHITE VOTERS IN PHILADELPHIA WHICH IS ILLEGAL AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FAILED TO PROSECUTE.cb1000rider wrote:Yea, that makes no sense. The voting rights act went into effect in 1965. Are you saying that minority-rights focused groups didn't exist back then and that's why southern states were successfully getting laws on the books?anygunanywhere wrote:The Voting Rights Act is no longer needed since we have groups like the New Black Panthers making certain voting is conducted fairly.
Anygunanywhere
The court ruled that the voting rights act is no longer needed because it was based on old data. That data is not relevant today. It effectively moved the burden of showing that a voting law is fair from the state to a group that might be impacted. I for one believe (hopefully) that we no longer need these types of federal protections, but the New Black Panthers have nothing to do with it.