The five Justices involved in this sledge hammer of change is assailing the USA Constitution. Their questions are political, not about equity or the rights of everyone to vote without obstruction.
Those that seek to end the equity of all citizens to vote rely on literal language. So, the reality is today in 2013, the literacy rate in the USA is better than 1964. There may be more than 50 percent of a state registered to vote. So, in this case, the five Justices are looking to remove barriers to Voter ID, opportunities to vote early and gerrymandering. That is basically the issue here. There was a day when the words, "...whether states imposed unfair devices...," would apply to 'state of the art' obstructions, but, that is not the assignment the five Justices are applying here. They have their preferences and hence an additional measure for scrutiny of Alito and his fitness to serve.
* Is Photo ID a state of the art barrier?
Yes.
* Is limiting the days and hours a barrier to voting?
Yes. Why? By sheer numbers. In 1964 there were 191,888,791 people in the USA. (click here) Today, the USA has 310,000,000 according to President Obama in his State of the Union address. There are many more voters today to place there votes. So, the idea there can be less days and hours for a much larger populous to vote is stacking the deck. The sheer number of voters to cast their ballot prohibits limiting the number of days and hours.
If one voting booth is set up in a city of 5000 voters on the Tuesday of any election, will all 5000 voters have the opportunity to vote? Of course not. So, the number of machines, the number of days and the number of hours have to be increased to accommodate the USA Constitution's demand of democracy.
Since 1845 the Democratic Party dominated the elections of that district, except, three occasions: Lemuel D. Evans was considered an independent. Congressman Evans was a person unattached to a political party. He was there from 1855-57. I doubt seriously the dynamics of corrupt money played much of a role back then. So, a person could be detached from a party to achieve a majority in a national election. Congressman Evans served one term. Then again 1870, but, on for one year a Republican by the name of George W. Whitemore was Congressman. I think he was recalled or something for his term by a Democrat. No lie. He only served one year, a half of a term. From 1971 until 2005 the First Congressional District of Texas was a Democrat. That is history.
Oral argument: March 1, 2006
After a decades-long dominance (click here) of the Texas congressional delegation by Democratic representatives, the Republican Party won a majority of seats by virtue of new Congressional district lines as reflected by the state's population growth in the 2000 Census. However, the legislature failed to redistrict the state in time for the elections, which were then governed by a district court-drawn plan. After the elections, the new Republican majority engaged in a rare mid-term redistricting plan to replace the court's map. A number of individuals and organizations sued to prevent the redistricting on a variety of grounds. The Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of the Texas redistricting plan under analyses of due process, equal protection political, racial gerrymandering, and the Voting Rights Act.
The Voter's Rights Law of 1964 is still important today. I honestly don't see it never being important. And I never see it being an assault on the USA Constitution. Never. How can a law that demands equity of all citizens within their democracy, in the only way they have to practice their democracy, ever be an enemy to the USA Constitution?
The question by Chief Justice Roberts about what state has the largest/best African American voter turnout and which has the smallest/worst, is a hideous question. Mississippi's population is 37% African Americans.
(*African American individuals in Mississippi are 1,110,591 individuals; not all adults;
*African American adults over 18 years of age 830,772 as of 2011;
*according to the 2010 (non-presidential year) voting report of the Mississippi four districts there was a voter "turnout" (not just registered) of 788,549 people;
*that is low;
*the population of Mississippi is 2,977,457 with 2,227,137 adults over 18 years old;
*that is a voter turnout of 35% of all adults 18 years or older;
*if 35% of the adult African American population turned out to vote it would be 290,770 African Americans)
while Massachusetts' population is 7.8% African American
(*that is 515,346 African American individuals, not all adults, adults over 18 years of age 405,577 as of 2011;
*according to the 2010 (non-presidential year) REGISTERED voters, not turn out, is 4,190,907;
*the turnout in Massachusetts is 57.4% which is a better turnout than Mississippi;
*the turnout in Massachusetts of registered voters was 2,405,581;
*if a full 7.8% of those voters were African Americans that would be 187,635 African American voters in Massachusetts that turned out;
*so sheer numbers place Massachusetts with a better percentage of African American Voters and
*brings a difference between the two states to 103,135 of African American Voters.
I don't believe there is any quality argument with those numbers. The voter turnout is better in Massachusetts than Mississippi and the numbers are higher in Mississippi due to sheer numbers of difference in the population. There is no legitimate argument in those numbers by Chief Justice Roberts. He is playing games. In actuality with a 57.4% turnout rate, Massachusetts does a better job.).
The nation's population is 13.1 percent African American. That question is irrelevant to any equity issue. There are more than twice as many adult voters in Mississippi as Massachusetts. Just because there is a larger African American turnout in Mississippi has nothing to do with opportunity so much as numbers in the state. Justice Roberts is being petty to prove something. I am not sure what.
OP-ED COLUMNIST
...Then there’s John Roberts, (click here) who replaced Rehnquist as the chief justice in 2005. That year, Newsday reported that Roberts had made racist and sexist jokes in memos that he wrote while working in the Reagan White House. And, The New York Review of Books published a scolding article in 2005 making the case that during the same period that he was making those jokes, Roberts marshaled a crusader’s zeal in his efforts to roll back the civil rights gains of the 1960s and ’70s — everything from voting rights to women’s rights. The article began, “The most intriguing question about John Roberts is what led him as a young person whose success in life was virtually assured by family wealth and academic achievement to enlist in a political campaign designed to deny opportunities for success to those who lack his advantages.”...
by Suevon Lee
ProPublica, Aug. 30, 2012, 7:27 a.m
ProPublica, Aug. 30, 2012, 7:27 a.m
Aug. 30:
A single provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been playing a key role on the election front this year. Section 5 has blocked photo voter-ID laws, prohibited reduced early-voting periods in parts of Florida and just Tuesday barred new redistricting maps in Texas....
...Not surprisingly, then, Section 5 is increasingly the target of attack by those who say it is outdated, discriminatory against Southern states and unconstitutional....
Those that seek to end the equity of all citizens to vote rely on literal language. So, the reality is today in 2013, the literacy rate in the USA is better than 1964. There may be more than 50 percent of a state registered to vote. So, in this case, the five Justices are looking to remove barriers to Voter ID, opportunities to vote early and gerrymandering. That is basically the issue here. There was a day when the words, "...whether states imposed unfair devices...," would apply to 'state of the art' obstructions, but, that is not the assignment the five Justices are applying here. They have their preferences and hence an additional measure for scrutiny of Alito and his fitness to serve.
...whether states imposed unfair devices like literacy tests in November 1964, whether less than 50 percent of the voting-age population was registered to vote as of that date, or if less than 50 percent of eligible voters voted in the November 1964 presidential election....
* Is Photo ID a state of the art barrier?
Yes.
* Is limiting the days and hours a barrier to voting?
Yes. Why? By sheer numbers. In 1964 there were 191,888,791 people in the USA. (click here) Today, the USA has 310,000,000 according to President Obama in his State of the Union address. There are many more voters today to place there votes. So, the idea there can be less days and hours for a much larger populous to vote is stacking the deck. The sheer number of voters to cast their ballot prohibits limiting the number of days and hours.
If one voting booth is set up in a city of 5000 voters on the Tuesday of any election, will all 5000 voters have the opportunity to vote? Of course not. So, the number of machines, the number of days and the number of hours have to be increased to accommodate the USA Constitution's demand of democracy.
* Is gerrymandering a problem?
Yes.
We know one of the most stark examples of how gerrymandering has adversely effected the voting dynamic is the First Congressional District of Texas. Louie Gohmert.
Since 1845 the Democratic Party dominated the elections of that district, except, three occasions: Lemuel D. Evans was considered an independent. Congressman Evans was a person unattached to a political party. He was there from 1855-57. I doubt seriously the dynamics of corrupt money played much of a role back then. So, a person could be detached from a party to achieve a majority in a national election. Congressman Evans served one term. Then again 1870, but, on for one year a Republican by the name of George W. Whitemore was Congressman. I think he was recalled or something for his term by a Democrat. No lie. He only served one year, a half of a term. From 1971 until 2005 the First Congressional District of Texas was a Democrat. That is history.
Oral argument: March 1, 2006
After a decades-long dominance (click here) of the Texas congressional delegation by Democratic representatives, the Republican Party won a majority of seats by virtue of new Congressional district lines as reflected by the state's population growth in the 2000 Census. However, the legislature failed to redistrict the state in time for the elections, which were then governed by a district court-drawn plan. After the elections, the new Republican majority engaged in a rare mid-term redistricting plan to replace the court's map. A number of individuals and organizations sued to prevent the redistricting on a variety of grounds. The Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of the Texas redistricting plan under analyses of due process, equal protection political, racial gerrymandering, and the Voting Rights Act.
Gerrymandering to eliminate minority representatives is the issue. It is a matter of equal protection.
The face of this district literally changed.
These were the counties of the district before gerrymandering...
Lamar, Red River, Bowie, Delta, Hopkins,Wood, Franklin, Titus, Camp, Morris, Cass (the entire county), Marion, Harrison, Panola, Rusk, Upshur, Shelby, most of Hunt, northern Nacogdoches
...and these are the counties of the district after the gerrymandering. One county, Cass, is even divided. There are five of the same counties in the district. All the others are different and diluted to their importance. It is an equal protection issue. It's ridiculous.
Upshur, Marion, Harrison, Gregg, Smith, Rusk, Panola, Nacogdoches, Shelby, San Augustine, Sabine, Angelina, southeastern Cass
The Voter's Rights Law of 1964 is still important today. I honestly don't see it never being important. And I never see it being an assault on the USA Constitution. Never. How can a law that demands equity of all citizens within their democracy, in the only way they have to practice their democracy, ever be an enemy to the USA Constitution?
The question by Chief Justice Roberts about what state has the largest/best African American voter turnout and which has the smallest/worst, is a hideous question. Mississippi's population is 37% African Americans.
(*African American individuals in Mississippi are 1,110,591 individuals; not all adults;
*African American adults over 18 years of age 830,772 as of 2011;
*according to the 2010 (non-presidential year) voting report of the Mississippi four districts there was a voter "turnout" (not just registered) of 788,549 people;
*that is low;
*the population of Mississippi is 2,977,457 with 2,227,137 adults over 18 years old;
*that is a voter turnout of 35% of all adults 18 years or older;
*if 35% of the adult African American population turned out to vote it would be 290,770 African Americans)
while Massachusetts' population is 7.8% African American
(*that is 515,346 African American individuals, not all adults, adults over 18 years of age 405,577 as of 2011;
*according to the 2010 (non-presidential year) REGISTERED voters, not turn out, is 4,190,907;
*the turnout in Massachusetts is 57.4% which is a better turnout than Mississippi;
*the turnout in Massachusetts of registered voters was 2,405,581;
*if a full 7.8% of those voters were African Americans that would be 187,635 African American voters in Massachusetts that turned out;
*so sheer numbers place Massachusetts with a better percentage of African American Voters and
*brings a difference between the two states to 103,135 of African American Voters.
I don't believe there is any quality argument with those numbers. The voter turnout is better in Massachusetts than Mississippi and the numbers are higher in Mississippi due to sheer numbers of difference in the population. There is no legitimate argument in those numbers by Chief Justice Roberts. He is playing games. In actuality with a 57.4% turnout rate, Massachusetts does a better job.).
The nation's population is 13.1 percent African American. That question is irrelevant to any equity issue. There are more than twice as many adult voters in Mississippi as Massachusetts. Just because there is a larger African American turnout in Mississippi has nothing to do with opportunity so much as numbers in the state. Justice Roberts is being petty to prove something. I am not sure what.
Rogues, Robes and Racists
...Then there’s John Roberts, (click here) who replaced Rehnquist as the chief justice in 2005. That year, Newsday reported that Roberts had made racist and sexist jokes in memos that he wrote while working in the Reagan White House. And, The New York Review of Books published a scolding article in 2005 making the case that during the same period that he was making those jokes, Roberts marshaled a crusader’s zeal in his efforts to roll back the civil rights gains of the 1960s and ’70s — everything from voting rights to women’s rights. The article began, “The most intriguing question about John Roberts is what led him as a young person whose success in life was virtually assured by family wealth and academic achievement to enlist in a political campaign designed to deny opportunities for success to those who lack his advantages.”...
