Will Republicans allow the Voting Rights Act to be updated?

Something the Dog Said wrote: Which changes nothing from the fact that conservative Republicans will take the opportunity to create obstructions for the voting rights of minorities. Does it?

That is quite the assumption.

I prefer verifying the legal right to vote for everyone versus the Democrat assumption that their minority voters don't know how to properly register to vote and that they don't know how to get state issued photo ID.

A Democratic lawmaker from Minnesota criticized Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act by calling Justice Clarence Thomas “Uncle Thomas,” then saying he didn’t know “Uncle Tom” was a racist epithet.

Some race baters just can't help themselves lol .

That tweet was quickly deleted, and Mr. Winkler, who is white and represents some upper middle class suburbs west-southwest of Minneapolis, offered a conditional-tense quasi-apology in subsequent tweets.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... le-thomas/

I heard that. Sometimes people think they can get away with being racist just because they are Dems.

FredHayek wrote: I heard that. Sometimes people think they can get away with being racist just because they are Dems.

Never happens (see "Why we needed the Voting Rights Act" in the first place... and get back to us) :rofllol

PrintSmith wrote: I agree Dog - the statute should be updated. Let's just alter the effective date from November of 1964 to November of 2012. Are there any States that would continue to be subjected to the restrictions imposed by the VRA if this is what is done by Congress? We both know the answer to that query, don't we?

I have no idea what nonsense you are going on about. What would we find if we simply updated the data as suggested by Roberts. Ginsberg in her brilliant dissenting opinion had this to say:

In fact, Congress found there were more DOJ objections between 1982 and 2004 (626) than there were between 1965 and the 1982 reauthorization (490). 1 Voting Rights Act: Evidence of Continued Need, Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 172 (2006) (hereinafter Evidence of Continued Need). All told, between 1982 and 2006, DOJ objections blocked over 700 voting changes based on a determination that the changes were discriminatory. H. R. Rep. No. 109–478, at 21. Congress found that the majority of DOJ objections included findings of discriminatory intent, see 679 F. 3d, at 867, and that the changes blocked by preclearance were “calculated decisions to keep minority voters from fully participating in the political process.” H. R. Rep. 109–478, at 21. On top of that, over the same time period the DOJ and private plaintiffs succeeded in more than 100 actions to enforce the §5 preclearance requirements.
Congress also received evidence that litigation under §2 of the VRA was an inadequate substitute for preclearance in the covered jurisdictions. Litigation occurs only after the fact, when the illegal voting scheme has already been put in place and individuals have been elected pursuant to it, thereby gaining the advantages of incumbency.


Showing that those states still subject under the VRA as reenacted in 2007 are still sadly guilty of sordidly attempting to thwart the rights of minorities to vote.