PrintSmith wrote: And so what Z, because there may have been a reason 50 years ago that is justification for a perpetual intervention on the part of the federal government?
Yes. Once the States were no longer subjugated by an unconstitutional provision that existed in the federal laws, they took what they deemed necessary steps to ensure the validity of the vote in their State.
FWIW, finding that the formula contained in the VRA of 1965 wasn't constitutional in 2014 isn't a "gutting" of the VRA. Congress may certainly enact an new formula, one that is current and relevant, to replace the outdated one which said that any State was subject to federal oversight for what occurred prior to 1965.
Our laws do not allow for the sins of the father to be held against the son Z, and that is precisely what the old formula did.
My take away from this and from looking at the actual report (embedded in the article)? The jury is still out on what happened then and again in the 2014 mid-term elections.
A good friend shared with me a few months ago that he found it interesting how certain folks could draw me into an argument very quickly and keep me there indefinitely.
I am a recovering arguer.
Carry on.
My take away from this and from looking at the actual report (embedded in the article)? The jury is still out on what happened then and again in the 2014 mid-term elections.
And my first question would be why they chose to compare Kansas and Tennessee to Maine, Arkansas, Alabama and Delaware. Are they the only States that could be used to support the desired outcome?
Strict photo ID in effect: Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. In addition, North Carolina and Wisconsin have strict photo ID laws that are not yet in effect.
Photo ID in effect: Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.
