WEATHER »

Capps Condemns Voting Rights Ruling


Thursday, June 27, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

Congressmember Lois Capps issued a statement condemning the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down part of the Voting Rights Act, which has been continuously renewed by Congress since 1965 to prevent discrimination. “We need to protect essential rights, especially when people are headed to the polls, and the ruling issued this morning weakens that effort,” she said. “Clearly, Congress must now act quickly to strengthen this vital legislation.” The 5-4 decision overturned the formula for deciding which localities must receive preapproval by the federal government before amending election rules.

This story was amended on 6/28/13 to reflect that the Supreme Court Vote was 5-4, not – as many readers noted – the impossible 6-5 that was originally published mistakenly.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

It's quite obvious Capps has no idea whats she is talking about and only muttering the same BS coming from her counterparts in Congress. It is funny though Capps was silent when the Black Panthers were standing in front of a polling place intimidating voters in 2008. Capps, time to retire.....

Priceless (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 6:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Long since time to retire...

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lois Capps needs to sign up for one of Obama's constitutional law classes to get a refresher course on (1) Marbury v Madison, (2) the three co-equal branches of government, (4) checks and balances and (5) separation of powers.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank god for Lois!
and foo, despite Marbury v Madison, and all the theories, the 3 branches are not in fact "equal" - Marbury was AFTER 1800. Have you heard of the imperial presidency? And in the way it should be Congress has more theoretical power than either of the other two branches.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To support the supreme court decision regarding voting rights is to be completely and in many cases presented here, willfully ignorant of the rest of the country. There are a few commentators here who would be right at home at a cross burning. Hide under pseudonym yeah.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We crushed the Nazis in '45; having them on our shores will just make it easier this time.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"We need to protect essential rights, especially when people are headed to the polls, and the ruling issued this morning weakens that effort"
Obviously KV, neither you or Lois actually read the decision. I did. By bringing up Nazi's and cross burning you too have committed the sin that bugs me about the left; simply impugn an opinion with onerous language. The ruling simply looks at the demonstrable changes that have taken place due to the voting rights act and cultural progress and updates the formula. To imply that the south today is the south of yesterday is ignorant and bigoted. There is more parity in minority voting in some southern states than much of the enlightened north.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm neither Left nor Right, I'm American. :)

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The rural South is especially bigoted and we need only to look at gerrymandering in Texas to see how unadvanced certain sections of the country are. In addition there have been attempts in the last 10 years alone to prevent both Afro-American voters, and candidates in those very states.
It's not the rosy picture you assume. There are three Souths:
The cities which tend to be higher up the evolutionary scale. The suburbs which are mix but lean towards the sophistication of the cities, then the rural South where the fight against slavery is still being waged.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The New South open to large amounts of inward migration from the North has been the new reality for this part of the country for decades.

The rural south were KV claims slavery is still alive and well is now full of Indian casinos, Walmarts, air conditioned front porches and links to world-wide-web..

Rhett and Scarlett were fictional characters, KV.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Once again you're talking out your sphincter Foo, which is why I rarely acknowledge you but your disinformation cannot be allowed to stand whether it be your ignorance or your hatred. In the rural South the white trash still control the municipalities, you'd feel right at home .

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am going to chalk up your stereotype about the south as you simply having a bad day and let it go.
And yes, I truly consider you and your opinions to be the best that America has. Seriously.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's NOT a stereotype. It's a fantasy that racism no longer exists.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And thank you as well!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What people marched, even died for was overturned. Progress? handing the presidency to the Bush family, corporations are persons, real progress my friends. Fortunately for people of wealth or white skin, voting lines are not as long as those we saw in Florida. You might not be nazi, but you just may be rich or white if you think we don't need these laws. Only took Texas 2 hours to implement laws after this vote. Should tell you something. >Supreme court. Luckily we are represented by a sane person. Too bad our country has so many represented by loony toons.

spacey (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow Ken, racism exists? Thank you. Was it racist when the Black Panthers openly intimidated white voters in Philadelphia and EH refused to prosecute? Was it racist when the Black Caucus claimed racial epithets were hurled at them by the Tea Party and it was PROVEN that they intentionally lied?
Amazing that people are still comfortable stereotyping the entire south as racist.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Last time I checked, Texas was not part of the Old South.

And the phrase you are looking for italiansurge, is KV indulges in the "politics of personal destruction" when he finds himself unable to respond with substance.

Yes, the internet rule is the first person to rely on Nazis or Hitler or even post-Weimer Germany loses the debate, if any one is keeping score.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PS, I do think you are correct italiansurge. KV does represent the best we have in America.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've seen and heard Tea Partiers hurl racial epithets so that argument gets flushed.
The GOP has been intimidating voters for years with racial and ideological fears, xenophobia and bogus science.
BTW I had a racist Latina professor at UCSB, so yes I know it cuts both ways.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Racist and sexist with a vengeance, seeing her shocked face at the premiere of "Zapatista" now THAT was priceless.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

2 black panthers standing outside a building is not voter intimidation (you just might watch too much Fox news if you believe that story). Hundreds or thousands of poor people trying to get in to vote is a case of voter intimidation. Try standing in line for 8 hours to vote, see if you last. These backwards racist arguments are completely insane.

spacey (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hey, I had that racist Latina prof, too! She wanted Calif. back in Mexico and all the anglos off the property...racism and stereotypes do cut both way. KV is right about rural counties in the Old South still suffering genuine racism...Karl Rove was worrying about losing them [he NAMED specific counties in Ga. and other states] if his own GOP didn't get behind immigration reform, he acknowledged their racism and whites-only preference.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This example of partisan judicial activism is a yet another gift to a Republican party already committed to disenfranchising as many potentially opposing voters as possible. Given that many of those voters are Black and that Blacks have historically been the target of such efforts, it isn't surprising that charges of racism should figure in the discussion. Whether and how much the Republicans are being "racists" is less important than whether and how much they will succeed in placing obstacles in the way of people they consider likely to vote against them.

What the Court did wasn't simply to intrude on the prerogative of Congress by telling it that one of the laws it had passed and renewed had become irrelevant or in need of adjustment, it made the political judgment that a law that was previously constitutional had become unconstitutional on the ground that it was effective in addressing the issues it was intended to address.

pk (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2013 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

KV: Have you seen Tea Partiers hurl racial epithets or did you like mainstream media only imagine it, because no proof was ever found for this incident. I think you need to broaden your media reading base, KV.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2013 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Asking for voter ID prevents voter fraud; it does not disenfranchise voters. Just so we understand each other.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2013 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

one man's "prevents voter fraud" is another's "disenfranchis[-ing] voters" -- pk nailed it, thanks pk.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2013 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I heard the racial epithets outside Lois Capps office when a few Tea Partiers and a busload of paid supporters came in to protest Healthcare reform.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2013 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In fact Justin Tevis was the self ordained leader of that mob. And you yourself "foofighter" aren't above the use of racial epithets if you'll recall your remarks about Syria. Or should I repost the quote and link? What kind of baby did you say Syria was?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2013 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

stand down, foo, you're busted!

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2013 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Voter fraud" is largely a myth manufactured to keep likely Democrats from voting.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/20...

pk (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2013 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ensuing Love Fest aside by the usual suspects on the Indy message board, Editor please note that it is impossible for the SCOTUS to have a 6-5 decision.

Minor typo but I'm picky like that.

Stumbling_Distance (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2013 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, it's called the law of Nazi analogies as postualted by Godwin after observing arguemenst on Usenet News boards shortly after Albert Gore invented them (see: internets).

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Stumbling_Distance (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2013 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

well, at one time, a long time back in US History, weren't there 11 Justices? We know it was 5-4, of course.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2013 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another interesting phenom in this thread is the assumption of most commentators that the racism we speak of is only white against black in the deep South when nobody here can tell me who the last Latino/a mayor of SB was. Just sayin', for there certainly hasn't been a lack of qualified individuals.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2013 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My above comment would be an example of institutionalized racism. To further illustrate: voters themselves have shown themselves happy to embrace candidates of all ethnic backgrounds, but how are the pathways to becoming a viable candidate made available?
Sometimes I worry that some people who profess support for undocumented workers really just want cheap labor.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2013 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If requiring photo ID to vote is racist, then all our airports are racist, our DMV is racist, liquor stores and bars are racist, welfare and SNAP are racist, merchants that accept credit cards are racist. I guess as a landlord, I'm racist too. I require all prospective tenants to submit copies of photo ID's.

Botany (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2013 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Photo ID who cares. I'm talking about the drawing up of districts, the allocation of poll materials (booths, ballots), the distribution of polls. Etc.
Photo IDs are just a red herring. I won't take anybody seriously who's argument is Photo IDs. However, it is incumbent now upon states who require photo ids in order to vote to issue these IDs WITHOUT any kind of fee or charge and make sure voters are issued them immediately or have the reasonable opportunity to acquire one. But you won't raise taxes a penny to pay for all this even tho safeguards are already built into the system without photo IDs.
No free passes for anybody on either side of the Photo ID debate.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And are we to assume photo ID sates don't have absentee ballots? How about those districts that are a little slow in counting their absentee ballots?
Buncha chickens you are.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2013 at 6:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When you say "drawing up of districts", do you mean like the "ribbon of shame"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californ...

Botany (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2013 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@botany: "If requiring photo ID to vote is racist, then all our airports are racist, our DMV is racist, liquor stores and bars are racist, welfare and SNAP are racist, merchants that accept credit cards are racist. I guess as a landlord, I'm racist too."

Good to know that you have such respect for the right to vote, as protected by the constitution, that you're putting in the same category as a flight to Toledo and picking up a sixer with a carton of reds. But since the right-wing can't win elections democratically, I guess desperate times call for desperate measures.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
June 29, 2013 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So when again did the land of the free become tha land of subjects and wage or tax slaves? If you are free American (if you don't have or need an ID I'm assuming your free, how could you get along without one?) should you really be voting alongside the slaves?

PaleFacesGoHome (anonymous profile)
June 29, 2013 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SCOTUS majority: Congress has the responsibility to decide which states need special oversight under the Voting Rights Act, which Congress passed in 1965.

SCOTUS minority: Agreed. In our form of government, Congress makes the laws and the 7 of us make sure those laws are consistent with the Constitution. It's a good gig.

SCOTUS majority: Sorry Congress, you blew it. You haven't been taking into account the voter rights progress in states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. After all, we have a black President now. Until you revise/reauthorize the list of retarded states, we're striking down your current list - none are retarded until you come up with a new list.

Congress: We're too busy fighting among ourselves. We don't have time to come up with a new list of retarded states.

SCOTUS majority: Too bad. We insist you update your list. Until then, all those states who previously repressed voters they didn't like can move forward with their plans.

SCOTUS minority: But ... Congress updated their list of retarded states in 2006! In fact, the Voting Rights reuthorization was passed unanimously by the Senate and signed by George W. Bush. We don't think much has changed since then.

SCOTUS majority: Sorry. Congress didn't come up with the right list in 2006. Do it again.

Alabama Attorney General: Looky hear boys, I've got some great ideas for legally repressing black and elderly voters. Wanna hear 'em over a shot of Jack?

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
June 29, 2013 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

9 of us ... but you get the jist :)

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
June 29, 2013 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People should have a right to buy a sixer, take a flight to Toledo as well as vote. There are simple rules involved in all those processes for safety reasons. Requiring people to follow these simple rules is not a corruption of the democratic process.

Botany (anonymous profile)
June 29, 2013 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Safety reasons? The only reason for this and other voter suppression efforts is to promote the interests of the Republican party.

From a 2012 article by Alexander Keyssar:

The new ID laws have almost invariably been sponsored—and promoted—by Republicans, who claim that they are needed to prevent fraud. …
The only type of fraud that a strict photo ID rule would actually prevent is voter impersonation fraud (I go to the polls pretending to be you), and, in fact, voter impersonation fraud is exceedingly rare. In Indiana, where the Republican-dominated legislature passed one of the first new ID laws in 2005..., there had been no known instances of voter impersonation in the state’s history. In Texas... the 2008 and 2010 elections gave rise to only five formal complaints about voter impersonation (out of 13 million votes cast). ...
Most election experts believe that the greatest threat to election integrity comes from absentee ballots—a threat that would not be addressed by the current laws.
As importantly, the burdens placed on prospective voters by these ID requirements are not trivial. Men and women who already possess driver’s licenses or passports, of course, will be unaffected. … But citizens who lack such documents will now be obliged to assemble various other pieces of paper (birth certificates, naturalization forms, proof of residence, etc.) and make their way (presumably without a car) to a government office that can issue an official photo ID. Who are these men and women? Studies indicate that they are disproportionately young or elderly, poor, black, and Hispanic; demographically, they are more likely than not to vote Democratic. …

The recent wave of ID laws ... bears a close resemblance to past episodes of voter suppression... The laws seem tailored less to guarantee the integrity of elections than to achieve a partisan purpose; the targeted constituencies...tend, once again, to be the poor, the less advantaged, or members of minority groups. …
I could welcome a photo ID requirement if it were made clear that it was the responsibility of the state (rather than of private citizens) to insure that every eligible man and woman possessed such documentation...
Alas, that does not seem to be what the sponsors of the current measures have in mind… it is up to potential voters to figure out how to navigate around the new obstacle that the state has placed in their path. ..
The laws themselves are unworthy of a modern, sophisticated nation that identifies itself as democratic. They are not effective policy instruments; they chip away at the core democratic value of inclusiveness; and they resonate with the worst, rather than the best, of our political traditions.

pk (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2013 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And so the problem that this and similar laws are intended to fix isn't the largely nonexistent one of voter fraud but the one of how to help Republicans win elections, something that the actions of the Republicans on the Supreme Court almost consistently manage to aid.

pk (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2013 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Excellent focus on the big picture, pk.

"It is wrong, deadly wrong, to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country"

-- LBJ, March 1965

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2013 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Voter fraud like Florida 2000 or Ohio in 2004? And the attempts to privatize the counting of the ballots and the voting process?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2013 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And as for the delusion of the inclusive "New South", can you explain away Trayvon Martin's murder or Paula Deen's sick fantasies?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2013 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Remember when a women's right to vote was a "state's rights issue"?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2013 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken: Having spent my first 11 years in Chicago suburb I can assure you there was lots of racism there as well.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2013 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No doubt Bill, it's a never ending self perpetuating cycle of hate that only now is just beginning to be broken despite road crew slang and references to African mythology. Hell some of the people here make me hate white people.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2013 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

pk- "As importantly, the burdens placed on prospective voters by these ID requirements are not trivial."

Really? pk, do you know any eligible voters without so much as either a driver's license or a state issued ID? Heck, even the homeless have ID. Please tell me if you personally know one US citizen without a photo ID. Your "argument" is nonsense.

Botany (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2013 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How do you check the IDs of people sending in absentee ballots, shut ins and the like? How do they get the ID?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2013 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The fact of the matter is that there are already myriad safeguards put into place to keep ineligible ballots from being counted. Much ado about nothing. Some people just hate the fact they keep losing elections so they need to tamper with the process.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2013 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Studies show that as many as 11 percent of eligible voters do not have government-issued photo ID. That percentage is even higher for seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students. Many citizens find it hard to get government photo IDs, because the underlying documentation like birth certificates (the ID one needs to get ID) is often difficult or expensive to come by"

-- Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis...

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2013 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please, EastBeach, don't confuse Botany by injecting facts into the argument.

pk (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2013 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In case you weren't sure if the Tea Party is a racist sanctuary:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/...

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2013 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Funny how everyone wants to criticize the question but no one wants to answer it directly,

Botany (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2013 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How do you think people get on the voter rosters to begin with? You don't just walk in and cast a vote. What about all the safeguards that are in place to filter out ineligible ballots? Do you know what they are?
They're put in place because it is far better to disqualify a vote cast than to prevent a vote from being cast.
Are you one of those people who worked the 08 polls with me and thought everybody under 30 was a fraudulent voter?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2013 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And the simple fact of absentee/mail in ballots answers your question in itself Botany..!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2013 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Botany -- EastBeach's June 30, 2013 at 5:02 p.m. post answered your question to pk: "do you know any eligible voters without so much as either a driver's license or a state issued ID?" He responded to your question within 50 minutes of the same day.
Can you READ, Botany? So on July 15 you state no one wants to answer the question! Peruse the English, EB answered you, try responding to his answer to your question! 11% do not have photo ID. What you want to do is conflate and confuse the issue.
Thank god for Ms. Capps' condemnation of this ruling.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2013 at 6:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe you can read DD, but you obviously do no comprehend the question. Did I ask what stusies say? I asked if he knew anyone without ID. It goes to show that people will read what they want to read into any question without actually reading the question.

Botany (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2013 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's a pointless question because once again everybody: ABSENTEE BALLOTS!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2013 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Multicultural Craft Program: Japan

Join us for the first session of our multicultural craft ... Read More