Hat tip to Daily Caller
First, they say that black voters would be adversely impacted by the requirement to present a picture ID when voting. Now a case out of Kinston, NC tells us that black voters must, must, mind you, be able to see which party a local candidate running for election belongs to. They must be able to look for the Democrat label, if you will.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/26/federal-judge-for-blacks-voting-rights-include-identifying-democrats-on-ballots/
So what are we saying here, folks? That the federal law now states that only the Democratic party can represent the interests of African-Americans? Agree or disagree if you want, but does that statement now have to be codified into federal law?
Are we also saying that black voters don't have the wherewithal-in Kinston, NC, of determining which party a candidate running for dog-catcher belongs to?
How condescending is that?
Of course, given the past history of voting in the South, we know that there is a degree of federal approval and oversight in election issues in places like Kinston, NC. Yet, do we really suspect that black voters are being cheated today? To say that black voters need this or black voters need that while white voters don't need anything is racist in itself.
As for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz; I have no idea why the DC article has her picture unless to show a white person who probably does need help at the polls.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
As an advocate of nonpartisan ballots for ALL offices, federal, state and local, including primaries, I agree that this is a misapplication of the Voting Rights Act. By definition, if NO candidate has a party label, ANY party label is secondary. And that would vastly improve our election process. Voters in many west coast states have repeatedly tried to do this, with some success, and some obstruction from the conservative wing of the Supreme Court, as well as Justice Breyer.
However, the DC article goes on to highlight attacks on the Voting Rights Act per se. Yes, it is an intrusion on state sovereignty, a constitutional one, justified by a persistent pattern over a century of deliberate constitutional violation.
The court is correct that Congress chose to extend the law, the law is constitutional, and it is not the role of the courts to second-guess the law congress passed.
But, this is a misapplication of the law. I suspect that it will be overturned on appeal.
It's interesting that the only time Democrats insist on a photo ID is in an election on whether a plant should be unionized. In regular elections they want the door wide open for anyone and everyone but they want to know specifically who votes against unionizing a shop.
As usual Miggie, it would be helpful in evaluating your veracity if you would provide a specific citation.
Post a Comment