SCOTUS Guts Voting Rights Act

[Simon_Jester]

Why do you get to arbitrarily redefine voting districts anyway, instead of having it based on some sort of guideline? Like, according to actually administrative districts (by town, urban district, whatever?

There are guidelines in some areas, but setting the voting districts has been a traditional prerogative of state (provincial) legislatures ever since the Constitution.

Why hasn't it been changed? Sadly, because the state legislatures have an incentive not to change it, and so does the House of Representatives.

The reason we can't just use administrative districts is that they're not all of equal size, so we can't get approximately-proportional representation in a popular legislature that way.

Indeed, the Supreme Court plainly held that, "Congress may draft another formula based on
current conditions" Shelby County v. Holder, No. 12-96 (Jun. 25, 2013), op. at 24

I have doubts that any coverage formula enacted by Congress is consistent with the principle of separation of powers.

The Supremes don't. Or they would have said so.

The legislature and executive has a legitimate role in enforcing the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to protect voter rights- enforcing constitutional policy in the US is not the sole provenance of the courts. They have to have some practical means of doing so, and having to repeatedly strike down an endless stream of Jim Crow laws created by an asinine and racist legislature after the fact is a foolish way of going about it.

Is it just me or is this whole system so insanely complicated and byzantine that maybe, just maybe it can't even be fixed? I mean what is wrong with just having a vote, counting the ballots on a union wide level and assigning seats proportionally as opposed to this strange 1 per X people thing? Than again I will admit that I can't make heads or tails of how your system works beyond it sounding complicated and confusing.

Nothing is wrong with that, it's a lovely idea. Plenty of countries do it, the US could and the world wouldn't end.

The only reason we didn't do it that way in the first place is that it would have been damn near impossible to do a timely count of all ballots throughout the country in the 1700s. Which is a pointless, idiotic reason not to do it in the 21st century.

That said, there's ALSO nothing wrong with having small localized districts elect officials. Indeed, in a nation that consists of very diverse cultures and peoples, who live in many different environments and lifestyles, there are strong arguments for that.

But it's stupid that we place control over district boundaries in the hands of a politicized group.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Is it just me or is this whole system so insanely complicated and byzantine that maybe, just maybe it can't even be fixed? I mean what is wrong with just having a vote, counting the ballots on a union wide level and assigning seats proportionally as opposed to this strange 1 per X people thing? Than again I will admit that I can't make heads or tails of how your system works beyond it sounding complicated and confusing.

What's wrong with it is that having a vote on a union wide level for local representatives means that you have no idea who the hell you're voting for. The U.S. system has elections for candidates, not parties.

You can do both in a way that ends up with results that are closer to proportional. Mixed-member proportional has half the system be voting for specific people and the other half being a vote for the party.

Here's a video if you'd rather watch a silly movie than read up on it. The guy who makes it does a bunch of weird little educational videos.

[amigocabal]

Reading the opinion more closely, it appears to have only held the law unconstitutional as-applied under current circumstances.

"To succeed in a typical facial attack, [the respondent] would have to establish “that no set of circumstances exists under which [the statute] would be valid,” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987), or that the statute lacks any “plainly legitimate sweep,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 740, n. 7 (1997) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgments) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court did not go so far as to say that the coverage formula can never be valid, but focused on current circumstances to determine its present-day validity. "We recognized that it “may have been an uncommon exercise of congressional
power,” but concluded that “legislative measures not otherwise appropriate” could be
justified by “exceptional conditions.” Holder, op. at 12 (internal citations omitted)

Theoretically, this exact same coverage formula could be constitutionally applied some time in the future, if circumstances change.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Reading the opinion more closely, it appears to have only held the law unconstitutional as-applied under current circumstances.

"To succeed in a typical facial attack, [the respondent] would have to establish “that no set of circumstances exists under which [the statute] would be valid,” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987), or that the statute lacks any “plainly legitimate sweep,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 740, n. 7 (1997) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgments) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court did not go so far as to say that the coverage formula can never be valid, but focused on current circumstances to determine its present-day validity. "We recognized that it “may have been an uncommon exercise of congressional
power,” but concluded that “legislative measures not otherwise appropriate” could be
justified by “exceptional conditions.” Holder, op. at 12 (internal citations omitted)

Theoretically, this exact same coverage formula could be constitutionally applied some time in the future, if circumstances change.

Yes it could. Hell, they could make the coverage formula All States and it would be acceptable. The issue was that the law treated states differently based on past conditions, rather that current ones. The legislature could create two possible sets of acceptable coverage formula. One which focuses on current or recent attempts at voter suppression, or one that simply mandates pre-clearance by all states.

[LadyTevar]

What's wrong with it is that having a vote on a union wide level for local representatives means that you have no idea who the hell you're voting for. The U.S. system has elections for candidates, not parties.

You can do both in a way that ends up with results that are closer to proportional. Mixed-member proportional has half the system be voting for specific people and the other half being a vote for the party.

A lot of small towns don't even bother with Dem/Rep on their ballots, because it is a personality contest between candidates there. It would be very nice to have that work on a larger scale, but Parties allow a group of candidates to share a message/cause between them, so the populous knows (in theory) that if s/he votes for candidates in the same party, it will better the chances of a pet cause getting attention.

On another board, a member thought it would be a good idea for ALL STATES to have district changes monitored.
I don't think that would pass, because there's too many people who think Big Govnment should Stay Out of State Matters. If it did pass, how would you un-Gerrymander some of the worst offenders?

[Simon_Jester]

Easy. Require that all district boundaries be drawn with minimum acceptable ratio of area to perimeter; county and state borders being counted as straight segments equivalent in length to the point

So it's fine to draw districts that are circular, square, or 'squat' triangles. Or districts that form a good-sized blob and rest against the state line or a county boundary.

But long skinny rectangles, salamanders, and blobs in three different cities connected by strips one mile wide and thirty miles long are a no-no.

This wouldn't eliminate all gerrymandering- for example, it would still be possible to split up an urban area into several "pie slice" districts each of which contains a majority of rural/suburban voters, instead of creating a single urban district.

But it would help avoid the most grotesque and contrived cases, and make it more difficult to deliberately redraw district boundaries to target specific politicians.

[Silver Jedi]

Well, that was quick

...
The strict photo ID requirement blocked by the DOJ and a federal court would require Texans to show one of a very narrow list of acceptable photo IDs. Expired gun licenses from other states are considered valid, but Social Security cards and student IDs are not. If voters do not have an ID — as many minorities, seniors, and poor people do not — they must travel at their own expense, produce their birth certificate, and in many cases pay a fee to get an ID.
...
It is only a matter of time before other states with voter ID laws and other election law changes blocked by the DOJ last year follow Texas’ example. Besides Texas, the attorney generals of Alabama, Arizona, South Dakota, and South Carolina argued that the Voting Rights Act was getting in the way of their ability to enact discriminatory laws.

I'd just like to emphasize how large a burden this is on poor voters, with a personal anecdote (that I've shared before).

In nov. 2011, I had to get a new State ID in Texas. I knew the line was going to be long, since I lived in San Antonio, and our humble little village of 2 million+ has a whopping 4 dps locations to choose from. I found the closest location to me, showed up when they opened at 8am, and there was a line out the door and around the building. The line had wrapped around the building almost twice before they opened the doors and let people start to crowd into the vestibule. According to the people in line (as well as everyone else I know) a line that size was in no way out of the ordinary.

I waited in line as long as I could, but eventually I had to leave to get to work (DPS is only open on weekdays during regular business hours). The next day, I tried again, this time at a different dps location. I only arrived 45 min early, but I was able to get a "good" spot in the line. After about 2 hours of waiting in line once they opened the door, I was able to get a number and was given the forms to fill out. Another hour after that my number was called, and I finally got to give them my $16. If you include lost wages from the time I had to take off work (not including arriving late after the first try), it cost me about $50 to get my state issued ID. Not including the fees I had to pay the hospital for an "original copy" of my birth certificate, or all the time/fees associated with getting my passport the previous year, both of which I had to present to get this ID. I was also lucky enough to have a brother who could drive me there and then come back and take me to work, which most poor potential-voters may not have. The line was still wrapped around the building when I left at about noon.

tl;dr: if you want to vote in TX but don't have an expired out of state gun license, get ready for hours of waiting on a weekday, plus fees and some documents that are non-trivial to acquire.

[Haruko]

Expired gun licenses from other states are considered valid, but Social Security cards and student IDs are not.

The comedy writes itself. Might it also be acceptable to show proof that you worked for the Minutemen Project?

[Irbis]

I don't think that would pass, because there's too many people who think Big Govnment should Stay Out of State Matters. If it did pass, how would you un-Gerrymander some of the worst offenders?

This video mentions several options, but ultimately, MMP is better as it makes the exercise mostly pointless. Hell, just make state-wide vote and assign representatives on that basis, and it will still be superior to any anti-gerrymandering solutions.

[Questor]

Expired gun licenses from other states are considered valid, but Social Security cards and student IDs are not.

The comedy writes itself. Might it also be acceptable to show proof that you worked for the Minutemen Project?

Social Security cards are not photo id (no photo), and most gun licenses are. Student IDs generally do not have a birthdate, and as such do not functionally validate that someone is 18 years old.

Lets complain about legitimate things, like the ID requirement itself, rather than strawmanning the law. P.S. The gun license will probably work to get you an annual passport at disneyland, but neither of the other two will, same reasons.

[Haruko]

OK, conceded. Just a knee-jerk thinking about a situation where someone has to resort to an expired gun license to vote.

[Silver Jedi]

Social Security cards are not photo id (no photo), and most gun licenses are. Student IDs generally do not have a birthdate, and as such do not functionally validate that someone is 18 years old.

Birthdate is irrelevant. You proved that you were eligible to vote when you registered. The ID is simply to prove that you are the person on the voter rolls.

[Simon_Jester]

Student IDs are also typically not government-issued, and are less likely to contain anti-fraud protections. There are a LOT of purposes for which student ID is not a valid form of identification.

[Flagg]

Student IDs are also typically not government-issued, and are less likely to contain anti-fraud protections. There are a LOT of purposes for which student ID is not a valid form of identification.

So set a standard. It's not hard to make them uniform. But they won't do it because they don't want students voting, they want gun toting conservatives voting.

[Simon_Jester]

OK, we could have state-mandated new student ID designs, which would be compliant with the standards we'd expect from a valid state ID card. I honestly had not thought of that.

It's certainly possible, though it would probably cost quite a lot of money and result in a lot of complaints from universities. Then again, so many universities use the student ID as a form of debit card that it's probably just as well to make them hard to fake anyway...

[Questor]

It's certainly possible, though it would probably cost quite a lot of money and result in a lot of complaints from universities. Then again, so many universities use the student ID as a form of debit card that it's probably just as well to make them hard to fake anyway...

This is not a bad point. I'm tempted to talk to a few contacts at a university I know. If the things are PCI compliant, the cost of the infrastructure for that would probably dwarf the costs to make the things true IDs. If they aren't PCI compliant, I'm curious as to why.

I wonder how you'd get private universities to comply? Maybe through the accreditation associations?

[Purple]

As someone from Europe I often think that some of your American views on things are strange and confusing. And this case is no different. Honestly I don't understand what the problem is with just having a proper state issued ID with your birth date, picture and all as these people intended. We do that in Europe and have been doing it for god knows how long. It's not only about voting but everything else. But even without that what's wrong with being required to show a non falsifiable ID to vote? Having a single centralized ID system has many benefits and absolutely no flaws. And while yes it seems that the implementation in this case was badly planed and generally botched there seems to be a number of people here who honestly believe that it was not incompetence and inexperience but an actual republican conspiracy to manipulate elections. Something that quite honestly sounds like a bond villain plot rather than something that happens in the real world. And it's not just here. The internet seems to be honestly full of Americans who believe in this conspiracy theory.

So seriously is there anything to it? Or is it just the usual paranoia about having a government at all?

[Serafina]

The issue is precisely that lots of people don't have picture-ID, and that because having one isn't universal getting one can require jumping through a lot of hoops.
Excluding people from voting is bad enough - it only gets worse when you consider that its disproportional poor people and minorities who don't have picture-ID and are thus excluded from voting.


And yes, i agree that the lack of a universal picture-ID is a very strange thing indeed. But considering american attitudes it's practically impossible that a mandatory federal picture-ID will ever be a thing.

[Purple]

Excluding people from voting is bad enough - it only gets worse when you consider that its disproportional poor people and minorities who don't have picture-ID and are thus excluded from voting.

That's the thing that confuses me most thou. The fact that people read the first part and the second part and thus conclude that the whole thing is actually a republican conspiracy to exclude minorities.

[Flagg]

Excluding people from voting is bad enough - it only gets worse when you consider that its disproportional poor people and minorities who don't have picture-ID and are thus excluded from voting.

That's the thing that confuses me most thou. The fact that people read the first part and the second part and thus conclude that the whole thing is actually a republican conspiracy to exclude minorities.

Except that it is. They even admitted it.

[General Zod]

Excluding people from voting is bad enough - it only gets worse when you consider that its disproportional poor people and minorities who don't have picture-ID and are thus excluded from voting.

That's the thing that confuses me most thou. The fact that people read the first part and the second part and thus conclude that the whole thing is actually a republican conspiracy to exclude minorities.

Because the voter fraud that does occur in any meaningful fashion would not be prevented with an ID requirement. If someone's bleeding from the neck you don't put a tourniquet on their leg.

[Purple]

Excluding people from voting is bad enough - it only gets worse when you consider that its disproportional poor people and minorities who don't have picture-ID and are thus excluded from voting.

That's the thing that confuses me most thou. The fact that people read the first part and the second part and thus conclude that the whole thing is actually a republican conspiracy to exclude minorities.

Except that it is. They even admitted it.

Wait what? You can't be serious.

[Mr Bean]

Excluding people from voting is bad enough - it only gets worse when you consider that its disproportional poor people and minorities who don't have picture-ID and are thus excluded from voting.

That's the thing that confuses me most thou. The fact that people read the first part and the second part and thus conclude that the whole thing is actually a republican conspiracy to exclude minorities.

Except that it is. They even admitted it.

The better and more concrete example of obvious prejudice is when they close down 90% of a districts polling places. If your county has neighborhoods that are heavily swing to one ethnicity and you close down all but one polling place in that area down that's good evidence for conspiracy to exclude minorities. It becomes painfully obvious if you break it down by voter rolls and find that polling place A in this area has 1000 people on it's voter rolls in a twenty mile area, while polling place B has 7000 people on it's voter rolls in a seventy mile area.

But that's the obvious shit the voting rights act used to stop which it no longer does.

Except that it is. They even admitted it.

Wait what? You can't be serious.

Here's the relevant quote

“We are focused on making sure that we meet our obligations that we’ve talked about for years,” said Turzai in a speech to committee members Saturday. He mentioned the law among a laundry list of accomplishments made by the GOP-run legislature.

“Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation – abortion facility regulations – in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”

[Purple]

The better and more concrete example of obvious prejudice is when they close down 90% of a districts polling places. If your county has neighborhoods that are heavily swing to one ethnicity and you close down all but one polling place in that area down that's good evidence for conspiracy to exclude minorities. It becomes painfully obvious if you break it down by voter rolls and find that polling place A in this area has 1000 people on it's voter rolls in a twenty mile area, while polling place B has 7000 people on it's voter rolls in a seventy mile area.

But that's the obvious shit the voting rights act used to stop which it no longer does.

That seems circumstantial at best. I would not really call it painfully obvious...

Here's the relevant quote

That quote is extremely vague. But I guess there has to be some sort of broader context that actually explains it right? I mean it does not exactly say how the act is supposed to do that or even what it is supposed to do.

[Flagg]

The better and more concrete example of obvious prejudice is when they close down 90% of a districts polling places. If your county has neighborhoods that are heavily swing to one ethnicity and you close down all but one polling place in that area down that's good evidence for conspiracy to exclude minorities. It becomes painfully obvious if you break it down by voter rolls and find that polling place A in this area has 1000 people on it's voter rolls in a twenty mile area, while polling place B has 7000 people on it's voter rolls in a seventy mile area.

But that's the obvious shit the voting rights act used to stop which it no longer does.

That seems circumstantial at best. I would not really call it painfully obvious...

Here's the relevant quote

That quote is extremely vague. But I guess there has to be some sort of broader context that actually explains it right? I mean it does not exactly say how the act is supposed to do that or even what it is supposed to do.