40,000 black voters dissapeared from rolls

http://www.brennancenter.org/


Recent Research
Racism & Felony Disenfranchisement: An Intertwined History
Erin Kelley

The United States stands alone among modern democracies in stripping voting rights from millions of citizens on the basis of criminal convictions. This piece examines the historical roots of the laws behind this disenfranchisement.
May 19, 2017Restoring Voting Rights
Trump's "Election Integrity" Commission: Reactions from State Election Officials

President Trump created a "Presidential Commission on Election Integrity." State election officials are already speaking out against it.
May 15, 2017Voting Rights & ElectionsMyth of Voter Fraud
View More Research

Recent Commentary
How This Supreme Court Case Will Affect the Next Election
Thomas Wolf

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear argument this fall in a potentially landmark partisan-gerrymandering case from Wisconsin.
June 22, 2017Redistricting
Supreme Court Has Historic Chance to End Extreme Gerrymandering
Michael Li, Thomas Wolf

The Supreme Court, which has decided to hear a landmark case on whether Wisconsin electoral maps were unconstitutionally drawn, could deliver a major blow to ultra-partisan redistricting.
June 21, 2017Redistricting
View More Commentary

Recent Litigation
League of Women Voters v. Rucho
On September 22, the League of Women Voters filed suit to challenge North Carolina’s 2016 remedial congressional map as a partisan gerrymander.
June 20, 2017Redistricting
Common Cause v. Rucho
Common Cause, the North Carolina Democratic Party, and a group of North Carolina voters filed a lawsuit, Common Cause v. Rucho, raising partisan gerrymandering allegations over the state’s 2016 remedial congressional map.
June 20, 2017Redistricting


Court Cases
League of Women Voters v. Rucho
On September 22, the League of Women Voters filed suit to challenge North Carolina’s 2016 remedial congressional map as a partisan gerrymander.
June 20, 2017Redistricting
Common Cause v. Rucho
Common Cause, the North Carolina Democratic Party, and a group of North Carolina voters filed a lawsuit, Common Cause v. Rucho, raising partisan gerrymandering allegations over the state’s 2016 remedial congressional map.
June 20, 2017Redistricting
Gill v. Whitford
A group of Wisconsin residents who are Democratic voters challenged Wisconsin’s 2011 state assembly redistricting plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments. A three-judge panel ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered a remedial map to be drawn for the 2018 elections.
June 19, 2017Redistricting
Benisek v. Lamone
On May 20, the Brennan Center filed a brief supporting the plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to dismiss. The case was formerly known as Shapiro v. McManus.
June 16, 2017Redistricting
Harris v. Cooper (Amicus Brief)
Harris v. Cooper is an appeal to the Supreme Court of a three-judge panel’s decision to reject a claim that the remedial congressional adopted by North Carolina’s legislature was a partisan gerrymander. In February, a three-judge panel in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina struck down the General Assembly’s 2011 congressional map because the court found that the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Although the court directed the legislature to modify the congressional districts, the plaintiffs contend that the 2016 remedial map drawn by the legislature resulted in an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
June 16, 2017Redistricting


Court Cases
League of Women Voters v. Pennsylvania
The League of Women Voters and a group of Democratic Pennsylvania voters filed a lawsuit to challenge Pennsylvania’s 2011 congressional map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander under the state constitution.
June 16, 2017Redistricting
Perez v. Texas
A challenge to Texas’s 2011 state legislative and congressional redistricting plan contends the maps were drawn with an unconstitutional discriminatory intent as well as violate the Voting Rights Act.
June 16, 2017Redistricting
Texas NAACP v. Steen (consolidated with Veasey v. Abbott)
The Brennan Center and co-counsel filed suit in federal court challenging Texas's strict photo voter ID law on behalf of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives (MALC).
June 12, 2017Voting Rights & ElectionsRestricting the VoteMyth of Voter Fraud
League of Women Voters v. Newby
The Brennan Center, along with co-counsel Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP and Kirkland & Ellis LLP, represents the League of Women Voters of the United States, along with its Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas state Leagues, in a lawsuit opposing U.S. Election Assistance Commission Executive Director Brian D. Newby’s action to allow three states to require documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form.
June 1, 2017Voting Rights & Elections
Notice Letter to Indiana on NVRA Violations
A new law in Indiana appears to conflict with the National Voter Registration Act's protections against wrongful voter removals. The Hoosier State must take immediate action to ensure its voter list maintenance complies with federal law.
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
VRA
Click to expand...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965


The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting.[7][8] It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the Civil Rights Movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections.[7] Designed to enforce the voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act secured voting rights for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country.[9]
The Act contains numerous provisions that regulate election administration. The Act's "general provisions" provide nationwide protections for voting rights. Section 2 is a general provision that prohibits every state and local government from imposing any voting law that results in discrimination against racial or language minorities. Other general provisions specifically outlaw literacy tests and similar devices that were historically used to disenfranchise racial minorities.
The Act also contains "special provisions" that apply to only certain jurisdictions. A core special provision is the Section 5 preclearance requirement, which prohibits certain jurisdictions from implementing any change affecting voting without receiving preapproval from the U.S. Attorney General or the U.S. District Court for D.C. that the change does not discriminate against protected minorities.[10] Another special provision requires jurisdictions containing significant language minority populations to provide bilingual ballots and other election materials.
Section 5 and most other special provisions apply to jurisdictions encompassed by the "coverage formula" prescribed in Section 4(b). The coverage formula was originally designed to encompass jurisdictions that engaged in egregious voting discrimination in 1965, and Congress updated the formula in 1970 and 1975. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula as unconstitutional, reasoning that it was no longer responsive to current conditions.[11] The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without a coverage formula, Section 5 is unenforceable.[12]
 
evince said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965


The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting.[7][8] It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the Civil Rights Movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections.[7] Designed to enforce the voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act secured voting rights for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country.[9]
The Act contains numerous provisions that regulate election administration. The Act's "general provisions" provide nationwide protections for voting rights. Section 2 is a general provision that prohibits every state and local government from imposing any voting law that results in discrimination against racial or language minorities. Other general provisions specifically outlaw literacy tests and similar devices that were historically used to disenfranchise racial minorities.
The Act also contains "special provisions" that apply to only certain jurisdictions. A core special provision is the Section 5 preclearance requirement, which prohibits certain jurisdictions from implementing any change affecting voting without receiving preapproval from the U.S. Attorney General or the U.S. District Court for D.C. that the change does not discriminate against protected minorities.[10] Another special provision requires jurisdictions containing significant language minority populations to provide bilingual ballots and other election materials.
Section 5 and most other special provisions apply to jurisdictions encompassed by the "coverage formula" prescribed in Section 4(b). The coverage formula was originally designed to encompass jurisdictions that engaged in egregious voting discrimination in 1965, and Congress updated the formula in 1970 and 1975. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula as unconstitutional, reasoning that it was no longer responsive to current conditions.[11] The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without a coverage formula, Section 5 is unenforceable.[12]
Click to expand...

you needed to post this for yourself?
 
he is just grasping at straws


he is a liar


I feel so sad for his little girl


her dad is a lying sociopath
 
evince said:
he is just grasping at straws


he is a liar


I feel so sad for his little girl


her dad is a lying sociopath
Click to expand...

I'd like to think he just doesn't know better.

He seems like a good dude, but he's just been brainwashed all his life with right wing lies.
 
Obama rounded up at least 40,000 that had no intentions of voting, gave them donuts and coffee and a bus ride to get them to vote,
so
let's call it a wash
 
once you lie to him as many times as you have lied to me in the decade ive known you wack he will understand that you are indeed a sociopath
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top