I believe they used the high turnout as "reasoning" for gutting the voting rights act.
No conspiracy...just a fucked up ruling
georgia tries to close 7 in 9 black voting locations
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
I believe they used the high turnout as "reasoning" for gutting the voting rights act.
No conspiracy...just a fucked up ruling
haha "black voting locations". You should just call them "colored only" locations and reveal your true form.
Sprinklers have nothing to do with being ADA compliant.
They're talking about ramps and hand rails.
Easily fixable...well as long as the GOP legislature approves the (relatively small amount of )money
Why? What does that mean? Where we live ours is a "white voting location," I suppose, although a few ppl around are Native and mixed race. If the polling place is in a location where most of the citizens are black, then it would be described as a "black voting location" -- particularly so if a certain party that starts with the letter R is trying to close it down, and the media reports on it. Definitely the race of the majority of those voters affected would be of interest, as would age if it was an area populated mostly by seniors. It would be hard though to imagine the (R)s trying to close a polling place where it's mostly seniors since they tend to be conservative voters.
If you're poor, idle, and ignorant, you restrain yourself. Power and strength aren't used. Being that you're all three, you're one of the most restrained people on this forum.
Where you live is anywhere between 94% and 97% white.
It only takes one thing to make something false. If only one white person voted there, it's not a black voting location. For it to be so, everyone voting there would have to be black.
Thank you. I have CertifiedFuckingMoron on ignore due to his racism run wild. He has no place at the table when the adults are discussing issues involving race.
Dirt McGirt
Verified User
This guy - www.twitter.com/derektmuller/status/1030936855615700992 gives a fairly unbiased breakdown of the racial demographics of the polling places that have been proposed to be closed. And without peeling back the layers further and examining the poverty rates, vehicle ownership, distance to polling locations by race, etc., it's hard to make the determination of whether or not this was a case of voter suppression or just poor planning and horrendous timing.
Not my fault you can't accept facts. Perhaps that's why you chose to be an Obama nl.
That's a lie. You put me on ignore because you're a cowardly cunt.
I have a place at the table. Now, get in the fucking kitchen and cook some dinner.
Might as well give it up, racist POS CFM. I'm not going to read your sewage.
~~~
Today, 07:46 PM
CFM
Verified User
This message is hidden because CFM is on your ignore list.
~~~
Today, 07:46 PM
CFM
Verified User
This message is hidden because CFM is on your ignore list.
lol? have you ever worked with the government? Even for something that simple you would need a study, proposal, budget allocation, public bidding etc. If any of those are missing you get accused of corruption.
The fact that it happened means there was no suppression. If voters were suppressed turnout would decline.
The left thinks Democratic voters are suppressed and the right thinks voter fraud is helping the Democrats. Interesting how each side believes different facts and both think the facts help the other side. Yet, neither side can prove any voter id fraud or voter suppression.
Since the areas included under the Voting Rights Act already have higher minority registration it accomplished nothing by striking down those parts of the law.
To suggest the Supreme Court made a decision based on higher turnout is just silly. Why didn't they strike down the law after 2008 when turnout was higher? The Supreme Court cannot just decide to rule on a law they don't like.
No, you choose to live in the sewer like a stinking piece of shit.
The SCt. ruled on cases brought before by states aggravated by the voting "restrictions" placed upon them following the civil rights movement, where it was clearly shown that several states engaged in active suppression of black voters. So yes, you're absolutely right.... they can't just up and say one day "Hey, let's issue a ruling on ____."
That being said.... why did those states under restriction bring their cases before the SCt. following those historic voter turn-outs for Obama?
"Gone is the provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that prevented certain states, primarily in the South, from passing voting laws without approval from the U.S. Department of Justice. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the tactics used to disenfranchise voters were a relic of the past and pre-clearance no longer was necessary."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk...uld-affect-millions-african-americans-n639511
Note the date of that decision.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
Voting precincts are a municipal issue, not a state issue
While prior approval is no longer needed those who think changes will adversely affect voters can still bring suit against those state actions and several have done so successfully in challenging voter ID laws. I think that is a more useful remedy than the Trump Justice Department.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
You have a different understanding of 'fact.'
Brennan Center for Justice: Voter Suppression Incidents 2008
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/voter-suppression-incidents-2008
The list is too long to paste here.
It is not a 'fact' that because there was higher turnout there was no voter suppression.
Additionally, the right engages in voter fraud and suppression .. long ass historical list covering decades of republican voter suppression. You're arguing with history.