Voting Rights Act ruling

[Kasz216]

NiKKoM said:

badgenome said:

Why should states that have had some rather shameful episodes in their history (and frankly, which states don't?) suffer being treated as pariahs forever based on outdated data? Surely the Supreme Court would want to drag the federal government into this century by stopping this type of discrimination.

Who is to say which state is more racist? Why is Texas or South Carlolina racist forever because of laws that were eradicated half a century ago while New York City maintains a sterling reputation as an enlighted liberal bastion despite its horrendously racist stop and frisk policies and its warrantless wiretapping of mosques... in New Jersey?

Well an easy example that was on TV was that some elderly black woman now needed to show her birth certifcate.. Which she didn't have to use before when voting and will probably be a hard time to find for her cause her parents didn't registered her cause of the racism back in the 1950's... Just because the laws have changed by now doesn't mean don't still have an affect on people nowadays..

Was this recent or earlier on?   As there was a woman in Pennsylvania exactly like this who filed lawsuit, saying she couldn't get a voter ID law due to not having a birth certificate and not being able to get one.

She lost her case.

She then ended up getting a voter ID and voted in said election.

http://mobile.philly.com/news/?wss=/philly/news/politics/&id=166493236

In general voter ID actually tends to INCREASE voting, because your essentially having people go through steps so they possibly could vote, so when they spend effort to make sure they can vote, they're more likely TO vote.

The more poor you are, the more likely this is to be the case.