Voting Rights Act ruling

[gergroy]

ShinmenTakezo said:

gergroy said:

ShinmenTakezo said:

This is about the voting rights act, not about voter ID. The reason it's a big deal is because the states that the law was made for or applied to were historically racist states that tried to or did pass laws to limit minority and low income voting.

Well, theprof was obviously talking about voter id, and the voting rights ruling was because of voter id laws. I would say this is very much about voter id.

historically racist states should not be considered racist for all eternity.  If they start bringing back vote tax or jim crow laws than we can revisit the issue, but if a state wants to require some form of proof of identity before it allows somebody to vote than they should be allowed to do that.  

That's the thing though there is still attempts at voter supression happening.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasmine-rand/freeze-drop-your-ballot-t_b_3480970.html

You already have to show ID and proof of residence to register to vote, so why the need for more? There is no logical reason for voter ID laws when you already have to provide your info to register.

If there are problems than those problems need to be adressed directly.  We should not punish certain states indefinitely by requiring them to seek the federal governments aproval on everything they do.  

As far as showing ID when you register, maybe in some states.  However, just look at the article you just linked.  The voting rights act only requires a person to swear under penalty of perjury they are who they say they are, nothing else.  

Also, why do you think there is need for more?  Without ID, how do you know that person walking in to vote is who they say they are?  Maybe they already voted and are now voting for their neighbor who decided he didnt care enough to vote.  This really isnt anything more than a common sense approach to protecting the voting process.  It should not be a political issue.