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.

i like the ruling, first supreme court ruling ive agreed with in months. they did what the gutless politicians will not.

Anything to help the Republicans out.

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.

and regardless... it's really VERY simple... this is a ruling NOBODY should have an issue with.

I mean, would you be happy if you lose your right to unreasonable search and seizure or something because of what your grand parents did?

Anti-discrimination laws should be broad and apply to ALL states, not just to a few on the basis that they did stuff 100 years ago.

There should be specific standards.

I mean, some people in the thread want to bring up voter ID laws and such as voter discrimination for why the law should be kept.

Ignoring the fact that this doesn't cover a number of states who have put in place voter ID.

VS

Doesn't really make sense does it?  Even people who think voter identification is a racist tool to stop minority votes, are very clearly wrong about the section of the law that was overturned.

Four out of the Five most strict states, do NOT fall under the voting rights act.

In general the voting rights act is a sign of most of America's self denial.  By pushing all racism and pretending that the "real" racists are in the south, it lets most people excuse their own racism, and racist polciies of their own governments.   (Not voter ID law mind you but REAL racist policies like specific minority targetting by police.)

I voted in Wisconsin... all i needed was a piece of mail with a name and adress and sign a piece of paper to register.

Nobody is saying the "real" racists are in the south. The voting right act stops states with histories of implementing racist policies. You know, kind of like Arizona's papers law that was deemed unconstitutional. You know that little thing that happened about 2 years ago. Notice how Arizona is one of those states on that map. This type of shit is still happening. That's why people are mad and afraid.

Again, the "type of shit going down" you talk about is MOSTLY going on in states NOT covered by the act.

So again, yeah.  You are saying the only problems lie within states covered by the act, and therefore the law is justfied, when in reality, it's the opposite.  Things you define as racist apply everywhere.  It's not fair to hold states to a stricter guideline because way in the past their grandfathers did stuff that was racist, so stuff that's seen as racist now can only be done by the north.

Either allow none of it, or allow it all. 

Also, while the Paper's law was misplaced sice it only targeted legal status... it is rather strange in general that people can comit crimes or witness crimes and not be forced to show idetification in general. 

Really people should have to prove identity at the very least whenever in a criminal altercation.  (which isn't actually the case currently.)

The Civil Rights act still exists.  It's just that those 9 states are now treated exactly like the other 41 when it comes to voters rights disputes.

For 41 states people who complained had to prove a law was racist.  For 9, the states had to prove it wasn't racist.  Which is near impossible to prove that something isn't something.

All 50 states should have the exact same burden of proof, no matter what you think that burden of proof should be.