On the same theme of snooty Northern liberals living forever in 1960, and looking down their noses at the New South which is kicking their butts economically...

The Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965, and applies only to 9 Southern states.[How did Alaska get in there?] So it fits the liberal mantra perfectly...who can be against "Voting Rights"? And who can be against insulting the Southern states, and labelling its population racist....especially since these states are now reliably Republican.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/02/27/the-insiders-liberals-need-to-be-honest-about-the-voting-rights-act/?hpid=z1

It’s the easiest thing in the world for a liberal like Hilary Rosen to be in favor of the extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Most of the states affected by the act are reliably Republican, so the pointlessness of the exercise and the insult to those states’ voters is of little consequence.

It is always right to ask if anyone’s right to vote is being frustrated. However, that is no longer part of the analysis of the utility of the Voting Rights Act. No serious review suggests that the states covered by the act (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia) are disproportionately inclined to violate voters’ rights more than a host of other states. In fact, in a tweet today, it was reported that an Obama Justice Department attorney told the Supreme Court justices that Massachusetts has the worst modern record of minority voter registration — and Mississippi has the best.

Yet it’s irresistible for liberals to demagogue and hand-wring over the very notion that the Voting Rights Act may no longer be applicable as it was intended. If voters’ rights are being threatened, then they need to be protected.  But where is the evidence that the states that needed Justice Department oversight in 1965 still exclusively need such oversight today?

If the act is good for the modern South, then why isn’t it good for the rest of the country?

"If we think the act is useful in the nine states referenced in the Voting Rights Act, then why don’t we think it’s good for every other state?  I would be for that. More protection is better than less protection. It’s the American way to be fair and not to punish one generation for the sins of a previous generation."

"Rather than take the easy route, Rosen and her crowd should acknowledge the truth and either let the Voting Rights Act slip into history or refresh and renew it for all 50 states."

I wonder why the rigthties are always willing to flush democracy down the toilet .

BTW Liberalcrankup is the voting right act a law that gives someone an unfair advantage or is it a law that protect a person's right to vote ?

 

Mississippi officially abolished slavery last week.....literarlly

Mabye the law should stand a while longer. 

In response to UserName99's comment:

Living in 1960! Get out of your Mass. liberal cocoon much?
Slavery was abolished when the requisite number of states passed the Constitutional amendment in 1865...but facts dont impinge on your moonbat world view.

Massachusetts didnt pass the First Amendment until 1939!! What did that mean? Nothing.

 

In response to Sistersledge's comment:

You have no clue what the "Voting Rights Act" is, you just shallowly go by the title...

If it is a "law that protects a person's right to vote" why isnt it in effect in Massachusetts , which has lower minority participation in voting than Mississippi?

 

In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

 

In response to Sistersledge's comment:

 

I wonder why the rigthties are always willing to flush democracy down the toilet .

BTW Liberalcrankup is the voting right act a law that gives someone an unfair advantage or is it a law that protect a person's right to vote ?

 

You have no clue what the "Voting Rights Act" is, you just shallowly go by the title...

 

If it is a "law that protects a person's right to vote" why isnt it in effect in Massachusetts , which has lower minority participation in voting than Mississippi?

 

 

So answer my question ...... does the Voting Right Act gives a person unfair advantages or does it protects a person right to vote ?

 

Refusing to answer the question that I ask you is very telling ....... I imagine that you are of the persuasion that there is no such things as gerrymandering , moving polling places at the last minutes and that the voting right act is just a perpetuation of racial entitlement .

 

In response to Sistersledge's comment:

When did applying law to 9 states only become democracy?  Expand it to all 50 and watch the Northeast blue states go absolutely hissy

The dem party has relied on racism and keeping the fear of bigotry alive to maintain a base for 30 years

So, the OP wears the (sorely beset southern) Virginian mantle for this one.  Why not go back to the BetheKoolaid role?   

In response to tvoter's comment:

An incredibly stupid statement.  Minorities are smart enough to know which party has policies that support their wants and needs.  To suggest otherwise is ... unfortunate.

The Republicans control the House largely because of gerrymandering based on politics.  Without oversight they will gerrymander even more (planned or unplanned) against minorities so as to insure that these Democratic voters are marginalized.  That's the reality that conservatives choose to ignore.

 

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

It also applies to areas in the Granite State and Michigan .

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

The populas not just minorites  or certain races are very often misinformed and follow ideology like sheep.

The DNC has successfully used race and threats of bigotry from others to maintain some sheep.

The RNC has used religious beliefs in much the same way.

 

In response to tvoter's comment:

How do you know you aren't a sheep too?  

Maybe people are smarter than you think.

And conservatives claim that liberals are elitist!  

 

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

lol, people as individuals are very smart and if, they do the research and analytical analysis can make very good decisions but, unfortunately a vast majority are too busy or just too lazy so, they follow whatever crowd they are in!

 

In response to Sistersledge's comment:

Under Section 5 of the law, nine states, mostly in the South, but also including Alaska and Arizona, as well as dozens of counties, townships, cities, and elected boards in other states, must get permission, or “preclearance,” from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington for any change in voting procedures, no matter how small, that they seek to make.

Regardless.  All or none and there is NO one in those true blue states that are so concerned with voting right who would go along with all.

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

Which is EXACTLY why it should be ruled "ALL or None"!!

In response to tvoter's comment:

In response to tvoter's comment:

This post has been removed.