The New York Times is featuring an article today about the "threat" to the Voting Rights Act. Really? Is that idiocy making a comeback?
The Voting Rights Act was passed fifty years ago. It has been periodically renewed by Congress with bipartisan support. Last year, however, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not put restrictions on just some states on the basis of conditions that were in place fifty years ago. Congress would have to rely on current conditions if they wanted to have separate rules for just a few states. In other words, the existence of discrimination in voting rights would have to be modern before special rules could be passed for any jurisdiction. That certainly makes sense, doesn't it? It is the equivalent of the Supreme Court saying that Congress could not pass a law that punished a group of people because of actions taken by their grandparents or their great grandparents.
The left was supposedly outraged by that result. Remember, President Obama is a Democrat. If he wanted to make sure that voting rights were fair around the country, he could have the Justice Department do a detailed study of voting restrictions in each state. Then he could turn that data over to Congress and ask for an updated Voting Rights Act if any place were found that limited voting rights. It hasn't happened, and it won't. You see, the problem is that the worst limitations on voting are in places like New York that are bastions of the Democrat party. For example, as Hillary Clinton is challenged by Bernie Sanders for the nomination for 2016, it is New York (and only New York) where there is a move to keep Sanders off the primary ballot because he is not really a Democrat. The reality is that the powers that be in the Democrat party are just trying to keep party members from having the ability to vote for Sanders and thereby embarrass Hillary.
Instead of investigating the facts and then moving towards a resolution, the Democrats instead are using the "everyone knows" method of research. They tell us that "everyone knows" that certain areas try to limit voting rights. What that actually means, however, is that the Democrats want to limit areas covered by the law to states controlled by Republicans. That serves two purposes: 1. it falsely makes the Republicans look like they are racists; and 2. it keeps the Democrats from having to reform their own people in the places where voting really is limited.
Let's try to stick with the truth.
The Voting Rights Act was passed fifty years ago. It has been periodically renewed by Congress with bipartisan support. Last year, however, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not put restrictions on just some states on the basis of conditions that were in place fifty years ago. Congress would have to rely on current conditions if they wanted to have separate rules for just a few states. In other words, the existence of discrimination in voting rights would have to be modern before special rules could be passed for any jurisdiction. That certainly makes sense, doesn't it? It is the equivalent of the Supreme Court saying that Congress could not pass a law that punished a group of people because of actions taken by their grandparents or their great grandparents.
The left was supposedly outraged by that result. Remember, President Obama is a Democrat. If he wanted to make sure that voting rights were fair around the country, he could have the Justice Department do a detailed study of voting restrictions in each state. Then he could turn that data over to Congress and ask for an updated Voting Rights Act if any place were found that limited voting rights. It hasn't happened, and it won't. You see, the problem is that the worst limitations on voting are in places like New York that are bastions of the Democrat party. For example, as Hillary Clinton is challenged by Bernie Sanders for the nomination for 2016, it is New York (and only New York) where there is a move to keep Sanders off the primary ballot because he is not really a Democrat. The reality is that the powers that be in the Democrat party are just trying to keep party members from having the ability to vote for Sanders and thereby embarrass Hillary.
Instead of investigating the facts and then moving towards a resolution, the Democrats instead are using the "everyone knows" method of research. They tell us that "everyone knows" that certain areas try to limit voting rights. What that actually means, however, is that the Democrats want to limit areas covered by the law to states controlled by Republicans. That serves two purposes: 1. it falsely makes the Republicans look like they are racists; and 2. it keeps the Democrats from having to reform their own people in the places where voting really is limited.
Let's try to stick with the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment