Jim Crow - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By late
#15178085
"The laws that disenfranchised Black Americans in the South and established Jim Crow did not actually say they were disenfranchising Black Americans and creating a one-party racist state.

The problem here is that it mistakes both the nature and the operation of Jim Crow voting laws. There was no statute that said, “Black people cannot vote.” Instead, Southern lawmakers spun a web of restrictions and regulations meant to catch most Blacks (as well as many whites) and keep them out of the electorate.

“Those who sought to prune the Southern electorate were hampered by various constitutional restrictions,” the historian J. Morgan Kousser explained in his 1974 book, “The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880-1910.”

It took three decades of struggle, and violence, before Southern elites could reclaim dominance over Southern politics. No particular restriction was decisive. The process was halting, contingent and contested, consolidating in different places at different times. It was only when the final pieces fell into place that the full picture of what took place was clear.

Put a little differently, the thing about Jim Crow is that it wasn’t “Jim Crow” until, one day, it was."
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/06/opinion/georgia-voting-law.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15178087
In other words, it's like boiling a frog.
By wat0n
#15178098
late wrote:"The laws that disenfranchised Black Americans in the South and established Jim Crow did not actually say they were disenfranchising Black Americans and creating a one-party racist state.

The problem here is that it mistakes both the nature and the operation of Jim Crow voting laws. There was no statute that said, “Black people cannot vote.” Instead, Southern lawmakers spun a web of restrictions and regulations meant to catch most Blacks (as well as many whites) and keep them out of the electorate.

“Those who sought to prune the Southern electorate were hampered by various constitutional restrictions,” the historian J. Morgan Kousser explained in his 1974 book, “The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880-1910.”

It took three decades of struggle, and violence, before Southern elites could reclaim dominance over Southern politics. No particular restriction was decisive. The process was halting, contingent and contested, consolidating in different places at different times. It was only when the final pieces fell into place that the full picture of what took place was clear.

Put a little differently, the thing about Jim Crow is that it wasn’t “Jim Crow” until, one day, it was."
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/06/opinion/georgia-voting-law.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article


The grandfather clauses were eventually caught for what they were (a way to leave the Constitution without effect) and illegalized during Jim Crow itself (the Guinn case that overturned OK's clause, 1915). You should probably read the landmark ruling yourself:

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep238347/

Then there were several other cases (the TX primary cases and a follow-up to Guinn in 1938) that also lead to a gradual pushback against the voting restrictions in place during Jim Crow. Of course, having no clear Federal law on the matter made the process much slower as it would then turn into a whack-a-mole sort of situation where Southern states would find a new way to effectively disenfranchise voters based on their race and those fighting these policies would be forced to have the SCOTUS interpreting the Constitution (to often nullify these laws), a process that could take several years, and is why the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 during the dismantlement of the Jim Crow system.

A different matter would be things like separate and equal, as it was actually upheld by the SCOTUS under the fiction that it was possible (in practice) to have something like that and was not surreptitious at all. That was explicit, and with even worse consequences for the daily lives of African Americans.

Now, as for GA's election law: Has it been challenged in court? I find it hard to see how some of its restrictions would stand as they go beyond simply the business necessity of making sure the principle of "one person, one vote" is upheld. For instance, under its laws bringing your ID to vote is not enough, if your name in your ID doesn't exactly match what you filled in your voter registration form, then you can't vote. This is the case even if your SSN or driver's license number matches what you filled in the voter registration form, and is most certainly excessive.
By late
#15178140
wat0n wrote:
whack-a-mole



Since the Supreme Court lied their ass off, and killed pre-clearance in the VRA, what do you think we have now?

"Put a little differently, the thing about Jim Crow is that it wasn’t “Jim Crow” until, one day, it was."
By wat0n
#15178143
late wrote:Since the Supreme Court lied their ass off, and killed pre-clearance in the VRA, what do you think we have now?

"Put a little differently, the thing about Jim Crow is that it wasn’t “Jim Crow” until, one day, it was."


What the SCOTUS did, though, was to kill preclearance (sec 4b) because the VRA does not reflect current conditions given that section dated from 1975. Can't the current Congress come up with a self-correcting formula that allows for changes in e.g. participation rates by race or demographics? The Democrats actually proposed such changes as early as 2014 (the ruling is from 2013), by the way, so Congress would only need to push an already existing bill and vote it in.
By late
#15178185
wat0n wrote:
What the SCOTUS did, though, was to kill preclearance (sec 4b) because the VRA does not reflect current conditions given that section dated from 1975. Can't the current Congress come up with a self-correcting formula that allows for changes in e.g. participation rates by race or demographics? The Democrats actually proposed such changes as early as 2014 (the ruling is from 2013), by the way, so Congress would only need to push an already existing bill and vote it in.



The government was never designed to handle half the participants trying to destroy it.
By wat0n
#15178188
late wrote:The government was never designed to handle half the participants trying to destroy it.


I don't think there are any supermajorities needed to update the VRA. The Democrats control the House and half the Senate, along with the tie-breaking vote.

If that's your concern I'd be surprised if 4b wasn't reintroduced, in an amended form, this or next year at the latest.
By late
#15178228
wat0n wrote:
I don't think there are any supermajorities needed to update the VRA.



Perhaps you know of a way to pass SR1 that I am unaware of.

"Republicans on Tuesday blocked the most ambitious voting rights legislation to come before Congress in a generation, dealing a blow to Democrats’ attempts to counter a wave of state-level ballot restrictions, the Republican blockade in the Senate left Democrats without a clear path forward, and without a means to beat back the restrictive voting laws racing through Republican-led states."




https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/06/22/us/joe-biden-news
User avatar
By Politics_Observer
#15178233
@late @Potemkin

African American civil rights leaders were arrested here recently protesting republican efforts to stop black people from exercising their right to vote. They also want an end to the filibuster. I support their position in that the filibuster needs to end given it is being used to essentially take away the right to vote from African American citizens by the republicans. This is a violation of their constitutional rights.

Nicole Chavez of CNN wrote:Civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson and social justice activist Rev. William Barber II were arrested this week during a Capitol Hill protest over voting rights and the filibuster's abolition.

US Capitol Police said Jackson and Barber were among 21 people arrested on Wednesday near the US Supreme Court building for crowding and obstructing. Video footage shows the faith leaders were outside the Hart Senate Building at the time of their detention.

"When you start rolling back voter registration, rolling back early voting, undermining mail in balloting, putting limits on people even being able to get water, doing racist gerrymandering, class-based gerrymandering, you hurt Black people, you hurt White people, you hurt Asians, Natives, Latinos, young people and the disabled," Barber told CNN's Chris Cuomo.

The faith leaders are part of several high-profile figures and organizations demanding that lawmakers at the state and federal halt efforts to enact bills that restrict voting access and support the For the People Act, a signature voting and election bill that Democrats had pitched to counter state-level efforts.

Prior to their arrest, Barber held a rally in front of the US Supreme Court as part of the "Moral March on Manchin and McConnell." The event organized by the faith-led grassroots organization The Poor People's Campaign aimed to call on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia to abolish the filibuster.


https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/24/us/jesse ... index.html
User avatar
By Politics_Observer
#15178234
@wat0n

wat0n wrote:Now, as for GA's election law: Has it been challenged in court? I find it hard to see how some of its restrictions would stand as they go beyond simply the business necessity of making sure the principle of "one person, one vote" is upheld.


Over the years, republicans have been stealing Supreme Court seats to gut the Voting Rights Act. By doing so, this makes these voter suppression laws legal whereas before the Voting Rights Act was gutted, they were illegal. So, essentially, the reason the republicans want to pack the court with conservative judges is so that they can undermine and gut the Voting Rights Act which in turns enables them to pass voter suppression laws that are legal and basically take away the right to vote of those who are targeted by their voter suppression laws because then they are unable to exercise their right due to these new laws.

This ensures that not all the American people are properly represented by the U.S. government and installs an authoritarian minority white rule similar to Apartheid South Africa. Such a government has no legitimacy because the will of the people are not properly represented and seeks to deny people their constitutional rights to vote and be properly represented by their government. This is unacceptable and cannot stand. Rigging the Supreme Court also ensures that all the real power stays in the hands of a rich white minority elite while denying equal power to all others in government.
Last edited by Politics_Observer on 24 Jun 2021 22:46, edited 1 time in total.
By wat0n
#15178236
late wrote:Perhaps you know of a way to pass SR1 that I am unaware of.

"Republicans on Tuesday blocked the most ambitious voting rights legislation to come before Congress in a generation, dealing a blow to Democrats’ attempts to counter a wave of state-level ballot restrictions, the Republican blockade in the Senate left Democrats without a clear path forward, and without a means to beat back the restrictive voting laws racing through Republican-led states."




https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/06/22/us/joe-biden-news


The Democrats can use the nuclear option if necessary. It's there, and has been used by both parties within the last 10 years :|

@Politics_Observer but has the law been actually challenged yet?
User avatar
By Politics_Observer
#15178237
@wat0n

To my knowledge, the law has not been challenged yet. I could be wrong though. I haven't researched this specific topic. But I don't trust southern states to run fair elections which is why I support federal involvement in southern states to ensure that everybody has equal access to voting and can exercise their right to vote unhindered by any unjust laws that a republican controlled legislature might pass to manufacture an illegitimate election result they want instead of what a truly fair election would produce.
By wat0n
#15178238
Politics_Observer wrote:@wat0n

To my knowledge, the law has not been challenged yet. I could be wrong though. I haven't researched this specific topic. But I don't trust southern states to run fair elections which is why I support federal involvement in southern states to ensure that everybody has equal access to voting and can exercise their right to vote unhindered by any unjust laws that a republican controlled legislature might pass to manufacture an illegitimate election result they want instead of what a truly fair election would produce.


I take no opinion on the reliability of their elections (honestly, regardless of GA's law I do respect that they stood up to Trump's illegal pressure for them to fraudulently "find" votes for him), I'm more interested in seeing that law challenged so GA will be forced to explain the purpose of its name-matching requirement. After that happens, I think, this controversy will be sorted out in one way or another.
User avatar
By Politics_Observer
#15178239
@wat0n

wat0n wrote:(honestly, regardless of GA's law I do respect that they stood up to Trump's illegal pressure for them to fraudulently "find" votes for him)


I can respect that too, but that still doesn't mean that southern legislatures can be trusted given they are passing voter suppression laws that are essentially designed to deny black people the right to vote and to manufacture an illegitimate election result that republican legislatures want. They were following the law because they had to and they knew they would face legal liability if they did not. I don't think it was because they wanted to do the right thing. They were just doing what they had no choice to do because if they didn't they would face legal liability.
By wat0n
#15178240
Politics_Observer wrote:@wat0n



I can respect that too, but that still doesn't mean that southern legislatures can be trusted given they are passing voter suppression laws that are essentially designed to deny black people the right to vote and to manufacture an illegitimate election result that republican legislatures want. They were following the law because they had to and they knew they would face legal liability if they did not. I don't think it was because they wanted to do the right thing. They were just doing what they had no choice to do because if they didn't they would face legal liability.


Fair, and that means the law still rules the land after all. Even in the age of Trump, and post-Trump too.

All the more reason for me to want to see how the courts would deal with that sort of legal challenge. I'm guessing there needs to be an election first, so people will be able to claim they were affected by GA's law. Am I correct?
User avatar
By Politics_Observer
#15178242
@wat0n

I have no doubt people will be affected by Georgia's new voter suppression laws. I won't let it stop me from voting, that's for sure. I guarantee you, I will be at the polls. But there is no reason for these laws given the last elections were fair and square. Unless, of course, you want to manufacture an election result you want rather than let the voice of the people be heard.

However, I can't predict who will win elections in the future despite or due to these new un-necessary laws. I would like to see a court challenge too if one hasn't already been presented. But given how republicans have been stacking the courts here lately with conservative judges, I won't be surprised if they allow such un-necessary new voter suppression laws stand.
By wat0n
#15178246
Politics_Observer wrote:@wat0n

I have no doubt people will be affected by Georgia's new voter suppression laws. I won't let it stop me from voting, that's for sure. I guarantee you, I will be at the polls. But there is no reason for these laws given the last elections were fair and square. Unless, of course, you want to manufacture an election result you want rather than let the voice of the people be heard.

However, I can't predict who will win elections in the future despite or due to these new un-necessary laws. I would like to see a court challenge too if one hasn't already been presented. But given how republicans have been stacking the courts here lately with conservative judges, I won't be surprised if they allow such un-necessary new voter suppression laws stand.


I don't quite agree with you regarding the bolded part. I can support adding fail-safes such as requiring an ID or other proof of identity to vote, to prevent future questioning of electoral results based on claiming that the principle of "one person, one vote" has not been properly protected by the law.

What I cannot accept though is to add extra seemingly unjustifiable restrictions, such as GA's requirement that names in documents should exactly match those in the vote registry. That's excessive, since often there are errors in inputting names - matching signatures and IDs (driver's license ID or SSN) is enough. A trial would force GA to explain why is the restriction justified, and not a way as you said to limit the exercise of the right to vote.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15178248
There's laws, and then there's "laws"....



The data is processed through a system called the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program, which is being promoted by a powerful Republican operative, and its lists of potential duplicate voters are kept confidential. But Rolling Stone obtained a portion of the list and the names of 1 million targeted voters. According to our analysis, the Crosscheck list disproportionately threatens solid Democratic constituencies: young, black, Hispanic and Asian-American voters – with some of the biggest possible purges underway in Ohio and North Carolina, two crucial swing states with tight Senate races.



https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... rs-247905/




Discrimination allegations

The loose matching standards used to identify "potential duplicate registrants" by the Kansas Secretary of State also raised significant concerns about the opportunity for racial bias in list maintenance. According to "Health of State Democracies", "50 percent of Communities of Color share a common surname, while only 30 percent of white people do," so that in the program's flagged lists, "white voters are underrepresented by 8 percent, African Americans are overrepresented by 45 percent; Hispanic voters are overrepresented by 24 percent; and Asian voters are overrepresented by 31 percent".[14]

After examining "potential duplicate registrant" lists from some of the participating states, investigative reporter Greg Palast claimed the Crosscheck system "disproportionately threatens solid Democratic constituencies: young, black, Hispanic and Asian-American voters" with the intention of securing Republican victories. Palast concluded this was achieved by eliminating discrete individuals based on nothing more than similarity of name, a method with a "built-in racial bias" that especially eliminated voters from targeted minorities with a more limited pool of given names, for example, Hispanic voters named Jose Garcia.[17]

However, presence on the "potential duplicate registrant" list did not mean a voter was removed from the rolls. Independent investigators found that most states reported not using the Crosscheck "potential duplicate registrant" lists in any way.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstat ... llegations
By wat0n
#15178250
ckaihatsu wrote:There's laws, and then there's "laws"....


Interesting fact I was not aware of. Yes, if that "Crosscheck list" is set up in a racially discriminatory way then it's clearly illegal.
Racist Karen Freakout

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDcRSv0a3KM The l[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

Guys, the Earth is flat. How do I know this? Becau[…]

Again @Doug64 , you talk about children dying fro[…]

The Democrats believe in the exact same shit thes[…]