Skip to main content

View Diary: Texas Defends Voting Laws: "We Don't Want Democrats To Vote" (177 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Drawing of districts is not the same thing (17+ / 0-)

    as the Constitutional right to vote.

    I might be willing to argue, were I a lawyer, that districts per se violate "one man - one vote" inasumuch as they tend to be comprised of voters of similar persuasion, disenfranchising those of different persuasion.

    Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

    by blue aardvark on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 12:58:12 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I think I've seen people argue here that there is (13+ / 0-)

      no Constitutional right to vote.  Don't remember much about why, but I've seen that stated.  Much like there is no true right to privacy spelled out in the Constitution.  Implied, yes, but not actually spelled out with that quill pen.  

      The next argument could be that those who are members of the Republican party are allowed into polling places up to a month in advance, while those registered as Democrats, Greens, Independents or Commies can only vote if they're in line between 1:10 and 1:12PM on the prescribed voting day - no absentee ballots, no allowance for voting machine problems, no allowance for any difference in your watch versus the Republican Supervisor of Elections' official timepiece.  Because, following their logic, Democrats don't have an official right to vote.  That the Republicans choose to allow them to (if they follow the above "guidelines") is because Republicans are generous and considerate of those less fortunate.

      •  they'd be wrong, ColoTim: (7+ / 0-)

        Section. 4.

        The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

        Running the elections is left to the states, above. But how are the States to choose Electors, Representatives or Senators without somebody having the vote?

        LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

        by BlackSheep1 on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 01:54:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sounds like the states could allow only people of (3+ / 0-)

          a particular party or other restriction could vote.  They couldn't say "only Christians" but they could say "only Republicans" if the state legislature passed such a law.

          That's based upon just the quote in your post - I'm sure there are the individual state Constitutions which have their say, as well as the current lawmakers, and I don't think any would be that stupid as to try and restrict voting rights - oh right, this diary is about Texas.  I'm worried...

          •  This is how civil wars are started (0+ / 0-)

            I.e Brazil! Right Now the Leftisis are taking it to the Right, the courts and the government! The right thought they had the manpower, However a disenfranchised veteran is still a veteran who will fight!
                When we get this angry things will change fast, quick , and in a hurry! Martin got us the law!Malcom got it enforced! Huey and militants of all shades reminded them we were still here!

      •  So the technical reason for that is that there is (7+ / 0-)

        no right to vote for certain offices.  There is no inherent federal Constitutional right to vote for your mayor or city council members (see e.g. Detroit).  There is no inherent federal Constitutional right to elections that are determinative on state laws via referenda as is so popular in rural and Western states.  State constitutions are much more detailed than the federal constitution and often the right to vote in those circumstances can be found in a state constitution, in whole or in part.

        Furthermore, when the vote is provided for, either voluntarily  (see e.g. mayoral elections) or by Constitutional obligation (and I can no longer remember which federal offices require a vote), the vote must be conducted in a Constitutional fashion, which puts it under the purview of the 5th and 14th Amendments and the various acts that serve to enforce the 5th and 14th Amendments, yatta yatta.

        So the "no Constitutional right to vote" claims start with a small kernel of truth but usually are made in defense of some state action that is violative of another Constitutional right.

        "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

        by auron renouille on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 05:55:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, that depends on one's views on the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Constitutional provision providing that each state is guaranteed by the central government to a Republican form of government.  This,l at minimum entails voting for legislative representatives by the electors.  Of course, the electorate used to be limited, but can't be any more.

          Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

          by StrayCat on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 08:25:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Next time someone says there's no constitutional (6+ / 0-)

        right to vote, shove THIS in their face:

        "Activism begins with you, Democracy begins with you, get out there, get active! Tag, you're it!" Thom Hartmann

        by glogrrl on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 11:37:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site