Supreme Court

The Voting Rights Act Was Made for a Simpler Time

That day is gone, and fortunately, it's not coming back.

|

Blackpast.org

Political advocates often yearn for simpler times and simpler causes. Conservative hawks, nostalgic for the clarity of World War II, see every aggressive nation as Nazi Germany. Tea partiers invoke the founders as though King George III were still on his throne.

For liberals, there is no cause to match the cause of civil rights in the 1960s—when Southern segregationists violently opposed equality for African-Americans and the federal government acted assertively in pursuit of justice. When it comes to any issue involving race, these liberals have a pronounced tendency to spy the ghost of George Wallace.

That impulse was on display Tuesday, after the Supreme Court struck down a major part of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. That provision required nine states, mostly in the South, to get federal approval before making the slightest change in election laws and procedures. The reactions made it sound as though the term "black voter" will soon be a self-contradiction.

"No one should be fooled by the naive fantasy that voting discrimination no longer exists," said Wade Henderson, head of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. The Amalgamated Transit Union said the verdict "turns the clock back to the Jim Crow era." Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn said it "halts nearly 50 years of civil rights progress."

Quinn's comment was especially illuminating, though not for the reason he intended. Illinois is one of the states that the law treats as fit to exercise control over elections. But as the lawyers for Shelby County, Ala., told the Supreme Court, it was among six uncovered states that lost more voting discrimination lawsuits than five of the covered states.

The court didn't say racism and voting discrimination are things of the past. It merely said that they are not peculiar to the South, or necessarily more prevalent in the South.

Texas and South Carolina wanted to require voters to present a government-issued photo ID when they show up at the polls. Under the Voting Rights Act, they were barred from doing so. Indiana wanted to impose the same rule. It was allowed.

Was this because the requirements were radically different? No. Because there are black people in Indiana? No. Because Hoosiers get driver's licenses at birth? No.

It's because what qualifies as racial discrimination in some places does not qualify as racial discrimination there. Not that black voters have it better in Indiana. In fact, they are less likely than blacks in Texas and South Carolina to be registered and less likely to vote.

The unequal treatment of states has been the law since 1965. Southern states had shown a virulent determination to keep African-Americans from voting by any means. Special scrutiny made sense then. It doesn't make much sense now.

Under the section of the law that was overturned, what states actually do isn't important. What matters is what they did—decades ago. And that criterion was scheduled to remain in effect until 2031.

But the modern South is a place Bull Connor wouldn't recognize. In 1965, only 6.7 percent of Mississippi's black adults were registered to vote. In 2004, the African-American registration rate was 76.1 percent—vs. 72.3 percent for whites. Other Southern states have made huge gains, too.

But they still had to get federal approval of every change in voting procedures. This might make sense if they were still attempting to disenfranchise minorities. But as a dissent in the appeals court documented, the Justice Department raised "only five objections for every ten thousand submissions between 1998 and 2002." Judge Stephen Williams noted, "In the vast majority of cases, the overall effect … is merely to delay implementation of a perfectly proper law."

The court's critics will say such widespread compliance proves the Voting Rights Act deters bad actors. By this logic, there are never grounds for changing it. Discrimination proves the need, and so does nondiscrimination.

If the feds want to treat a state by a stricter standard, they should base that treatment on what is actually happening today. States that have not changed should get tough scrutiny. Those that have gotten worse, ditto. But those that have good records should be treated like grownups.

Simple issues are made for simple, satisfying solutions. Complexity is harder. The Voting Rights Act was made for a simpler time. That day is gone, and fortunately, it's not coming back.

NEXT: GOP May Split Farm Bill in Two

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Voting Rights Act is a perfect issue for the proggies. Supporting this law doesn’t require an analysis of the complexities of the modern world, it just requires some regional bigotry, nostalgia for the heroic era of civil rights, and masturbating to a climax at the thought of one’s own righteousness. Not to mention trying to inspire turnout among black voters by claiming the Republicans are going to eat their children.

    The South is seen as a magical evil Brigadoon frozen in time, where the lynching of Emmett Till is reenacted every week and every white male resident marks his calendar for the KKK Klambakes, which is the high point of their social lives apart from the tractor pulls and NASCAR. Sure, maybe there’s a wee bit of racial tension in places like New York City, but that pales into insignificance next to the white South’s massive white supremacism.

    Laws applicable mostly to Southern jurisdictions make total sense, since these jurisdictions are the focus of racial evil in the modern world.

    Now it’s time to get plenty of handkerchiefs (and not for crying into) and watching *Roots* again.

    1. It turns out that the state that has the biggest discrepancy in black and white turnout is Massachusetts. That is really funny.

      Most progs are horrible racists who live in all white neighborhoods, go to all white schools, work in fields that are all white. The grow up with a smug sense of superiority to all minorities and an engrained sense of duty to help out those who have the misfortune of being born to a lesser race.

      That is the sorry reality of it. They only see racism everywhere because they are such racists themselves.

      1. “work in fields”

        Racist!

      2. Salon actually had an interesting article last week that explained there were too branches of liberalism. The welfare liberals are the good elites that believed that power of the state should be used to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. The solidarity liberals are primarily working-class stiffs that don’t trust any elites (even though the recognize there are good elites and bad elites).

        You have described the welfare liberals and there view of the world perfectly.

      3. “White Flight and the Black Menace – they usually work together”

      4. Most progs are horrible racists who live in all white neighborhoods

        and use zoning laws to keep, well, you know, those people from either living or finding work in their neighborhoods.

      5. “It turns out that the state that has the biggest discrepancy in black and white turnout is Massachusetts.”

        Roberts said that at orals, but was it shown to be true?

        Even if it were I don’t think it proves much. One can see blacks living under a black governor thinking voting is not as important as blacks represented by, say, Trent Lott.

          1. By the way, the politifact argument as to why it’s “half true” is fucking comedy gold.

            Let me explain the disparity: the black population in MA almost entirely lives in Boston or in its immediate suburbs. The Democratic machine controls those enclaves and is dominated by the Irish.

            Guess how the irish politicians maintain their primacy? You guessed it – by using all the traditional tricks to keep the blacks divided and disenfranchised. 😉

            Roberts was fucking spot on, but the morons at Politifact consciously or unconsciously let the point sail right over their heads.

            1. Guess how the irish politicians maintain their primacy? You guessed it – by using all the traditional tricks to keep the blacks divided and disenfranchised. 😉

              Mass is lily white outside of Boston. If black don’t vote there it is because the Boston Dem machine doesn’t want them to.

            2. Roberts was fucking spot on, but the morons at Politifact consciously or unconsciously let the point sail right over their heads.

              That’s SOP for Politifact. It’s a liberal website run by a liberal paper (The St. Petersburg Times). To be fair, I’ve seen them use the same lack of logic to hammer a Democrat. They tend to be as much incompetent as they are biased.

    2. The South is seen as worse because its history was far worse, and history tells us that cultures don’t always change quickly.

      If you’re 40 or older and grew up in the South chances are your parents went to a segregated school. This is not the distant past.

      1. There has absolutely been a sea change in the South – not that white supremacism has vanished magically, but that it’s now on the same level as white supremacism elsewhere in the country – that is, no longer institutionalized, no longer normative, it’s the hate that dare not speak its name. Throughout the country, you still see poor black people shafted by the criminal-justice system, but it would take a real fool to blame the South exclusively for this. (And of course you also see poor white people getting shafted, too). There are a few relics of Jim Crow, such as the Wade-Davis Act, but again, only a fool would blame the South for perpetuating this particular law.

        When Senator Strom Thurmond supports a black man with a white wife for a seat on the Supreme Court, when there’s more black people migrating into the South than into non-Southern states, when we have a fricking’ *black President* – there’s obviously been a lot of change in the country – and not just in the South, because there was a time when no section of the country, North, South, East or West would have voted for a black President.

        1. Sure there have been changes, but as you seem to concede it’s rational to expect some things lingering, and the South’s baseline from which these things linger is more extreme.

          BTW I certainly don’t deny the injustices done to blacks and whites (rich and poor actually) around the country by our justice system.

          1. When one section of the country makes racial progress at a rapid rate, and the rest of the country improves at a slower rate, then the section with the more rapid improvements will tend to catch up with the rest before very long.

            1. I think we agree that the South has to start further back than most other places. I also concede they’ve moved a long way from that point. I’m not sure they’ve moved more rapidly than anyplace else or if they have that they’ve overcome that starting deficit.

              For what its worth at orals it was noted that Sec. 2 complaints tracked Sec. 4’s coverage areas.

              1. In the memory of people still living, Southern Democrats were champions of Jim Crow, now they rely on black votes. And as I mentioned elsewhere, even the evul Republicans have nominated – successfully – a couple nonwhite candidates for statewide office.

                1. I think the VRA has less to do with what race nominees are and more to do with obstacles to voting for minority voters. In other words, trying to limit or dilute the voting in heavily minority precints.

                  1. I was addressing your point about the South being worse today than the rest of the country.

                    1. And I was responding to it.

                      When it comes to racial voting suppression we have a handy measure: Sec 2 complaints. And they track the Sec. 5 coverage.

                      You countered that by noting prominent blacks nominated statewide in the South. I agree that’s a big point, but I think the Sec 2 complaints more relevant.

                    2. You were going on about how Jim Crow existed in the memory of people still living (or their parent), and I pointed out that the Southern Democrats supported Jim Crow within the memories of people still living, yet today Southern Dems are at the vanguard of progressiveness! And even the bad old Southern-Strategy Republicans are *successfully* running what would in a prior era be deemed “colored” candidates for statewide offices (even in Reconstruction, the governorships were won by *white* Republicans).

                      So your appeal to living memory has some flaws.

            2. Tocqueville noted that before the North was much more segregated and racist than the South. Some Southern writers credit the shift to ‘black leagues’ that stirred up violence between former slaves and Southern whites which resulted in the ensuing blanket hatred and racism.

              I can’t say that’s exactly what happened, I wasn’t there, but Tocqueville’s observation was certainly interesting.

        2. “If you’re 40 or older and grew up in the South chances are your parents went to a segregated school.”

          Yeah, and they probably drove a car like this:

          http://cdn2.retrowaste.com/wp-…..-cars1.jpg

          And listened to songs like this:

          http://www.nme.com/list/100-be…..50s/262449

          1. What percent of office holders, election officials or heck even voters are over 40?

            Those that are that grew up in the South grew up with parents that lived the majority of their lives as part of a system that essentially took racial oppression as a given in the world.

            Things change, sure, but it’s hard to imagine the effects of that, of people’s upbringings, have just blown away like old dust on a windy day.

            1. What percent of office holders, election officials or heck even voters are over 40?

              Those that are that grew up in the South grew up with parents that lived the majority of their lives as part of a system that essentially took racial oppression as a given in the world.

              Yes, and because their PARENTS were exposed to racism these folks just can’t be trusted.

              Fuck off, slaver.

      2. If you’re 40 or older and grew up in the South chances are your parents went to a segregated school. This is not the distant past.

        Is just as true in Boston and affects their ability to vote without interference not at all.

        1. You’re welcome to argue that Massachussets has the same record of racial oppression as Georgia.

          Sure, lots of places outside the South had problems.

          But I can’t even picture the argument that it wasn’t especially bad in the South. Ayn Rand described as a quasi-feudal land.

          1. A land whose states would not have considered electing not one, but two governor of Indian descent, including a Sikh. And those are Republicans – one can only imagine how enlightened the Democrats must be!

      3. and if you’re 50 or younger, you had black kids in your class from day one and thought nothing of it. Ask the black kids in Boston during bussing about their experience.

        1. Let’s concede your point: what % of officials and heck even voters are under 50 do you think?

          1. dodging the point, I see. Sorry, but you’re making an argument based on conditions that no longer exist. The South elected the nation’s first black governor, every major city has had at least one black mayor, and so on and so on.

      4. The South is seen as worse because its history was far worse, and history tells us that cultures don’t always change quickly.

        If you’re 40 or older and grew up in the South chances are your parents went to a segregated school. This is not the distant past.

        Yes, and the Democratic Party ran the South at the time. Remember cultures don’t always change quickly, so never vote for a Democrat. They’re racists to the core, it’s in their culture.

        1. Of course the Democrats were already pretty split after Truman. I’m not sure it’s wrong to think party alignments happen faster than general changes in culture.

          But what I find interesting about so many posts like this one is that they seem like they would come more likely from Tea Party Republicans than from libertarians. I can see why the “Democrats ran the South during Jim Crow” is so sexy to a Tea Party Republican crowd, but why would it be to a libertarian audience?

          As to your advice to never vote for a Democrat I’ll gladly take it as long as there is a LP candidate on the ticket.

      5. You are right. Cultures die hard. There is no way to tell whether without the Voting Rights Act things will turn to garbage. But the states have to be able to get out from under the law and see what happens.

        1. Here’s what’s interesting to me as a libertarian: that’s a pretty big risk for the minority voter involved, and interestingly it is a risk which counts on the pols and election officials of the states doing the right thing.

          Why in the world would we of all people bet on that?

          1. Here’s what’s interesting to me as a libertarian

            Here’s what’s interesting to me, I have yet to see you take a single libertarian position.

          2. Concern troll is concerned.

            How about, because we don’t support a totalitarian central state? If the states are actually doing something to suppress the minority vote, minorities can sue the state, have a day in court, and prove it. In any state in the union. Which makes selective scrutiny of particular states based on century old racial tensions pretty goddamn stupid.

            1. Just some food for thought…

              Imagine that we’re in the midst of the 2016 presidential election. Imagine that a state (could be any state) passes a voter ID law a couple weeks before the election, disenfranchising many people (largely minorities). If we agree that such a law could conceivably be proven to violate citizens’ right to vote, do you think that people in that state would have enough time to contest that law?

              I can imagine the plantiff trying to climb the appeal ladder, but I personally don’t think there would be enough time to contest the law before the election. Then (assuming the law is unconstitutional), there could be some serious consequences.

              I’m not saying I agree or disagree with what you’re saying or even the SCOTUS decision, but there are some merits to federal pre-approval that can’t be overlooked

  2. Most liberals who have heard this argument simply rebut this by saying “well, we should just have the VRA apply to all the states”.

    They don’t get it.

    1. Most liberals who have heard this argument simply rebut this by saying “well, we should just have the VRA apply to all the states”.

      To some extent it still does. States and localities can still be put on the Section 5 list via Section 3. A federal court just has to show that they have violated voting rights in the recent past. Section 3 has plenty of power to achieve the desired results. Section 4 was just arbitrary and capricious.

  3. If the feds want to treat a state by a stricter standard, they should base that treatment on what is actually happening today. States that have not changed should get tough scrutiny. Those that have gotten worse, ditto. But those that have good records should be treated like grownups.

    But that would mean the states subject to this would be mostly northern and mostly Democratic. And the whole point of these laws is to punish Republicans and the South.

    1. Well we did steal the election from Gore so you can’t leave Florida to its own devices.

      1. Hilariously, the VRA didn’t even apply to the state of Florida, only a few counties.

        1. We didn’t do much during the civil war so I guess we get a pass.

    2. I thought the Jim Crow South was primarily Democratic? If so then it’s hard to see how the VRA was meant to punish the Republicans.

      When Tea Party stories collide 😉

      1. Or, you know, since Jim Crow laws date back to the late 1800’s, the VRA was passed in 1965, and the “Southern Strategy” came into effect in the late 1960’s, there may just be some overlap.

    3. Actually, the point was to punish Democrats and the South, but Democrats have pulled the rather amazing Jedi mind trick of not only whitewashing their own racist history but magically transferring their sins onto the party of Lincoln and the Civil Rights Act. Thanks, public schools!

      1. You sure Republicans didn’t help out there with changing electoral strategies?

        1. Absolutely.

          Democrats like yourself routinely claim that the parties ‘switched’ after the CRA–this is demostrably untrue.

          In 1993 Republicans too control of Congress for the first time in 40 years. That means they lost control in 1953.

          Somehow, Democrats managed to keep control of Congress even though all the racist Democrats ‘switched’ after the CRA.

          Even better, they supposedly ‘switched’ and joined the party that had been, since it’s inception, committed to civil rights for blacks.

  4. Taranto has an interesting point in Best of the Web, where he discusses Section 3 of the VRA, which allows the Feds to go to Court to have a jurisdiction made subject to the pre-clearance requirement. (Apparently Arkansas and New Mexico are required to go through pre-clearance based on this section, so they should not be affected by this ruling).

    1. I was going to mention that as well. Section 3 has plenty of power. Section 4 was just an arbitrary list based on stuff that happened 2-3 generations ago.

  5. Isn’t the basic argument from the left is that the court wants Congress to take a look at the list of states again, and that this is as likely to happen as Rachel Maddow is to wear a pair of high heels?

    So, we should leave a bad, expensive law in place because our elected officials are incompetent and won’t do anything because they are so desperately scared of making any kind of decision that could cause a flurry of race cards to rain down upon them next fall.

  6. Hey Reason: there are all kinds of jokers popping up in the IRS scandal and you are completely missing it. Enough Eddie Snowden crap; the leftoids have handed us an opportunity to move the ball forward on ABOLISHING THE IRS, but you guys are all wrapped up in social crap and the Snowden soap opera. Discipline!

    1. Yep, but they want a Jesus Christ figure that they can genuflect to.

      This is why libertarians suck at serious politics.

      1. Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    2. the leftoids have handed us an opportunity to move the ball forward on ABOLISHING THE IRS

      HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

      HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

      That should be right after we abolish gravity.

  7. MLK couldn’t preach it better himself. Huzzah! Forward America goes.

  8. I don’t see this as much of a libertarian issue either way, but honestly I think if it cuts one way it might cut for the VRA.

    There was not a bigger tyranny implemented in the US this century than what the Southern (and a few others) did during Jim Crow (and of course, there was not a bigger tyranny in our entire history than slavery which was concentrated longest in the South).

    As a libertarian I’m not opposed to the Feds using federal Takings law to police tyrannical state and local takings so I’m not oppose to them using their power to police tyrannical voter suppression. Also as a libertarian who has worked to get LP candidates on ballots I can attest that local and state governments are more than willing to pull voting shenanigans.

    1. Jim Crow did not occur during this century, Bo. Which is essentially the point of the Court’ opinion.

    2. There was not a bigger tyranny implemented in the US this century than what the Southern did during Jim Crow

      I think the ethnic cleansing of the Cherokee under Jackson might be comparable. Of course, that makes the central government and the unilateral executive look bad, so let’s ignore it.

      1. Did the ethnic cleansing of the Cherokee happen under Jackson happen in the last 100 years?

        1. The internment of the Japanese-Americans did. That was done by the feds at the urging of California politicians (like Earl Warren).

          1. You think the internment was a bigger deal than Jim Crow?

            The internment was shameful, but it’s pretty dwarfed, both in length of time and people impacted, by Jim Crow.

            1. No, it was not a bigger deal. But I would think it certainly calls into question the narrative of a federal government, under non-Southern influence, being a force for racial progress.

              And the internment was simply the climax of a long history of Western (especially Californian) racism against Asian Americans. You want to talk about voting rights – Asian immigrants were denied naturalization, hence denied the vote, by federal laws (supported by Western whites). Chinese immigrants only became eligible for naturalization during WWII, and Japanese immigrants only in 1952. All of that is within living memory, too.

              1. I agree with you on all this, treatment of Asians by Western states was horrible, and federal government was complicit in much of it.

                Of course, Asians were not treated great in the South either.

                1. Exactly – they were subject to Jim Crow, with the specific approval of the Supreme Court (Gong Lum v. Rice). Now two states in the VRA “covered” area elected Asian-American governors.

                  So you illustrate the point I was making.

                  1. I don’t think so.

                    My point was the South was particularly bad historically.

                    I respect your arguments. With my lunch hour over I will see if I have the heart of it: we both concede the South starts from a particularly worse place (though we acknowledge racism in other areas historically too, just not as bad overall); we both concede the South has come a long way since then.

                    You think the election and nomination of minority candidates statewide in the South shows they are not particularly needing of review anymore. I concede that’s a good point.

                    My point is that even with that, it’s not irrational to give an extra scrutiny to a region whose particularly bad past is not that distant in history (this was my point about people over 40 having grown up with parents that took Jim Crow for granted), and that the Sec. 2 data seems to support this.

                    I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree from there. I hope I at least showed you that a libertarian need not necessarily oppose VRA sec. 5.

                    Have a blessed day.

                    1. That’s very kind, although I’m aware that libertarians can support Sec. 5.

      2. I would think the war on (some) drug (using minoritie)s is comparable to it.

        Actually that’s inaccurate. The drug war was part of Jim Crow. It resides in the federal government because that bit of Kim Crow was enacted at a time when the segregationists were powerful enough to enact national legislation.

        1. I largely agree here. The drug war has been undoubtedly heavy in its impact on blacks. It’s an egregious evil and why I am a libertarian. That blacks support the feckless Democrats while they do nothing, and at times champion, the WOD is amazing indeed.

          Having said that, I still think Jim Crow outweighs it, in part because of what you say, it’s an outgrowth of it.

    3. There was not a bigger tyranny implemented in the US this century than what the Southern (and a few others) did during Jim Crow

      Epic Fail.

  9. By century I meant the past 100 years.

    It would be silly to talk about this century meaning from 2000-on, that’s roughly ten years.

    1. It’s silly and collectivist to hold us southerners responsible for things that happened before we were even born.

      1. It doesn’t hold Southern people collectively, it polices Southern election officials. And they have a pretty horrible record.

        Heck, it helps Southern voters in that voting changes are policed.

        1. it polices Southern election officials. And they have a pretty horrible record.

          Worse than Chicago or Boston or Philadelphia since 1965? You must be joking.

          1. In racial terms?

            1. Yes, Bo Cara, in racial terms.

              See my post above about Irish politicians keeping blacks disenfranchised here in Boston.

              I will say this again, the worst institutionalized racism I have personally observed is here in the Peoples Liberated Popular Democratic Socialist Equalitized Republic of Massachusetts.

              Hell, we had race riots here in the 80’s when they desegregated public housing and the poor Irish started wrecking up the place.

              1. The worst racial attitudes I’ve observed was in the deep South.

                Now that we’ve matched anecdotes where do we go?

                1. Perhaps not have a different standard for racism in massachusetts than for racism in the deep south?

                  1. I move past the anecdotes by referencing the history. It’s not that far gone and it to me is not unreasonable to suppose that some of that is going to linger.

                    1. Do you agree that there should be one standard for federal intervention of racially based disenfranchisement that applies to both massachusetts and to the deep south?

                    2. I think there should be one overall standard, and the VRA has this in Sec. 2.

                      But I also think its reasonable to keep a different eye on jurisdictions with a particularly awful, and in my opinion not that distant, past. And Sec. 5 did that.

                      Kind of like probation. And like probation Sec. 5 had a procedure where jurisdictions that over time showed good behavior got off probation.

                    3. I think there should be one overall standard, and the VRA has this in Sec. 2.

                      But I also think its reasonable to keep a different eye on jurisdictions with a particularly awful, and in my opinion not that distant, past.

                      This is classic Progressive “exception” based logic that Orwell summed up best.

                      The Seven Commandments are reduced to a single phrase: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

                    4. Do you think probation is a ‘Progressive’ idea?

                    5. I think probation for 5 decades is more than enough.

                2. How about the FBI?

                  http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj…..s/table-11

        2. It polices laws, doesn’t it?

          I can see us anti-democratic libertarian types arguing that selectively restricting certain states’ legislatures from passing laws without oversight isn’t affecting them, but surely not you.

          1. I wouldn’t have said in my opening comment about Takings law if I was as opposed to anti-democratic actions as you might think.

            I also wonder if you’re really as ‘anti-democratic’ as you think. If you got a letter in the mail today saying you were no longer allowed to vote that wouldn’t bother you?

            I bet what you mean is that there are some government actions that are wrong even if they were democratically enacted. I believe that as well.

        3. We kicked those racist southern democrats out of office years ago. I see no example of our Texas officials having a horrible record compared to anywhere else in the country. Everybody gerrymanders for political gain, EVERYBODY. It doesn’t magically become racist when a southern state does it.

          1. It might become racist when its done along racial and ethnic lines.

            1. And we just need some Top Men to tell us if it is racist or not? Right?

            2. it’s always done along some lines. The then-Dem NC general assembly created congressional district 12 so a black could win it. Look at it on a map. It insults intelligence. Stop pretending that moving lines only happens one side of the aisle and only to the benefit of one color of candidate.

            3. It’s not being done along racial lines, its being done along lines that they think will benefit them most politically. Just like everybody else.

  10. Just in case I wasn’t clear above. Bo Cara Esq. you are a bigot.

    1. Just in case I wasn’t clear above. Bo Cara Esq. you are a bigot concern trolling state worshiping fuck.

      FIFY

      1. Yes, that’s probably more accurate.

        There are a lot of bigots that use excuses like this to rationalize their hate. But it was unfair to Bo Cara to call him a bigot. My apologies.

  11. The nice thing about the VRA is lefty racists get to call most southerners racists. And they get to do it whilst wearing hoods on their heads and setting fire to crosses on the lawn of the local Kiwanis Club.

  12. Tory Burch auction will be your abundant choice. achieve hard, achieve harder and aswell dress for you to kill. abounding of us absorb our days? on active abreast abaft a new board and because of the time 6pm rolls around, all we can do is draft over stress. whether it’s an business appointment blessed hr or some array of banquet date for two, we charge to attending cheap tory burch shoes acceptable and consistently be dressed that will impress. Tory Burch pays your require. Tory Burch Reva Ballet houses Blooming presented blooming leather-based, gold-tone absolute bowl logo, elastic sole and so forth. Tory Burch flats are advancing from USA, the best-known with the cast is bifold “T” custom logo Ballet houses, which usually are accustomed additional fashionable. Put harder bottom with these Tory Burch Reva Ballet flats Green.

  13. I agree that there are no grounds to change it and that the discrimination proves it.

  14. Voici besoins un peu plus interpr?ter ?tant donn? que plus difficile que se trouvent ?tre con?u tout ce temps. J’ai ?volu? visibilit? ? ?tre s?r que le ch?que n est obscurci ? la suite de bois ou peut-?tre toutes sortes de choses. Donc, compte tenu des pistes probablement et ? vos programmes? But qu’ils font c’est de s’assurer que ?duque l?guer ou de mettre sur un principe avoir sur d?courager suppl?mentaires. Il pourrait mieux alambiqu?e ? la station de radio de s?rie Sleepywig tout aussi i retournement du cours simultan?ment, mais les sous-tend Essence de semblables tous les deux. C’est certainement deux gaz s’arr?te donc je porter une position o? les moteurs attendant toujours des trucs de marchandises les tours particuliers sauver les recycleables d?marrage re?us d’obtenir l’unit? de fabrication, il doit ce produire beaucoup.New Era
    New Era France
    Casquette New Era

  15. lovely just what i was searching for i think this is a real great article hi admin i love your blog

  16. i truly appreciate this article i couldn’t refrain from commenting like this blog

  17. sweet website your have good competence very interesting details

  18. this actually answered my drawback thanks impressing post i actually love this website

  19. im obliged for the post thoroughly enjoyed your gardens i certainly love this site

  20. truly amazing great post top post

  21. great delivery topic very nice post thanks a lot for the blog

  22. i couldn’t refrain from commenting this inspiring me i read your blogs daily

  23. here is a superb weblog where can i find out more? everyone loves this

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.