Rithrandil
SasqWatch
How do we know this, though? Of course racism still exists, but those states do have a good deal of black representation and participation. Do you think they would just sit idly by if their rights were being threatened? And what type of ways do you think they would suppress these votes?They may not revert back to Jim Crow, but they will DEFINITELY try to suppress the black vote in subtle and creative ways. Don't ever think these attitudes are just going to go away. Racism runs deeps and is passed on generation to generation.
Taking the law off the books gives them license to run wild.
Its funny to me how some people just want us to forget that slavery and Jim Crow ever existed.
Let's look at the 2008 election results for the states we're discussing: Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia.
Arizona: McCain wins by 3.5%
Texas: McCain wins by 13.0%
Louisiana: McCain by 19%
Alabama: McCain by 23.3%
Missouri: McCain by 0.7%
Georgia: McCain by 4.0%
South Carolina: McCain by 10%
Virginia:Obama by 4.4%
So we can cross out Virginia from being run by evil racists, I guess.
Missouri, Georgia, and Arizona are basically toss ups for the next race.
Alabama, South Carolina, Texas, and Lousiana all went solidly McCain - I think, however, that it would be profoundly unfair to dump that on racism (especially since those areas are very strongly conservative politically). That'd be like when crazy right-wingers try to claim New York and California are pro-drug pro-terrorist America haters.
I'm not forgetting slavery, and I'm not forgetting Jim Crow, but at some point those cease to be valid excuses for pieces of legislation or social policy that people want to enact, and I think it's patently unfair to assume that if these restrictions were repealed you'd end up with the Klan putting polling places in their territory and lynching people who try to vote.
"I think the point is this: sure things have improved since the last 40 years or so, but is it enough? Racism still seems to occur on a smaller scale -- correct me if I am wrong, please -- and it happens in other states for other minorities. Maybe it is better to err on the side of caution, then, to relax the rules gradually, instead of abandoning them altogether.
Considering that similar circumstances often cause similar issues regardless of location, it could also be a good idea to check voting parity in other states on a federal level -- it is one of the most important aspects of democracy, after all.
On the other hand, I agree that it looks like the Department of Justice and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia have taken things too far.
Well, I have two concerns here:
1) Is it Constitutional? I would argue "no" or "ehhh...maybe...." at best.
2) Is it right? I am more mixed on this one.
But why should african americans get special protection? They've already achieved voter parity! Like I said earlier, are Hispanics and other ethnic groups third class citizens? I think things have changed, and continuing to have these laws may actually do more harm than good to race relations at this point - even Obama has made similar statements on other divisive issues, such as Affirmative Action.
Look at my generation. Issues of race, gender, and sexual preference don't really matter to us. We typically don't even understand the questions or the issues involved. People talk to me about the civil rights movement and I just stare blankly at them - "Why *wouldn't* you have the right to vote?" is my first question, typically.