Topic: Voting rights
You are viewing the most recent posts on this topic.
June 30, 2013 at 8:00 AM
Court’s decision was based in evidence
I suggest the liberal community stop hyperventilating and whining long enough to look at the facts. [“Future of voting-rights law in doubt,” page one, June 26.]
First, any discrimination in voting requirements is still just as illegal as it has been since 1964. That has not changed.
Second, if any jurisdiction were to make a discriminatory change to a voting procedure, I am sure that would be swiftly challenged in a court.
What has changed is that a few jurisdictions no longer are required to have federal bureaucrats approve proposed voting-procedure changes before implementation.
This draconian requirement was needed in those areas 50 years ago, based on hard evidence. There is just as much hard evidence that this pre-approval is no longer needed in those places.
Therefore, the Supreme Court only said that the requirement had to be based on current evidence. What could be more logical?
Larry Holdren, Bellevue
June 27, 2013 at 7:30 AM
Supreme Court is not working for the people
It is clear to me now that the conservative majority of the United States Supreme Court is viewing things through glasses provided by corporate America. [“Court sends back Texas affirmative-action plan,” news, June 25.]
The Supreme Court’s decisions of the last few days read like a page from the American Legislative Exchange Council’s playbook. Consumers’ rights to sue generic drug manufacturers for faulty products: gone. Minorities’ rights to vote: in jeopardy. Affirmative action takes a hit in Texas.
What will be next? It looks like the conservative faction of the Supreme Court is going to do as much damage as possible to civil, consumer, worker and minority rights as it can before one of the Justices has to retire, thus allowing President Obama to appoint a Justice who may tip the balance in a progressive way.
Oh, lest I forget, the Supreme Court is also looking at the president’s appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. The appointments are being contested by Republicans, who have shamelessly done everything they possibly can to undermine President Obama since he was first elected.
How can anyone, conservative, independent, moderate, or liberal put up with this garbage? Maybe it’s time to make our Supreme Court Justices stand for confirmation by the voters every other presidential election cycle. A lifetime appointment, based on good behavior, while ensuring judicial independence, can’t ensure against judicial malfeasance.
Dennis Bertaud, Sequim
Voting Rights Act is still needed
The United States Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 clearly shows that it will do anything to prevent equal voting rights in the U.S. [“Future of voting-rights law in doubt,” page one, June 26.]
Hopefully, there will be a backlash, and more Americans than ever will get out and vote in future elections and vote out the willfully obtuse and backward lawmakers whose primary objective is to prevent minorities from voting.
Mary Emmick, Issaquah
March 21, 2013 at 3:42 PM
Problem is significant
In theory. the Obama administration is supposed to look out for the welfare of United States citizens. The watchword here is “theory.” It seems the Obama administration is much more concerned with the “rights” of illegal immigrants to vote in U.S. elections than protecting the rights of U.S. citizens [“Arizona’s voter-registration hurdle to get high-court review this week,” page one, March 18].
Could it be that the Democrats assume a voter percentage of around 90 percent in the illegal voting blocks? Rather than fixing the situation, the Obama administration seems bent on promulgating it.
Statistics are quoted where the problem of illegal voting is minuscule. In Colorado, only 141 or Florida only 207 illegal immigrants were found voting. Does anyone remember Rossi vs. Gregoire in 2004? Gregoire “won” by 133 votes after two “recounts.” I wonder how many illegal immigrants voted in that election?
Don’t think this is a small problem and doesn’t matter, people. Because it does.
–Denny Andrews, Bellevue
March 1, 2013 at 4:00 PM
Bills provide for democracy
I applaud the views expressed in the editorial “Local voting rights,” [Opinion, Feb. 8]. This is our state’s chance to ensure all communities have fair representation in local elections.
Many East African immigrants come from countries where they are denied the opportunity of having their voices heard on political issues. When they move here, they are excited to take part in this country’s democracy. Unfortunately, I feel that despite the promise of American democracy, many communities still lack fair representation and have no input in important decisions that affect their communities’ well-being, their children’s education and public safety.
The communities’ lack of a say in government severely jeopardizes trust, and is harmful for democracy and society. Giving all communities a voice in elections is a crucial part of American politics. Democracy, more than the right to vote, involves the right to have that vote count, to know you have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of your choice and to influence local elections, regardless of the color of your skin or the neighborhood you live in.
I urge people to contact and ask their legislators to support HB 1413 and SB 5473.
–Yemane Gebremicael, president, African Diaspora of Washington, Seattle
Trending with readers