Replies

(excerpt)

UPDATE: J. Christian Adams just explained his objection:

This is precisely what the racial-interest groups and the Democrats want — giving an attorney general like Eric Holder revived power to block state election laws by edict, as they did to Texas and South Carolina voter ID and citizenship verification in Florida and Georgia.

To recap, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 forced 16 states to obtain federal approval for every election law change no matter how big or how small. When a polling placed moved from a school library to a school gym, Washington, D.C., had to approve. The Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 ruled that such federal oversight upset the constitutional balance by using circumstances from 50 years ago to justify federal intrusion into state power, and the Court extinguished the oversight.

Since then, the institutional left has sought to reassert federal power because it helps Democrats win elections. For example, prior to the 2012 Presidential race, the Justice Department stopped Florida from checking for noncitizens on the rolls. In 2009, the DOJ blocked Kinston, North Carolina, from having non partisan elections because, as the DOJ said, if the word “Democrat” is not next to the name of the candidate, black voters won’t know for whom to vote.

This is the madness that Carson is open to resurrecting.

Given the deliberately manufactured and general ignorance of voters, there may be but one sound way of correcting the true egregiousness of the federal Voting Rights Act. Jurisdictions of Section Two and (perhaps only) Five should be expanded to included all the United States.

If that had been accomplished earlier, such as at any of the opportunities that arose when the Act was renewed, at minimum the most discriminatory and unconstitutional requirements of that law would have, long ago, been tossed out.

Without an understanding of the Voting Rights Act that most Americans, quite frankly, do not possess it's difficult to fault Americans for failing to understand how it could be wrong. Discussing the liabilities, most of it court-ordered, for staying within the requirements of Section Two or Section Five (in places where Barry Goldwater did well in 1964) presents a high "glaze factor."

I'll wager neither Dr. Carson not, perhaps worse, have any of his advisors ever been on the liability end of a redistricting lawsuit. I've yet to read a single newspaper account of on-going VRA lawsuits written by someone who understood what they were writing about.

Give me five minutes with Dr. Carson and I'll bet you just about anything that he could easily be made to understand the dark history and downside of the federal Voting Rights Act. -- The same could not be said of any Republican consultant or reporter.