- Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:27 am
#19814
Now here is the argument:
A county i9n Alabama is suing to be freed from federal oversight. Why, because they have continued to try to impose voting laws that discriminate and limit minority voting rights. How do we know that? Well, because they are suing to be freed from oversight. You see, if they6 had been compliant with the law they would already be free from oversight. That is how the law was written and many p0laces have already been freed from oversight.
Now it gets real good. They say that the law is unnecessary because it has worked (well, in most other places then whee they come from). But again, if the law had worked then they would have no reason to due to have the law removed.
Which brings the complete story. If the law had worked then their would be no jurisdictions under federal oversight and there would be no reason or standing in bringing a suit and the SCOTUS would not be reviewing the case.
The second argument is that the law is discriminatory by selecting only a few select places to have oversight. Still not true. Yes, their was an original list. But no, anyone on the list could have gotten off the list by simply not trying to violate voters rights, and many have gotten off the list. No, anyone not on the list can be added to the list for trying to violate voting rights, and many have been added. It is an effective and fair law to defend an individuals right to vote. Thus the suit brought by those who want to violate individuals right to vote.
- By brandon
- By sillydaddy
- By uvgotmale970