Often using the false crisis of ‘voter fraud’ to make such changes.
Well, the entire Mueller investigation exists because of the possibility of voter fraud. So I find that allegation a bit hypocritical, as well as ironic.
In 2012, international observers to the US election described our voting system as an “honor system” by international standards. Since neither party believes the other is honorable, it bewilders me as to why the US left insists that a system which could be gamed relatively easily should be defended.
But, they do.
Here’s the GOP perspective: The Dems have shown themselves to be dishonorable vis a vis voting since the 1960 election. Concerns about this amongst the right have risen proportionally with the increase of illegal immigration, together with the fact that in most states, illegals are authorized to carry state-issued photo ID driver’s licenses, which is a key document which enables a person to obtain all other documents which allow them to register to vote, if they are so inclined to do so.
Simply put, the Dems, at every juncture, defend giving illegal immigrants all the tools they would need to vote fraudulently, whilst at the same time claiming that they would never do so. :-) And, even after various scandals (ACORN, Battleground Texas) where you actually have people on video admitting to either signing people up to vote fraudulently or encouraging others to do so, the Dems continue to say “Trust Me”.
Sorry, I don’t. I want an ironclad system which can’t be gamed, either by illegals or Russians. And you’re never going to have one if you can show up at the voting booth and vote with your electric bill in hand, and you’re putting yourself at risk if you don’t clean your voting rolls on a regular basis, which Democrats also, inexplicably (well, the only explanation is that they want bad records out there so they can game the system) oppose.
Now, let’s move on to your allegations:
- The SCOTUS has ruled that a properly written Voter ID law does not disenfranchise anyone. So, let’s start there. Obviously, “properly written” requires freely accessible access to the credential. Enough said on that one.
- Any measure that adds a “hoop to jump through” vis a vis voting (be it Voter ID, curtailment of early voting, etc.) broadly speaking, will discourage more white voters than black. Why? Because such policies make it more difficult not for African Americans to vote, but for the POOR to vote; and most poor people are white. So, a complaint about Voter ID and curtailing early voting is essentially accusing the GOP of disenfranchising its own voters. :-) (Now, yes, it’s possible that in given smaller jurisdictions, such as counties and precincts, that more blacks than whites might be affected, but taken broadly across states and the nation, these sorts of measures affect (if they affect them at all) the lowest socioeconomic group as a whole, most of whom are white. )
- BTW, the VRA requires states to parse out by race district makeup, so your allegation regarding North Carolina doing what the law told them to do is rather disingenuous. You cannot draw a district which insures minority representation unless you know the voting practices of the individuals in the proposed district. Obviously.
I know a bit about the North Carolina matter, but to understand it also requires one to know a bit about history. HISTORICALLY, the party in power uses gerrymandering to maximize its own political advantage whilst providing reasonable representation to the minority party. And because politicians are, even today and across party lines, a collegial enterprise, the party in power would use gerrymandering to protect members of the opposite party that they liked, and get rid of the members of the opposite party they didn’t like. Very simple. Politics is a full contact sport, after all.
The VRA complicated matters by requiring a special gerrymander that insures minority representation. This created a particular problem in states with large minority populations (North Carolina might come to mind) because the party in power, while drawing districts, had to add the VRA to its consideration.
The NC gerrymander was judged to have violated the law because they tried to protect the seat of a WHITE democrat that has been in Congress for multiple terms (I forget his name). So, they created a district for him, and in doing so used a not-unreasonable interpretation of the VRA which the courts ultimately disagreed with. (The math said that NC needed to have X.5 minority reps; NC decided to have X; the courts ultimately demanded that they have X+1). So, the NC matter was simply about drawing a district for a white Democrat, where the courts ultimately demanded it be redrawn to elect a black Democrat.
So, a careful look at NC, and I suspect all your “examples” (I am familiar with the Texas example as well, and its “conclusion” is not nearly as obvious as you make it, considering that the state wanted to draw geometrically sound districts and the court pretty much ordered them to draw weird ones to provide the minority representation; AND the person who was the odd-person-out was not a Republican, but a Democrat woman, if memory serves) draws one to the same set of conclusions:
The party in power wants to draw districts that advantage themselves; that’s nothing new. When the party in power is the GOP, the VRA works against that tradition, not because it requires minority representation per se, but because 95% of African Americans vote for the same party.
And, the examples also tell you another thing: White Democrats in Congress are an endangered species. As the size of the minority groups in the US grows as a % of the population, and IF they continue to bloc-vote for Democrats, then GOP legislatures will be court-forced to give virtually ALL the opposition seats to minority members, crowding out white Democrats in red states, who are now becoming victims of the VRA.
Hope that helps.