Bias in The Hill story about Supreme Court decision on Voting Rights Act?

Did the voting rights Act really require a "higher criteria"?  Or was it a political standard?  My guess is that the Obama administration decides to accept decisions for states such as Texas based upon whether it benefits the Democratic Party, not whether it meets some higher moral standard.  The very concern that former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Martin Frost (D-Texas) raises is what motivated Democrat decisions on what redistricting to allow.  From The Hill newspaper:

. . . Barring congressional action, that means a number of states — most of them southern and GOP-controlled — no longer have to meet higher criteria to pass voting laws.  
The ruling holds big implications for congressional redistricting and voter identification laws that Democrats claim are aimed suppressing minority turnout. 
"This makes it much easier for Republicans to draw districts in away that minimizes the opportunities for Democrats in the south, minimizes opportunities for minorities in the South," said former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Martin Frost (D-Texas). . . .

Labels: , ,


Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

History shows us that the Democrats were the ones whom suppressed minority votes after Reconstruction and up until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Seeing as how the Dems lost Jim Crow, and were unable to stop the Civil Rights juggernaut, they simply resorted to 'hand outs' to minorities in an successful bid to gain a sizable voting block that before Reconstruction, belonged to the Republican Party.

I do give the Dems credit for turning what could have been a great setback for their party, into a means by which to stay in power. Then again, isn't what this current mess is all about?

Semper in angaria.

6/26/2013 11:27 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home