Sponsored by

Comments on

The other crucial civil rights case the Supreme Court will rule on

Last month, the Supreme Court said it will consider the constitutionality of a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the hallmark legislation from the Civil Rights era that has come under increased challenge. ... Read more»

have your say   

2 comments on this story

1
4 comments
Dec 11, 2012, 6:11 am
-0 +0

Here’s why Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in bad policy, outdated, unconstitutional, and ought to be struck down by the Supreme Court: http://www.pacificlegal.org/opeds/Overturn-unconstitutional-Voting-Rights-Act

2
1770 comments
Dec 11, 2012, 3:49 pm
-0 +0

The voting rights act has cause quite a mess, and it has allowed…no, required, the very actions that those who drafted it claimed it would prevent.

Gerrymandering is Gerrymandering is Gerrymandering. Two wrongs don’t make a right, they never did in this case.

I’ve said this before, but I’ll repeat it because I’m so passionate about it and it’s relevant to this piece. Districts should be equal in population, should be contiguous, and should be as close to geographically rectangular as possible. That should be it…THAT SHOULD BE IT!!! Things like skin color, party registration or any other bullshit should not matter. Any law that conflicts with this is unethical, and violates the spirit of democracy at its core. The “voting rights” act is a bad law and needs to be either changed or thrown out.

Think about the benefits…fewer (read that Dylan? I didn’t say “less”) extremists would be elected, and we wouldn’t have to put up with months of drama from a so-called “independent” redistricting commission every 10 years. One guy with a computer and some software could have the maps drawn in a day if what I propose is adopted.

Sorry, we missed your input...

You must be logged in or register to comment

Click to enlarge

afagen/Flickr

For the second time in four years, the Supreme Court will consider a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Categories

news, politics & government, local, arizona, nation/world, breaking, ProPublica
Sponsored by

Top Commenters

  • Bret Linden: 1767
  • Dylan Smith: 553
  • Cactus Dave: 339
  • buddhaboy: 316
  • Roberto De Vido: 270
  • EllieMae: 197
  • Brittanicus: 176
  • Quietwoman2: 172
  • TucsonGirl: 116
  • janamg: 88
Sponsored by

Yes!

I want to help TucsonSentinel.com offer a real news alternative!

We're committed to making quality news accessible; we'll never set up a paywall or charge for our site. But we rely on your support to bring you independent news without the spin. Use our convenient PayPal/credit card donation form below or contact us at donate@tucsonsentinel.com today.

Subscribe and stretch your donation over time:

$10/mo. Cub Reporter
$15/mo. Printer's Devil
$20/mo. Stringer
$40/mo. Correspondent
$50/mo. Senior Correspondent
Enter your own monthly amount (number only)

Or give a secure one-time gift with PayPal or your credit card:

$5,000 Newshound
$2,500 Trusted Source
$1,000 Copy Desk Chief
$500 Correspondent
$250 Stringer
$100 Printer's Devil
$50 Cub reporter
$25 Informed Source
$10 Dear Reader
Enter your own amount (below)

TucsonSentinel.com is an Arizona nonprofit organization. Your contribution is tax-deductible.

User Guidelines

Please be respectful and relevant. Thought-provoking. Or at least funny.

We want comments to advance the discussion and we need your help. Debate, disagree, yell (digitally) or laugh, but do it with respect.

We won't censor your comments if we don't agree with you; we want viewpoints from across the political spectrum. We're dedicated to sparking an open, active discussion. We believe people with differing opinions can spark debate and effect change.

Comments are open to registered users of TucsonSentinel.com.

Keep in mind:

  • A conversation involves sharing and respect. Support your viewpoint with facts, not attacks.
  • Ask questions. Search out answers.
  • Remember that being part of a community requires tolerance for differing views.
  • We can't ensure that all comments are based in truth. The only comments we endorse are those we write ourselves.

TucsonSentinel.com does not allow:

  • Hate speech. Blatantly racist, sexist or homophobic slurs or calls for violence against a particular type of person, etc. will be removed.
  • Obscenity & excessive cursing. Sometimes a well-placed curse word - if you're creative enough to get it past our auto-censor - can express your point in just the right way. But we say '%*$& no' to cursing for cursing's sake. And lose the explicit sexually-descriptive language. It doesn't contribute to the debate and there are plenty of other places on the Internet to find it.
  • Flaming. During a heated discussion, unkind words may be spoken. We can live with a certain amount of rudeness in the name of provocative conversation, but a pattern of personal attacks (name-calling, mocking, or baiting) is not acceptable nor are threatening or harassing comments. Show some respect, please.
  • Explicit political endorsements. As a nonprofit we can't allow electioneering. Analysis and explanation of political issues and candidates are encouraged, but specific calls to vote for or against a measure or politician should be done elsewhere.
  • Spam. Solicitation of products or services isn't allowed; contact us about advertising, we'd love to talk to you. Links to off-topic sites may be deleted.
  • Copyright or IP infringement. Lengthy quotes and violations of 'Fair Use' aren't allowed. Anything you post should be your own work.
  • Overposting. Don't bore people and waste electrons with identical comments on multiple stories or repetitive comments that don't advance a conversation.
  • Trolling, sockpuppetry, and other abusive behavior. Please don't feed the trolls and don't pretend to be someone you're not.
  • Gossip. Don't bring up others who can't defend themselves. We don't give out personal information; you shouldn't either.

Comments that violate these guidelines may be removed. We reserve the right to make up the rules as we go along.

Flagging

Commentors are solely responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. Users who violate these standards may lose their privileges on TucsonSentinel.com.

Sentinel editors can't read every comment. Trolls, spammers and other troublemakers can slide under the bridge. We rely on you to help maintain a healthy conversation - more than likely, you're reading these comments before the editors.

What if you see something inappropriate? Use the 'Flag' button to send it to a moderation queue. Help us out and tell us why you're reporting it; please don't report someone just because you disagree with them. Boy who cried wolf and all that. We'll take appropriate action on violations.

We will not edit comments to alter their meaning or censor comments because of political content.

We will not remove comments solely because they are heartless, cruel, coarse, foolish or just plain wrong. Your disapproval can maintain a decent signal to noise ratio. Ultimately, however, self-policing is the best method.

Bottom line, don't be a jerk.

Sponsored by

Sign up for TucsonSentinel.com email newsletters!

Sponsored by
find us on facebook
Sponsored by
Sponsored by
Sponsored by