Anonymous ID: 710a75 Dec. 5, 2020, 7:13 a.m. No.11913175   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3523

Anons, in a "Think Mirror" sort of way, If saying "democrat" is ruled by Courts to be discriminatory because it was considered code for Latino in a Voting rights act case, wouldn't saying "republican" in this current environment be saying white men? Stretching that further… Trump voter. We have been 5 years hearing from dems and MSM that Trump voters are non educated white males.

Would we all agree that the voting demographic for dem strongholds are large inner cities where white is minority? White majority are suburbs and rural areas?

 

I am asking because I am studying cases associated with Voting Rights Act of 1965 and it's amendments.

I am doing so because I am trying to fin the "Old Law" POTUS dusted off and think this might be it. (section 3c) If I am correct, it means mail in voting, touted as favorable to dems by dems and MSM for months prior to election, was discriminatory in it's intent. Any State calling for it would have needed to seek preclearance by DOJ before passing laws. Added confusion is States didn't pass laws, Governors signed EO's.

Anonymous ID: 710a75 Dec. 5, 2020, 8:14 a.m. No.11913523   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>11913175 (me) Voting Rights Act of 1965 has had challenges to section 4 and 5 while section 3 has been used successfully.

 

In Shelby County V. Holder 2015 US SC struck down section 4(b) as unconstitutional as it was outdated formula to hold States to it. But they failed to strike down section 5. Section 5 .

Here are the States, Counties, and Townships covered by section 5 at the time of Shelby County V. Holder

https://www.justice.gov/crt/jurisdictions-previously-covered-section-5

These States needed to seek pre-clearance for voting law changes from DOJ due to a history of voting discrimination based on race or color. With 4(b) [the formula] being ruled unconstitutional due to outdated nature and changes in behavior, it left section 5 inoperable unless and until Congress provided a new formula.

Section 3 was meant to be more narrow and focus on voting mechanisms that were discriminatory regardless of past history of discrimination.

 

I believe this may apply to both Dominion Voting Machines and Mail in Voting