“you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows” Updated . . .

To answer the question of why Dylan’s comment now? I was a child of that era, (I can quote this). For all of you out there who prescribe to your military service as a necessity to be citizen and complying to the draft or enlisting? I really do not believe you have to do so. You have to decide such though and there can be consequences.

For the record, I am a Vietnam era XMarine Sergeant. A lot of us went and a lot of us did what we thought was right to do. I do not begrudge you for your decisions. We were young then. None of us had much of a choice.

What is happening today in states? We are going backwards in the nations direction and beliefs which sprouted during that era. States with the help of a tilted Supreme Court are reversing what was necessary and needed during that time when states determined who could vote by making it difficult to qualify. And when they could vote the states drew voting district borders to limit the representation of people of color in state government. What could be two districts was made into one district by packing citizens of color into one majority district

“In April of this year, the Supreme Court gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in their Louisiana v. Callais decision, which protected voters of color from racial discrimination in congressional apportionment, or legislative mapmaking.

But the Callais decision was not made in a vacuum. It came after years of Supreme Court case law that gutted key protections. In June of 2013, the Supreme Court decided the landmark Shelby v. Holder, which dismantled a provision that prevented states and municipalities from implementing harmful electoral policies. Since Holder, 29 states have passed restrictive voting laws like strict photo ID policies and restrictions on mail-in voting. Holder and Callais administered a “death by 1,000 cuts” to the VRA, Cusick said.” The Frontline for Voting Rights Is the Rural South | The Daily Yonder

The effort by this court is to allow states to determine who can vote and who can not vote in a pattern of discrimination. The crowding of black citizens into one district is another measure of discrimination. And a supposed unbiased SCOTUS is supporting such efforts.

Voting rights historian Alexander Keyssar, Ph.D., of Harvard University, said that, although most voting legislation has historically been at the state level, the VRA was one of the first significant pieces of voting legislation at the federal level. 

“If you left the South on its own, it was not going to eliminate racial discrimination in voting,” Keyssar told the Daily Yonder in a phone interview. “You couldn’t assume that over time things would get better.”

In the Past?

With pressures both from home and abroad, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law five months after Bloody Sunday. The law has been reauthorized since its passage because certain provisions were time-limited. This occurred most recently in 2006 under President George W. Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress. But in recent years, in the landmark cases of Shelby v. Holder and Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court has taken a sharp diversion from protecting voting rights for all Americans. Leaping ahead in this article . . .

Shelby v. Holder

Over the last 13 years, the gap between Black and white turnout has grown the most in states previously beholden to the VRA’s preclearance clause, which prohibited states and local governments with histories of voting discrimination from making voting policy changes without federal approval. That’s because the Supreme Court gutted the preclearance clause in their 2013 decision, Shelby v. Holder.

“Section five, which was the preclearance provision, was designed to prevent states from circumventing the intent of the Voting Rights Act by changing some aspects of the electoral system in a way that would harm the interests of minorities,” Keyssar said.

But this clause became unenforceable when the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, determined that the formula used to determine which places were beholden to the clause was unconstitutional. 

“That flies in the face of a very powerful pattern – very visible in the South – of basically racially segmented voting patterns,” Keyssar said.

AB: The court decision does not bode well for all Americans as too few of us have the power and funds to make decisions affecting the nation as a whole. The consequences of the Roberts court were felt in the states . . .

A data analysis from the Brennan Center for Justice (a nonpartisan law institute) found that the turnout gap between Black and white voters in places previously beholden to the preclearance cause was about five percentage points greater than it would have been if the clause was still in effect. “The turnout gap grew almost twice as quickly in formerly covered jurisdictions as in other parts of the county with similar demographics and socioeconomic profiles,” the Brennan Center reported. 

A new wave of restrictions on voting by mail, one of the many state-level policy changes enabled by the Holder decision, also disproportionately hurts rural voters, according to previous reporting by the Daily Yonder. That is because there are fewer poll sites in rural areas than there are in urban areas, making travel distances more arduous for rural voters. Limited access to reliable public transportation can exacerbate these challenges.

“Some people have only a small window that they can really be gone for health challenges, or the amount of time they can actually stand,” said Sutton. Long lines at the polls might make it impossible for older populations – particularly those in rural areas – to vote. “People don’t really necessarily have quick access to medicines, hospitals, without having to travel. All of the elements that require somebody to move –  it creates a barrier and a challenge for people,” Sutton said.

Demanding Lists of Voters from States

AB: In case, you have not been keeping track of recent voting issues. Trump has now demanded states to provide lists of voters to the federal government.

U.S. District Court Judge Stephanie Gallagher last week dismissed a Justice Department lawsuit against Maryland that sought access to the state’s voter records. Gallagher, appointed by Republican President Donald Trump during his first term, wrote that she “joins every court to have addressed this issue” in concluding that the unredacted voter registration file “is not a record or paper that a state must produce to the United States.” Federal judge dismisses Justice Department lawsuit seeking detailed Maryland voter data, PBS News

On the other side of the spectrum of voting . . .”The head of the U.S. Postal Service on Wednesday defended a plan demanded by President Donald Trump to ​require states to provide lists of voters who received mailed ballots.

U.S. Postmaster ‌General David Steiner said at a U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing that, under the proposal, USPS would not deliver ballots in states where officials refuse to comply.

AB: Can the Postmaster General refuse to deliver a state’s mail? State Authority Over Elections: Under the U.S. Constitution, the power to set rules and administer federal elections belongs strictly to state legislatures and Congress. This does not include the President or the Postal Service. This is BS spewed forth by the Postmaster General. He has no authority to block federal elections.

That concludes my rambling on the topic of mid term elections and the political BS surrounding it. Large portions of this AB post was gleaned from “The Frontline for Voting Rights Is the Rural South, ‘The Daily Yonder‘.”