Dem: SCOTUS Part of Racist ‘Right-Wing Conspiracy’

Joel Gehrke, Washington Examiner, May 30, 2012

Rep. G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., suggested that the United States Supreme Court is participating in a racist “right-wing conspiracy” to restore Jim Crow-era laws to disenfranchise black Americans.

“There is a right-wing conspiracy that is alive and well in this country that is trying to take us back to 1900, and even before,”  Butterfield, second vice chair of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), told black pastors at a CBC event on voter ID laws today. Butterfield had just explained that 1900 was the year Southern states enacted poll taxes and literacy tests in order to disenfranchise black voters and thus defeat black elected officials. “They are coming in very discreet ways,” he warned.

Butterfield cited a 2010 Supreme Court decision lamented by Democrats as his first example of such a conspiracy.

“The Citizens United case, for example, that now allows corporations to give unlimited amounts of money — anonymous unlimited amounts of money — in support or opposition to political candidates,” Butterfield said. “And it’s working,” he said ominously.

“Trust us: when the Congressional Black Caucus tells you that a voter ID law will be detrimental to black empowerment — black political empowerment — we know what we are talking about and it is for real,” Butterfield continued, before contradicting himself (with respect to the alleged goals of the “right-wing conspiracy” trying to return to 1900. “What they want to do is not take away the right to vote, but if black voter participation can be diminished even by ten percent it will make that critical difference all across the country. President Obama won my state, in the last election, by 14,000 votes. Had we had a voter ID law in North Carolina he would not have won the state of NC and probably could not have won the presidency.”


Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Had we had a voter ID law in North Carolina he would not have won the
    state of NC and probably could not have won the presidency.

    He just admitted voter fraud helped Obama win NC.

    As for the subject matter at hand, the popular leftist meme about a half dozen years ago that to disagree with a judge was tantamount to wanting to assassinate a judge.

    • Critic_of_Leviathan

      That’s what I love about black liberals.  They’re so stupid that even their implicit admissions go right over their heads.  

      Mr.  Butterfield, all your accusations are false; we are not that lucky.

      Black liberals think that their right to vote means that a government official ought to pick them up in a limousine and drive them three-quarters of a block to the polling place.

    • Sheila Dinehart

      we have to have voter fraud in order to put obama back in office

    • I didn’t necessarily take it as an admission of fraud, but more of the typical liberal M.O. showing how little they really think of the people they are supposedly standing up for.  To me, he’s saying that people who would have been entitled to vote but did not have ID would have not been able to figure out how to acquire an ID, or been too lazy to go out and get one so they could cast a ballot.  Typical liberals, they don’t want certain “protected classes” to have to grow up and be adults like the rest of us.

      •  He might not have thought he was admitting to criminal voter fraud, but the differential between the votes actually cast in NC in 2008 and the presumably fewer votes that would have been cast there if photo ID was required and enforced, were mostly illegally cast votes.  Legal people can use a provisional ballot.

  • Ron

    Voter id, literacy tests, poll taxes, and a constitutional law class(es), should all be mandated to vote so as to increase the likelihood that the voters are somewhat more prone to actually upholding the constitution (their civic duty), as opposed to seeing the government as st nick on christmas.  This guy along with the rest of his colleagues rely on an uninformed, dumbed down animalistic population to keep him in power.

    • dukem1

      Agree..Wouldn’t to require property ownership either.

    • Constitutional law class(es) would be helpful so long as Professor Obama is not the one giving instruction, or for that matter Eric Holder.

  • Voter ID is perfectly normal in any civilized country. Voting without ID is nothing but a big possibility of an election fraud.

  • “Trust us: when the Congressional Black Caucus tells you that a voter ID law will be detrimental to black empowerment — black political empowerment — we know what we are talking about and it is for real,” 
    Yes, we all know exactly what you are talking about…. it is for real.Replace the word empowerment with entitlement and it is even more real. The issue of showing ID to vote is so obviously the correct thing to do that any objection to it lends doubt to any reasonably thinking person. Now they call the Supreme Court racist? We all know what that means also, that you have no logical argument….so start calling  rayyyyycist to deflect from the real conversation.

    •  When a politician says, “Trust us” — don’t.

    • THIS!  ^

      While I was reading the original article, in my mind I had a fitting image of Rep. Butterfield talking about the ‘right wing conspiracy’….

  • mikejones91

    This is bad news?

    • mikejones91


    • Critic_of_Leviathan

      This is the first time in my life that I hoped a liberal was correct.

  • mikejones91

    If you can’t save up money for an I.D, voting is most likely the LEAST of your concerns. 

    •  A Missouri photo ID costs $20 and is good for six years.  That prorates to less than a penny a day.  If you can’t cough up twenty clams every six years, then you’ve got issues.  Serious.  Issues.

      • Major

        Yea…but a good “40” costs a dime a day. Priorities ya know?

        And lets not talk about how much a Mac10 costs to rent for a holiday weekend in Chicago either.

    •  I’ve worked the polls in Indiana, where there has been a Voter Photo ID law — upheld by the Supreme Court — for years. If you live in Indiana, you don’t have a driver’s license or other state-issued photo ID, and you want to vote, all you have to do is go to your local license branch, tell them you want to get an Indiana non-driver’s photo ID card so you can vote — and they have to make one up for you, free of charge.

       Indiana has made it as easy to get a state-issued photo ID as rolling off a log — and STILL the blacks insist that it’s “voter suppression.” They’re not afraid of voter suppression — they’re afraid that voter fraud as practiced by blacks will become more and more difficult to commit.

      • dukem1

         Nothing will restore America more than a critical mass of ignorant and lazy people jamming the polls on election day.

      •  There is a certain black criminal element for whom legitimate true photo ID is kryptonite to Superman.  They can’t carry it around because their criminal activity would be “on the grid.”  That is, until they’re dumb enough to start bragging on FB and WSHH.

        •  Reminds me of one time many years ago when I was doing “Man on the Street” interviews on various subjects as a newspaper reporter. Once, on the Friday just before the Kentucky Derby, I was asking for opinions on who would win. A black guy I talked to appeared to be quite knowledgeable about horse racing and the horses to run the next day, and gave me some good comments.

           After we finished talking, I said, “OK, thanks for your comments, sir, and now I need to take your picture to go with the article.” His eyes got big, he drew back, said, “Oh, no, I don’t take no pictures!”, turned and headed right down the alley, away from me. Wonder why he was so leery of the camera? We can guess, can’t we?

  • The CBC and other advocacy groups had better wish the US never gets a President or Congress that actually hates black people.  They have it pretty good right now.

    • MrGJG

       That will never happen as it is illegal to dislike blacks. 

  • felon no vote laws are even more dangerous

    •  Actually, what is more “dangerous” and has an even greater “disparate impact” on blacks than a simple blanket ban on felon voting is the system that most states have, that convicted felons can vote once they are out of prison and complete with their probation.  Black ex-cons can rarely behave long enough to get off probation.  White ex-cons aren’t perfect, but they’re more likely to comply with and finish probation.

  • ncpride

    Weird. This is the lightest ‘Congressional black Caucus’ member I’ve ever seen. Google him and check it out. His bio says he grew up in an AA family and his parents had White ancestors.

  • Francis Galton

    Why is the franchise so sacred a concept?  Why does the idea of curtailing the franchise for ANY group of people have the same level of popularity as defending child rape?  Frankly, the Founders were beyond prescient when they warned of letting people vote themselves the treasury (to paraphrase). 

    Here are the sane qualifications I would insist upon for exercising the franchise:

    1) Must have paid at least $50,000 in NET federal taxes over a life-time (subtract federal grants, federal scholarships, all forms of federal welfare, excessive tax refunds due to the EITC, etc.)
    2) Must NOT have received food stamps, TANF, WIC, public housing, or any other form of welfare in the 365 days prior to the election in question
    3) Must have earned at least a high school diploma
    4) Must take and pass a basic multiple-choice economics test (perhaps 10 questions)
    5) Must take and pass a basic multiple-choice civics test (again, maybe 10 questions)

    These alone would virtually eliminate Gibs Me Dat (#1 and #2), dupes/ignorant people (#3, #4, and #5), the young/naive/wet behind the ears (#1 and #4), and felons (#1); of course, some undesirable people may be able to navigate these requirements (Kanye West, P Diddy), but they would be few and far between. 

    • I like the original concept for enfranchisement:

      1. White
      2. Male
      3. Majority age
      4. Landowner

      I am serious. When did America come to greatness? When the above qualifications were in place. It’s simple, we want prosperity, security and happiness again, we go back to the way things were. We want to continue the spiral down to the lower depths of hell, we know the way.

    • Villly

      There only needs to be one qualification: having an IQ of at least 120.
      We know how many blacks have that qualification, don´t we?

  • Sheila Dinehart

    Is this that event our US/Justice Department Holder is supposed to address regarding the  Christian preachers backing Obama group?  What chicanery! LOL

  • Sheila Dinehart

    ha ha ha…it would take reinstating JC just to get things back in order…clean up crime, remodel schools…the poor blacks have really screwed themselves over…and they meant to do it in the first place…talk about self annhilation…you would think some of the really smart black leaders in the past (Thurgood Marshall for instance) would have been able to keep things in line a bit more…well, thank god for blacks like him when the nation needed them then…we have them now it is just that they never make headlines…The Sharptonnites are such greedy old trouble makers using their own people to make profits and laughing all the way to the banks…nothing like having a right wing supreme court…just the thought is laughable.

  • JackKrak

    I don’t think I can take it anymore – is there anything black Democrats in Congress won’t believe? Is there anything too insane or too bizarre that would make Maxine Waters or any of her fellow, um, “distinguished gentleman” colleagues blush with embarassment? Is there any conspiracy theory too stupid to gain their instant support?

    I renew my call for a study to be done that publishes a complete profile of every congressional district with information like average education level, percent of residents with criminal records, percent on foodstamps & section 8, etc. I wonder if there will be a correlation between exceptionally high rates of these types of things and being represented in Congress by a black Democrat.

    Nah, just joking – I don’t have to wonder, I know it’s a hard fact.

  •  Well with the Federal Reserve system it pretty much is.

  •  The election.  They’re pre-creating “voter disenfranchisement” as the excuse to “explain” a relatively narrow Romney win, if it turns out that way.

    But I don’t think it will.

    John Prescott Ellis, a nephew of Bush 41 and a first cousin to Bush 43 and Jeb Bush (i.e. John Ellis Bush), sees Romney vs Obama as either a narrow Obama win or a clear Romney win.

    I think he’s right.

    There are four possible scenarios:  Clear Obama win, narrow Obama win, narrow Romney win, clear Romney win.  You can cross out “Clear Obama win” because there’s no way Obama can win with anything close to his margins (either popular vote or EC) over McCain in 2008.  I think a narrow Romney win is out of the question of reality, because if it’s clear that Romney is only narrowly ahead of Obama in reality, the voter fraud will be out in full force to push Obama over the finish line by a nose.  It hearkens back to Donna Braziele’s famous dictum of 2000, when she ran Al Gore’s campaign, that she could “get five points on the ground” if Gore was within the margin of error.  Obviously, she meant voter fraud, including the dimpled, hanging and pregnant chads that were a result of poll workers stacking multiple paper card ballots together in a vote-o-matic and punching them for Gore — The top cards’ chads perforated fully, the middle cards’ chads stayed attached on one side (hanging), and the bottom cards’ chads only punched through with the stylus (dimpled).

    Therefore, the only two possible scenarios are clear Romney win and narrow Obama win.  A clear Romney win will mean that Romney is far enough ahead of Obama in the polls in late October such that the voter fraud machine will know they can’t cheat that much without being so obvious as to be self-exposed, so they won’t even try cheating.  A narrow Obama win will mean that either Obama narrowly beat Romney straight up, or Romney narrowly beat Obama but voter fraud swung it.

    • dukem1

       Something that no one ever seems to mention re the election is…the Virginia and New Jersey govrenors , Scott Brown in Ma…mid term congressional elections…

      It does seem that since 2008, every chance voters have had the opportunity to express dissatifaction with the current regime, they have taken full advantage of that opportunity.

    • alastairabbacle

      Amazing story on the “chads”. Can you suggest where you found this story?

      It all makes sense now….

      •  No URL, it’s just the common sense observation of people I know that worked with and around the old punch-card voting machines.  It took very little strength to punch a chad all the way through with a stylus.  Therefore, vote-o-matic card stuffing is the only legitimate explanation for hanging and dimpled chads.

  • Black people are always making up conspiracy theories.

  • SarahConnor

    Don’t you have to have an ID to get food stamps–so whats the problem?

  • There are three possible explanations for such preposterous statements: Either, the Black Caucus members are cynically exploiting black paranoia about “White racism” to try to gin up anti-Voter ID opposition; or the Black Caucus members are paranoid about the issue themselves and actually believe their own claptrap; or the Black Caucus members are simply stupid.

    Or all three. OK, I’ll vote for “all three.”

  • Is he talking about the same Supreme Court with Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan sitting as Justices?

    • Major

      The three witches of Eastwick?

    • Three female liberals isn’t enough. There HAS to be a black jurist in there, hopefully two
      or three before blacks will even BEGIN to view the bench as, at least, “less racist.”

      • Meaning, of course, a liberal black jurist, maybe two or three

  • It is obvious the Founding Fathers never intended for the franchise to be expanded as much as it has been.  If they were here in today’s America, I think they would substitute “net taxpayer” as a proxy for property owner, because so many people don’t own real estate.

    And to those of you trolls who might think this is all a covert effort to help the Republican Party win all elections — Even if you severely restricted the franchise to whites who are net taxpayers and who are at least 21-year old civilians or military members of any age, all it would mean is that the political center would move hard right.  There would still be a left-right Democrat-Republican political continuum.  Except that Pat Buchanan would be a liberal, George Wallace would be a moderate and Theodore Bilbo would be a conservative.

    • This is the only way back, whether we get there by revolution or by some miracle, peaceful means.  The alternative is the death of America as we have known it.

  • MikeofAges

     Just remember. All welfare is corporate welfare. Once you understand that, you will feel better.

  • ACE2X

    Consider the source! These are low IQ primitives who demonstrate their ignorancc whenever there’s a test. Special credits are needed to make them competitive, You can’t fix stupid.

  • JohnEngelman

    An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy is a 1944 study of race relations authored by Swedisheconomist Gunnar Myrdal and funded by The Carnegie Foundation. The foundation chose Myrdal because it thought that as a non-American, he could offer a more unbiased opinion. Myrdal’s volume, at nearly 1,500 pages, painstakingly detailed what he saw as obstacles to full participation in American society that American negroes faced as of the 1940s. Ralph Bunche served as Gunnar Myrdal’s main researcher and writer at the start of the project in the Fall of 1938.[1]
    It sold over 100,000 copies and went through 25 printings before going into its second edition in 1965. It was enormously influential in how racial issues were viewed in the United States, and it was cited in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case “in general.” The book was generally positive in its outlook on the future of race relations in America, taking the view that democracy would triumph overracism. In many ways it laid the groundwork for future policies of racial integration and affirmative action.[1] 
    Myrdal believed he saw a vicious cycle in which whites oppressed negroes, and then pointed to negroes’ poor performance as reason for the oppression. The way out of this cycle, he argued, was to either cure whites of the prejudice he believed existed, or to improve the circumstances of negroes, which would then disprove whites’ preconceived notions. Myrdal called this process the “principle of cumulation.” 
    The hopes raised by An American Dilemma have not been achieved. It is somewhat dangerous to point this out, however. 

    • MrGJG

       It sounds like Myrdal was a nurture guy. When it comes to blacks always bet nature.

  • Robert11110

    Any time I have ever voted in an election or even in a primary I’ve had to show my driver’s license.  After you show your ID you sign your signature next to your printed name in a register.  I thought this was standard procedure nationwide until I heard about these voter ID laws.  If someone is trying to perpetrate voter fraud they would have to be able to know what names are in the register and which people haven’t showed up to vote yet so they can vote in their place.  Your name won’t be in the register if you didn’t register to vote a few months earlier and you have to show ID to register.  I really don’t understand the issue here.

    •  First off, there is “soft” voter fraud, where legally unqualified people register to vote and do vote seemingly legitimately.

      Then there is “hard” voter fraud, the ballot box stuffing.  They are able to tell who hasn’t voted, because they have the big book of registered voters full of the signatures of those who voted, right in front of them.  When the polls close, they can “sign” for those who haven’t voted and cast a ballot in their name.  Obviously that ballot box will get to the central election headquarters way late.  But who’s checking?  It would be racist to question that sort of thing.

      This is why they want so many people registered to vote, even if they don’t actually vote.  The more felonious blacks and dead blacks you can get on the voter rolls and keep them there, the easier voter fraud becomes.

    • IstvanIN

      In NJ the current voter registration method is by mail-in application where you self attest that you are eligible to vote.  Wasn’t that way 32 years ago when I first registered but it is now.

      •  Eric Holder wants it easier than that:  He wants to mine various data troves to automatically register to vote anyone who is about to turn 18, and also those older who can vote but aren’t registered currently.  Voter fraud will thrive with that even more than a pig in slop.

        I think it should be just the opposite:  You should have to show your corporeal being in some building to some other person, and present legitimate documentation to that person.  IOW, there should be some time and effort required to register to vote, other than just filling out a card and mailing it in, or worse, just simply having a pulse on your eighteenth birthday.  After all, it’s only deciding the future of our republic we’re talking about.

    • haroldcrews

      Voter registration in many states if not all is public information and available online.  All you need to check are names.

  • “Racist” eh…from what I gather, anti-racist is just a codeword for anti-White these days.

  • joewest666

    And you wonder why more white people are becoming racialists.

    Having lived forty plus years under President Johnson’s dream I am ready to go back to 1900 personally.

  • Johnny Reb

    The “right wing conspiracy” doesn’t want to take you back to the 1900s, Huckleberry . . . we want to take all 40 million of you back to Africa.

  • Major

    “Had we had a voter ID law in North Carolina he would not have won the state of NC and probably could not have won the presidency.”

    Does this deranged, mentally challenged, low IQ, wack job even realize what he just admitted to?

    • It does not matter what he admitted to and he knows it! Nothing whatsoever will be done about it and the diversity mongers know it.

  • What would life be like if we were just half as evil as some blacks think we are?

  • IstvanIN

    He doesn’t count.

    • haroldcrews

      The CBC would consider Thomas a ‘Brown Mule’.  A chocolate shell on the outside but vanilla ice cream on the inside.

  •  A very high percentage of the differential between our standard of living today here in the early 21st Century and the way people lived from the times between the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution came from seminal inventions made between 1870-1910.  Almost everything else since then have merely been refinements.

  • ageofknowledge

    What the heck are they talking about. Why does everything have to be a “conspiracy” to black people. Citizens United hurts everyone and voter ID helps the black community by keeping the La Raza illegals (and their resulting citizen anchors they raise here as illegals because they aren’t deported) from diluting their vote.

    • Major

      Generally speaking and using this clod as an example….blacks just don’t realize their franchise is being hijacked by illegals. And of course they still remain….the minority of “minorities”. Their idiot leaders don’t think about the jobs that are robbed by illegals….they don’t know that most if not all “hispanics” detest them. And they can’t even fathom that they’ll still be on the lowest rung of society with illegal,  non white trespassers replacing them in every venue.

      • MissBonnie123

        If and when Latinos become a majority in America and they have the power to legislate on behalf of all or most states, Blacks will be third-class citizens. Latinos in no way will acquiesce to them. They will NOT be able to guilt trip the Latinos like they’ve unfairly guilt tripped us.

  • what put obama in were upper middle class whites who are unduly influenced by what they see on television and the movies.they want to imagine themselves as gallant,noble,intellectuals, but in reality are naive,weak, cowardly and stupid!!!!!!!!!

  • El_Magyar

    I see absolutely nothing wrong with having to produce photo ID to prove residence before being allowed to vote. Frankly, I would put much harsher restrictions on voting. Something akin to a civics test that required the prospective voter to demonstrate a modicum of knowledge regarding the imporatnt aspects of that particular election. Ignorance and emotion are not good tools in the voting booth.

  • Critic_of_Leviathan

    I had enough of Eric Cupholder for one lifetime.

    They might as well have Louis Farrakhan running the Justice Department.

    Among the legion of reasons to vote against Obama in November, I think that near the top is his scumbag DOJ.

  • bluffcreek1967

    Rep. G.K. Butterfield knows quite well that the Supreme Court does  not have a ‘racist right wing conspiracy’ to ‘restore Jim Crow laws’ or ‘disenfranchise Black Americans.’ He says this, however, because he knows that such outlandish claims will alarm and agitate foolish Blacks who believe anything they are told by their leaders.

    He also knows it will disarm many Whites (especially liberal Whites!) and cause them to cower or dare even to voice dissent lest they be labeled the dreaded “R” word. It’s really a form of intimidation and a way to keep Whites on their toes lest they start questioning the ‘diversity’ myth they’ve been told. Butterfield and his ilk know Whites will grovel to prove they’re not racist and pursue a witch-hunt even when there is no legitimate basis for doing so.

    But Blacks, by and large, do not truly care about the qualifications and abilities of the person in office, but whether that person is Black and whether they are willing to spread the governmental goodies to them. Keeping the current empty suit within the Oval Office is all that matters to them, and any lie – no matter how outlandish – is acceptable so long as it promotes their cause.  

  • ‘I hope she can hold on a little while longer until a Romney appointee can succeed her.’

    Romney is a Rockefeller Republican.

    I would rather be ruled over by an out-right enemy, then a traitor.

    Do we really need more Justice Souters on the court?

  • ‘Rep. G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., suggested that the United States Supreme Court is participating in a racist “right-wing conspiracy” to restore Jim Crow-era laws to disenfranchise black Americans.

    I actually hope this is True!

    Is there anyway I can help the ‘conspirators’?  

  • Church_of_Jed

    Racist unearned White privilege pays, but only if you’re a black:

    Cops: Black Man Disguised As Elderly White Man Robs 11 Banks!

    • Wouldn’t it be great if, after leaving the bank, a mob of “youths” jumped him and took his money? “That was for Trayvon!”

  • xxxtonygunsxxx

    15 blacks shot by blacks 2 blacks dead saturday chicago. a quiet night in chicago,0,5618234.story

  • The opposition to voter ID laws is driven by a desire to make sure that illegal voting can take place, as well as to suck up to certain “constituencies” who would otherwise be entitled to vote but can’t seem to get their act together enough to go out and obtain a valid ID.  If ID should not be required to vote and have a say in our country’s future, then it shouldn’t be required to buy beer or smokes.  I’m sorry, but having a valid ID is just something that responsible adults do.  I would ask those that oppose voter ID why they want to continue to coddle certain groups in this country and protect them from having to be responsible adults like the rest of us.  We all know the answer, but it would be funny to force one of them to try to explain it without telling the ugly truth.

  • Guess what you need in order to get into the Democrat state convention in Massachusetts to pick the party’s nominees for public offices:

    Not only a photo ID, but the entrance fee is $100, reduced to $75 for certain people.

    We can’t expect people to pay $20 that Missouri wants for six years worth of photo identification to vote.  Oh, no, that’s a poll tax.  But you need that and also 75 or 100 clams to help pick Massachusetts’s Democrat nominees during one day.

  • Southern__Hoosier

    “Some black Congressmen think Supreme Court wants to bring back Jim Crow.”

    Black Congressman think?? Give me a break!

  • Southern__Hoosier

     Not only is there not an 11th Commandment, the right to vote is not even in the Constitution.

    The Right To Vote

    The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing
    ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to
    vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also
    requires that anyone who can vote for the “most numerous branch” of their state
    legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

    Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures
    the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require
    that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by “the People,” and who
    comprises “the People” has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments
    several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for
    voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not
    conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For
    example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently
    in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to
    note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to
    vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.

    Thanks to Roy Neale for the idea and to Brian Shaprio for
    some clarifications.

  • proxicon

    If I was Satan, I would say “Okay, you want a voter ID law? So be it. The new ID’s are barcodes or chips on your right hand and forehead. No voting without it.”

    Than who will be disenfranchised? Food for thought….

  • MrGJG

     He’d have to face the same uncomfortable fact that most people here faced when we got tired of lying to ourselves.
    Once you know what you know, there’s no way to unknow it.

  • I want a congressional “white”  caucus.