2016 Postmortem

aggiesal

(8,918 posts) Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:38 PM Mar 2016

Analysis: Polls located in wealthier, whiter zip codes

By Morgan Loew

PHOENIX (CBS5) -

A CBS 5 News analysis of U.S. Census data shows that polling places for last week's Presidential Preference Election tended to be located in wealthier, whiter zip codes, when compared to Maricopa County as a whole.

This, according to one attorney versed in election law, would likely have caught the eye of Justice Department officials, if the county was still required to get pre-approval before reducing the number of polling places.

"You would have to show that the change in the plan had a non-discriminatory purpose and effect," said Tom Ryan, a Chandler attorney who has represented candidates, as well as voters in election disputes.

In prior election years, local and state officials were required to seek pre-approval from the U.S. Department of Justice before making adjustments to the number of polling places, as a result of the Voting Rights Act. But in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the provision requiring pre-approval. This was the first statewide Arizona election to take place without it.

During last week's Presidential Preference Election, many Maricopa County voters waited in lines for hours, because county officials had reduced the number of polling places to 60, from 400 in 2008, which were available the last time both major parties held primaries for the office of the President.

The CBS 5 News analysis of census data for the zip codes in which the 60 polling places were located shows they were in more affluent and Anglo neighborhoods than the average for Maricopa County.

. . .

Read more: http://www.cbs5az.com/story/31595847/analysis-polls-located-in-wealthier-whiter-zip-codes#ixzz44Q8uYLPG

I would have put this on the latest breaking news, but it aired yesterday.

Still this was devious by nature.

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Analysis: Polls located in wealthier, whiter zip codes (Original Post) aggiesal Mar 2016 OP

of course MFM008 Mar 2016 #1

Color me (and probably everybody else) not shocked BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #2

You do realize that the SCOTUS struck down that part of the Voter Rights Act ... Right? 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #3

MFM008

(19,818 posts)

1. of course

Reply to aggiesal (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:49 PM

Mar 2016

always the case.

BernieforPres2016

(3,017 posts)

2. Color me (and probably everybody else) not shocked

Reply to aggiesal (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:55 PM

Mar 2016

Where is the Obama Justice Department? The Supreme Court said states don't have to get pre-approval. Does that mean the Justice Department can't file charges against the state for violating the Voting Rights Act after an election like the one we just saw in Arizona?

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)

3. You do realize that the SCOTUS struck down that part of the Voter Rights Act ... Right?

Reply to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 05:25 PM

Mar 2016

In prior election years, local and state officials were required to seek pre-approval from the U.S. Department of Justice before making adjustments to the number of polling places, as a result of the Voting Rights Act. But in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the provision requiring pre-approval. This was the first statewide Arizona election to take place without it.

Oh ... It was right there in the excerpt you posted. Surely, you read what you posted.

Reply to this discussion