Only three days after the contentious 2012 election, the Supreme Court announced today that it would take up a major voting rights case; it will be heard in the next few months and decided by June.
At issue is Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which was passed in 1965. It's a central provision of the law that requires states with a history of voter discrimination, mostly in the South, to clear any changes to their election laws with federal officials in Washington.
The Supreme Court's decision today comes just after a long and bitter election during which Democrats accused Republicans of voter supression tactics and Republicans feared voter fraud. "After the biggest push to restrict voting in decades, the battle over voting rights is now moving to the Supreme Court with a major case, which could determine the future of a critical provision of the federal voting law that guarantees equal voting rights," said Wendy Weiser, director of the democracy program at the Brennan Center for Justice. a liberal-leaning think tank/advocacy group at New York University.
Several covered states argue that while Section 5 "served a noble purpose," Congress was wrong in 2006 to extend it for 25 more years. They argue that things have changed in the South and the coverage formula of Section 5 is based on data that is more than 35 years old.
The case the Court agreed to hear is called Shelby County v. Holder. Shelby County is in Alabama.
Attorney General Eric Holder has defended Section 5 and called it a "key stone" of the historic law. Chief Justice John Roberts, in a 2009 opinion in a related case, wrote that some of the justices had "serious misgivings" about its constitutionality.
Section 5 affects Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and portions of seven other states.
The iPad mini is here and we've got your perfunctory unboxing and hardware hands-on. It's everything you know and love about the iPad only concentrated into a smaller, 7.9-inch shell... and without a Retina display. How does that look in the real-world? Watch!
It?s one thing to get a call about my daughter being injured at daycare. But it?s a whole other story when she?s the one doing the hurting.
The first time I was told that Princess scratched another child I figured it was just a one-time thing. I chalked it up to the terrible twos. But, I was completely shocked upon hearing that she had to be picked up.
?What do you mean pick her up?? I asked. ?If a child breaks the skin of another friend that child has to be picked up. I?m sorry,? the administrator said. ?So you mean she?s suspended for the day?? I asked. ?Yeah, I?m really sorry.? She replied.
What I thought would be an isolated incident almost turned into a routine. Princess has been sent home a total of three times for ?breaking skin.? We?d arrive to find our child in small room that we?ve now dubbed the ?holding cell.? When I told boss lady I couldn?t make it in to work one day, she laughed at the news. I guess it?s little funny when you think about it.
But, this situation shouldn?t be taken lightly.
I refuse to be the kind of mom who sweeps her child?s misconduct under the rug and forgets about it. For the record, my hubby and I explain to her that it?s not okay to scratch.
We encourage her to use her words, not her hands. ?We give hugs,? I?d say when dropping her off. We even read children?s books about bullying. With all that said, I do have mixed emotions about the whole suspension thing.
On one hand sending her home teaches her the lesson that if you do something bad, you?ll suffer the consequences. But, I also feel that sending a two-year-old home for a scratch is little too extreme. Okay, there was blood involved. I get it. But there were no hospital visits.
Besides, I wouldn?t want Princess trying to weasel her way out of going to school by digging her claws into another friend. My hubby and I can?t afford to keep taking days off.
Has your toddler ever been suspended?
Photo: Stacy-Ann Gooden
Stacy-Ann Gooden (aka Weather Anchor Mama) can be seen delivering the weather on the news week nights in New York City. But her most important role is being a wife and mom. She writes about balancing career and motherhood in her blog, Weather Anchor Mama
Abstract thinking can make you more politically moderate Public release date: 2-Nov-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Diana Yates diya@illinois.edu 217-333-5802 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
CHAMPAIGN, lll. Partisans beware! Some of your most cherished political attitudes may be malleable! Researchers report that simply answering three "why" questions on an innocuous topic leads people to be more moderate in their views on an otherwise polarizing political issue.
The research, described in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, explored attitudes toward what some people refer to as the ground zero mosque, an Islamic community center and mosque built two blocks from the site of the former World Trade Center in New York City. When the Islamic center first was proposed it sparked a heated debate pitting proponents of religious freedom against those who felt the center should be moved away from the site of the 9/11 attacks out of reverence for those killed by Muslim extremists.
"We used the ground zero mosque as a particularly polarizing issue," said University of Illinois psychology professor Jesse Preston, who supervised the research with graduate students Daniel Yang and Ivan Hernandez. "People feel strongly about it generally one way or the other." Yang, now a postdoctoral researcher at Yale, designed the study with Preston and led the experiments.
The researchers used techniques known to induce an abstract mindset in people, Preston said.
Previous studies had shown that asking people to think broadly about a subject (with "why" rather than "how" questions, for example) makes it easier for them to look at an issue from different perspectives.
" 'Why' questions make people think more in terms of the big picture, more in terms of intentions and goals, whereas more concrete 'how' questions are focused on something very specific, something right in front of you, basically," Preston said.
Previous research showed that abstract thinking enhances creativity and open-mindedness, but this is the first study to test its power to moderate political beliefs, Preston said.
The interventions were simple. In the first experiment the researchers established that, after viewing an image of an airplane flying into one of the World Trade Center towers, liberals and conservatives held opposing attitudes toward the ground zero mosque and community center.
A second study repeated the first with new participants and included one minor but significant change. Before they gave their views on the mosque and community center, participants answered either three consecutive "why" questions or three consecutive "how" questions on an unrelated topic in this case, about maintaining their health.
The "why" questions, but not the "how" questions, moved liberals and conservatives closer together on the issue of the Islamic center, Preston said.
"We observed that liberals and conservatives became more moderate in their attitudes," she said. "After this very brief task that just put them in this abstract mindset, they were more willing to consider the point of view of the opposition."
The researchers conducted a third experiment online to test the effects in a more diverse population. In this round, they asked participants to read an ambiguous "faux Yahoo! News" article that included multiple arguments for and against the Islamic center.
Those who viewed the article in an easy-to-read format remained polarized in their views, the researchers found. But those who read the same article after it had been photocopied and made harder to read were more moderate in their responses.
Making the information harder to read induced abstract thinking, Preston said.
"It's a surprisingly powerful manipulation because people are thinking in a different way and putting in more mental effort while reading," she said.
"We tend to think that liberals and conservatives are on opposite sides of the spectrum from each other and there's no way we can get them to compromise, but this suggests that we can find ways of compromising," Preston said. "It doesn't mean people are going to completely change their attitudes, because these are based on pervasive beliefs and world views. But it does mean that you can get people to come together on issues where it's really important or perhaps where compromise is necessary."
###
This is one of two new studies from Preston's lab to explore interventions that moderate political bias. The other study, reported in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, tackles attitudes toward capital punishment and verdicts in a mock criminal trial.
Editor's note: To contact Jesse Preston, email jlp@uillinois.edu.
The paper, "Polarized Attitudes Toward the Ground Zero Mosque Are Reduced by High-Level Construal," is available online and from the U. of I. News Bureau.
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Abstract thinking can make you more politically moderate Public release date: 2-Nov-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Diana Yates diya@illinois.edu 217-333-5802 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
CHAMPAIGN, lll. Partisans beware! Some of your most cherished political attitudes may be malleable! Researchers report that simply answering three "why" questions on an innocuous topic leads people to be more moderate in their views on an otherwise polarizing political issue.
The research, described in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, explored attitudes toward what some people refer to as the ground zero mosque, an Islamic community center and mosque built two blocks from the site of the former World Trade Center in New York City. When the Islamic center first was proposed it sparked a heated debate pitting proponents of religious freedom against those who felt the center should be moved away from the site of the 9/11 attacks out of reverence for those killed by Muslim extremists.
"We used the ground zero mosque as a particularly polarizing issue," said University of Illinois psychology professor Jesse Preston, who supervised the research with graduate students Daniel Yang and Ivan Hernandez. "People feel strongly about it generally one way or the other." Yang, now a postdoctoral researcher at Yale, designed the study with Preston and led the experiments.
The researchers used techniques known to induce an abstract mindset in people, Preston said.
Previous studies had shown that asking people to think broadly about a subject (with "why" rather than "how" questions, for example) makes it easier for them to look at an issue from different perspectives.
" 'Why' questions make people think more in terms of the big picture, more in terms of intentions and goals, whereas more concrete 'how' questions are focused on something very specific, something right in front of you, basically," Preston said.
Previous research showed that abstract thinking enhances creativity and open-mindedness, but this is the first study to test its power to moderate political beliefs, Preston said.
The interventions were simple. In the first experiment the researchers established that, after viewing an image of an airplane flying into one of the World Trade Center towers, liberals and conservatives held opposing attitudes toward the ground zero mosque and community center.
A second study repeated the first with new participants and included one minor but significant change. Before they gave their views on the mosque and community center, participants answered either three consecutive "why" questions or three consecutive "how" questions on an unrelated topic in this case, about maintaining their health.
The "why" questions, but not the "how" questions, moved liberals and conservatives closer together on the issue of the Islamic center, Preston said.
"We observed that liberals and conservatives became more moderate in their attitudes," she said. "After this very brief task that just put them in this abstract mindset, they were more willing to consider the point of view of the opposition."
The researchers conducted a third experiment online to test the effects in a more diverse population. In this round, they asked participants to read an ambiguous "faux Yahoo! News" article that included multiple arguments for and against the Islamic center.
Those who viewed the article in an easy-to-read format remained polarized in their views, the researchers found. But those who read the same article after it had been photocopied and made harder to read were more moderate in their responses.
Making the information harder to read induced abstract thinking, Preston said.
"It's a surprisingly powerful manipulation because people are thinking in a different way and putting in more mental effort while reading," she said.
"We tend to think that liberals and conservatives are on opposite sides of the spectrum from each other and there's no way we can get them to compromise, but this suggests that we can find ways of compromising," Preston said. "It doesn't mean people are going to completely change their attitudes, because these are based on pervasive beliefs and world views. But it does mean that you can get people to come together on issues where it's really important or perhaps where compromise is necessary."
###
This is one of two new studies from Preston's lab to explore interventions that moderate political bias. The other study, reported in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, tackles attitudes toward capital punishment and verdicts in a mock criminal trial.
Editor's note: To contact Jesse Preston, email jlp@uillinois.edu.
The paper, "Polarized Attitudes Toward the Ground Zero Mosque Are Reduced by High-Level Construal," is available online and from the U. of I. News Bureau.
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Houston rapper Dre LaDon has been working on a music video for the song H Up 4 Dem Texans, and part of the video was shot here at SportsRadio 610 studios.
Dre LaDon ?s people have released a sneak peek of the video. Antonio Smith, dancing girls, the Battle Red Freaks and one of our very own are featured in it.
Tell us what you think by posting a comment below.
The video release party this Friday from 9 p.m. until 2 a.m. at Union Lounge ? 2708 Bagby St. Houston TX 77006.
Dre LaDon says: ?Hope you can make it. This is a can?t-miss event if you are a Houston Texans fan.?
Stacy-Ann Gooden (aka Weather Anchor Mama) can be seen delivering the weather on the news week nights in New York City. But her most important role is being a wife and mom. She writes about balancing career and motherhood in her blog, Weather Anchor Mama
![[ Back to EurekAlert! ]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uHv4N-5KtD3JVvRbT9_DZVM6nYq0HxoZotVtNNAijXYG4EJqBOitpm35cq9P2lE5SSP-u0ndsULvKIQppnT7OsG2KoxgfL1vmnVAEPIHo=s0-d){kind=small}
Public release date: 2-Nov-2012
Share ]