Voting Rights: Not Such a Black and White Issue
"House Renews Voting Rights Act provisions"The House voted overwhelmingly Thursday to renew the 1965 Voting Rights Act for 25 years, rejecting contentious efforts by Southern Republicans to dilute the landmark law.
Three provisions of the act are set to expire next year: requirements that states and counties with a history of discrimination clear any changes to their election process with federal authorities, that federal observers be present if there is evidence that voters have been intimidated, and that counties with significant non-English-speaking populations provide bilingual ballots.
....
Conservatives introduced four amendments to weaken the act, and all were rejected by large bipartisan majorities. One proposed eliminating the requirement for foreign-language ballots. Another would have created an easier method for states to escape federal oversight.
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga. (Blog author's note: No relation), argued that his state has overcome its documented history of discrimination and asked the House to amend the act to ease requirements for states that must have all voting changes cleared in advance by the Department of Justice. He said Georgia still is being punished for racist practices that it has eliminated.
....
Before the amendments were rejected, a number of Democrats said they would not pass the legislation if it was changed in any way.
"Do not accept any of these amendments, I beg you," said Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. "We cannot afford to go back at this point."
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco said "any one of (the amendments) would be a weakening of the Voting Rights Act."
....
"We are fed up and the nation should be fed up," Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, said during a recent conference call. "This handful of shameful retrogrades tried to strike at the heart of American democracy.
"We have well-documented testimony regarding discrimination and a continuing need for the protections."
Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., gave an emotional speech on the House floor Thursday about discrimination he experienced and held up photos of several black men, including himself as a young man, being beaten by Alabama state troopers in 1965 while marching for voting rights.
"We've made some progress; we have come a distance," Lewis said. "The sad truth is that discrimination still exists. That's why we still need the Voting Rights Act, and we must not go back to the dark past."
-------------------
I have to admit at this point that I have only been lightly keeping up with this issue over the past week. I recently began my first full-time job with a downtown Greensboro law firm, and I've been attempting to get my schedule at least semi-regulated.
But one thing about this whole ordeal baffles me: If the Southern Republicans are concerned that they are being "punished" by being forced to clear all changes with the Department of Justice, and if the Democrats (and other Republicans, as is surely the case) are concerned that not renewing this act would set civil rights back several decades, why was an obvious compromise not even discussed in this article? Why was there no proposed amendment by either side to make all states run changes through the Department of Justice?
This is something I asked in my Election Laws class a few months ago while studying the Voting Rights Act. It seemed odd to me that only states with a history of discrimination should have federal oversight when changing their election procedures. In fact, as much as I am for smaller government, I also realize that a huge part of the Florida fiasco in 2000 was due to a discrepancy between the Florida statutes and the federal regulations. I understand that the federal government has many important things to do already, but do we really want to cut corners with the procedure that chooses our leaders?
Anywhere there are humans involved, corruption is inevitable. This means regardless of what color they are, how much money they make, what area they live in, or what history they may have as a people. Thirty years ago, Southern states were blatantly disenfranchising people on the basis of their skin. Thirty years from now, a state with no history of doing such a thing may suddenly develop a discriminatory voting procedure.
Representative Westmoreland is right: Until this act applies to everyone, Southern states are being punished for the sins of their ancestors. But Representative Conyers is just as right: Any dismissal of this act would result in our country's civil rights "go[ing] back". So why not move forward instead? Moving forward would be to realize that all humans will make mistakes, whether those mistakes be subconscious or vicious in nature.
Moving forward would be to pass an amendment applying all provisions of the Voting Rights Act to all states in America. I'm rather shocked that our partisan-minded Congress couldn't even compromise enough to see that.
posted by Melissa @ 10:40 AM
5 Comments:
I agree wholeheartedly on the first part - there is no reason why souther states are the only that these sections still applies to. Milwaukee, WI has had more more VRA violation cases filed than any other city in the country, but the act doesn't apply to Wisconson.
On you second point however, I have to ask... Would everything go back to the way it was fifty years ago if these extensions were not passed? I'd argue that they wouldn't. Just because souther states wouldn't have to get their election laws approved by the DOJ doesn't mean that the public would allow them to make discriminatory changes. People could (and would) still file VRA challenges.
I'm not sure if you saw any of the debate yesterday, but I love how the person fighting the most on behalf of Democrats was none other than Congressional Black Caucus chairman Mel Watt. Why would Rep. Watt be so for this? Because he's black, and the CBC Chair, right? Perhaps it's because he's got the most gerrymandered district in the country and is trying to ensure his own reelection. Something to think about.
Anyway... this is a 1960s solution for a 21st century problem.
What good is the right to vote anyway in fraudulent elections? Over half of all the seats for the NC General Assembly this year will have only one regime-approved candidate, and no one will be allowed to vote for anyone else. Any attempts to write in another person will only result in that voter's vote being thrown away.
In light of that, being concerned with who may or may not be able to vote is sadly laughable when the opponent-less candidates need only show up at the polls and vote for themselves, guaranteeing themselves victory with only a single vote.
If congressional leaders are truly so worried about discrimination, I truly wish they would not only look at how the South MIGHT act in regards to elections, but to also take a look at Michigan, or more specifically, the University of Michigan and their admissions process. Sugar coat it all you want, but when a less qualified student gets accepted over a more qualified student, discrimination is taking place and something is wrong. But since it's not happening in the South I guess they don't care...
Ryan,
I don't necessarily think removing this act would set us back 50 years. But I would argue that perhaps there is no harm in requiring the DOJ to check all changes made to elections in ALL areas. I think if there are valid reasons for an area to make changes to their laws, it would be in everyone's best interest to let the federal government know. It's just always seemed like the common sense solution to me.
Paul,
I agree, it is regretable that so many candidates run unopposed. But I would argue that is our own faults for allowing that to occur. It only costs a small amount to get your name on the ballot, and anyone can do so. Case in point, my friend Michael Moore, who was sick of Nelson Cole running unopposed in Rockingham County. Will he win? Not likely, since Cole owns most of the county, but I wouldn't blame that on a "fradulent election."
Tasha,
I agree, but apparently, it's not politically correct to discuss that kind of thing. You should have just thought about all this before you decided to be white.
Hey, Melissa. Yes, I agree that ultimately it's the fault of the people. People get the government they deserve.
How exactly did Moore get on the ballot though? It must have been as a Republican or Democrat, right? That's another aspect of the fraud. Article VI, Section 6 of the NC Constitution states:
"Every qualified voter in North Carolina who is 21 years of age, except as in this Constitution disqualified, shall be eligible for election by the people to office."
It doesn't say:
"You must be registered as a Democrat or a Republican in order to be eligible for election to office."
Nor does it say:
"If you're not registered as a Democrat or a Republican, you must collect 70,000 signatures in order to be eligible for election to office."
And it certainly doesn't say:
"You must pay a filing fee in order to be eligible for election to office."
That the current regime ignores the fact that any registered voter at least 21 years of age who hasn't been convicted of a felony is eligible for election to office according to the Constitution proves that there is a policy of discrimination in elections which states that one must belong to a certain private organization in order to gain eligibility or else collect tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of signatures in order to gain eligibility.
It's no different than if they passed a statute requiring that you be either a member of the NRA or the ACLU in order to be eligible for election.
That's fraud.
Post a Comment
<< Home