Voting Rights Act vote delay- how can they do this

Parent Cafe
1

<p>By CARL HULSE
Published: June 21, 2006
WASHINGTON, June 20 — House Republican leaders today abruptly canceled a planned vote to renew the Voting Rights Act after a rank-and-file rebellion by lawmakers who say the civil rights measure unfairly singles out Southern states and promotes multi-lingual ballots.</p>

<p>Related
Extension of Voting Act Is Likely Despite Criticism (March 29, 2006)</p>

<p>The reversal represented a significant embarrassment for the party leadership, which has promised a vote on the landmark anti-discrimination law and hailed its imminent approval in a rare bipartisan press event on the steps of the Capitol last month.</p>

<p>But lawmakers critical of the bill mutinied in a closed meeting of House Republicans this morning just hours before the vote was expected to occur and several said it was uncertain whether a majority of Republicans would back the legislation at this point.</p>

<p>“A lot of it looks as if these are some old boys from the South who are trying to do away with it,” said Representative Lynn A. Westmoreland of Georgia, who said it would be unfair to keep Georgia under the confines of the law when his state has cleaned up its voting rights record. “But these old boys are trying to make it Constitutional enough that it will withstand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court.”</p>

<p>Despite what appears to be mounting Republican resistance, the leadership issued a statement declaring that once the concerns of lawmakers are addressed, it will move ahead with a vote on what the leaders described as one of the nation’s most important civil rights laws.</p>

<p>“While the bill will not be considered today, the House G.O.P. leadership is committed to passing the Voting Rights Act legislation as soon as possible,” the statement said.</p>

<p>Democrats and civil rights groups expressed severe disappointment in the change of plans.</p>

<p>“The fact of the matter is that you have a small group of members who have hijacked this bill and many of these individuals represent states that have been in violation for along time,” said Nancy M. Zirkin, deputy director of the Leadership Council on Civil Rights.</p>

2

<p>GOP is FOCKED</p>

3

<p>For those that always think liberals are wrong, please explain this to me…</p>

4

<p>The vote was delayed because of disagreement over the pre-clearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which place added burdens on 9 states that had racist voting statistics in 1964. Some representatives want to amend the VRA to provide for equal treatment of all states:</p>

<p>

The CNN article says the amendment will probably fail. Here’s the link: <a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/21/voting.rights.act.ap/index.html[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/21/voting.rights.act.ap/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

5

<p>Oh wow! That’s not the same Rep. Westmoreland from this thread, is it?</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=203787[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=203787&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

6

<p>oh gee, so its all okie dokey in the south for all voters…yeah</p>

<p>they need to include Ohio, though</p>

7

<p>The current act doesn’t expire until 2007, so they have time to work out their differences and come back to it.</p>

<p>Can you tell us more about your concerns? </p>

<p>Also, I’d appreciate it if sources were fully credited–I don’t read enough newspapers to know what paper reported it if I only see the reporter’s byline. Maybe I should know who Carl Hulse writes for, but I don’t.</p>

8

<p>I learned in Con Law that it is completely acceptable, under the Fourteenth Amendment, to single out states for voting violations, provided there is evidence of racial discrimination. Inherent in that theory is that there should be sunset provisions, so that states can (as is their Constitutional perogative) resume control of their voting procedures, once they have cleaned up their act.</p>

<p>If the Voting Rights Act is based on data from 1964, it needs to be updated and changed. Imagine if you went over to your parent’s house for Christmas and they told you that no, you can’t have a candy cane because it will ruin your dinner, which is what they would have said in 1964. Absurd? Yes.</p>

<p>1964 was a long, long time ago. The GOP is asking for two very simple things:

  1. that special treatment of states be based on current evidence of wrongdoing; or, in the alternative,
  2. that federal laws be applied consistently across all states.</p>

<p>If it’s good enough for Alabama, it should be good enough for New York. It’s not about the South being backwards so much as it is about following this little document called the Constitution. It’s also about the fact that, like it or not, Reconstruction is over and the federal gov’t no longer has unilateral control over the South. </p>

<p>Don’t wonder why Dixie sticks together. You can’t, as a party, continue to beat up on one region and not expect that it will fight back.</p>

9

<p>Actually, Ariesathena, three New York counties ARE subject to the pre-clearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act: Manhattan, Bronx and Brooklyn. I’ve not heard any of the many elected representatives of those counties complain about being “singled out.” </p>

<p>I’m not particularly interested in protestations of victimhood from the Southern GOP, who are largely former Dixiecrats (or their heirs) who opposed every civil rights law ever proposed, including the Voting Rights Act. I have no doubt that if the provisions of the law were changed, that many of those states would slip back into their old and familiar patterns of exclusion and discrimination. Note that the Georgia legislature (dominated by the GOP) recently passed a requirement that voters show driver’s licenses or state-issued equivalents in order to cast ballots. As blacks, the poor and the elderly are less likely to own cars, and the centers for applying for the “state-issued equivalents” are not well-distributed throughout the state, the effect (and indeed the intent) of the change is to suppress black and Democratic voter participation. What is that but a new form of poll tax? </p>

<p>Extend the law as is for another 25 years. Hopefully, one day, we won’t need it. But today, sadly, isn’t that day.</p>

10

<p>a long time ago? but currenlty some states want to go back in time…you can’t deny that</p>

<p>they have cleaned up their act BECAUSE of the law, much to their chagrin, take away the law, well, do YOU trust them? If they want to follow the law, then pass it already</p>

11

<p>beat up on one region? gosh, they should say, yeah, that was a law we needed, and we will gladly keep following it, because we are doing a good job and have nothing to hide and have no reason to worry</p>

<p>and should say, we are the model of how it should be done, and we have no problem or ego involved in this and won’t hold it up because of pride</p>

12

<p>Well, SW, the law isn’t exactly irrational. </p>

<p>Given the numerous reports about dead people voting and the very easy ways to vote illegally now, with little control, is the law so bad? I’ve heard similar complaints but never have heard actual statistics as to how many (non-dead) people would be disenfranchised. </p>

<p>Also, you are more than welcome to argue that if a state is going to require photo ID to vote, it should provide that photo ID (i.e. non-driver’s license photo ID) for free to those who cannot pay. Many courts will listen.</p>

13

<p>…The same way that - on the same day - they refused to raise the minimum wage.</p>

<p>The same group that will vote tax breaks for the top levels will leave the bottom levels below the poverty level.</p>

<p>The minimum wage has been the same for 9 years, and if a minority had its way (the majority voted FOR the wage increase - 52 to 46, but rules allowed the vote to be blocked). It was the ninth time since 1997 that Senate Democrats have proposed a stand-alone increase in the minimum wage, only to see it blocked by Republicans.</p>

<p>The argument that it will put people out of work is horse**** </p>

<p>When it was last raised, the same dire predictions arose, but the expected wave of unemployment didn’t happen.</p>

14

<p>Yes, Ariesathena, the courts will listen. Precisely because the legal cause of action is filed pursuant to the Voting Rights Act!</p>

15

<p>Arisathena, did I understand you accurately? Because you seem to somewhat contradict yourself.</p>

<p>And yes, the Voting Rights Act DOES apply to New York, and other states outside of the “old confederacy.” Please scrutinize the facts you retrieve.</p>

<p>Strom Thurmond must be smiling in his tomb. For years he sought to defeat the Voting Rights Act, not by oppossing it outright, but by seeking to have it applied nationwide. He knew that the Congress would fight such an application and, as he hoped, get rid of the whole thing. And by the way Arisathena, while you were scrutinizing the Constituion of the United States, did you read the “…and 3/5 of all other persons” dictum in it? When you run across a 3/5 person, alert the news media. I’ve never met one.</p>

16

<p>Um… NO.</p>

<p>Hello, have you not heard of the Fourteenth Amendment? 1868? Did you miss the Fifteenth Amendment of 1870? The Twenty-Fourth Amendment of 1964?</p>

<p>The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was well after landmark Supreme Court cases of Smith v. Allwright, in 1944, and Terry v. Adams, in 1953.</p>

<p>So how do you need the Voting Rights Act for them? Did they travel forward in time in order to have a cause of action? </p>

<p>Or, Swbutterfly, would the repeal of the Voting Rights Act cause concurrent repeal of XIV, XV, and XXIV? I missed the part in law school where the repeal of enabling legislation causes repeal of the Constitutional bases. Then again, maybe you’re just dead wrong. :)</p>

<p>So take your flippant answer and find another place for it, because you lost this one.</p>

17

<p>HUH?/ What was that answer about, i have not clue</p>

<p>Here is what I see, yes we had amendments, that said equal voting rights, but OBVIOUSLLY they where not adhered to, certain states found ways to thwart them, where black had to take tests and whites did not, etc</p>

<p>And now, we have people taken off the voting rolls, because they are black, because why? They sort of have that same names as a criminal…and they are not even told their name is removed UNTIL they show up to vote</p>

<p>arisathena, please start over and explain where you stand, because at this point I have no clue</p>

<p>To not renew the voting rights act is foolish and selfish and short sighted, and the reasons they are claming are just silly</p>

<p>These same people want to track my emails, because I COULD be a terrorist, but don’t want to do whatever they can to protect peoples right to vote in a democracy cause it hurts their feelings that their states did horrid things in the past and aren’t to be really trusted, because currently, they are trying to pull the same trick again</p>

18

<p>CityGirls’Mom,</p>

<p>If you don’t understand, please re-read. I was clear.</p>

<p>Maybe it’s because I’m a voting, tax-paying adult who wasn’t alive in the 1960s, I think it was a long time ago. Hate to break it to you old folks, but the '60s are long gone. </p>

<p>Congress is bound to examine the records of the districts at issue. Violations in the 1960s do not forever bind that region to the whim of the federal government. </p>

<p>I am, by the way, under no obligation to break this down into sufficiently simple terms for you. Re-read and think about it. Drop the idea that you are right - acknowledging the strength of another’s argument but finding its weaknesses strenghtens your own arguments (and refines them) more than your confused dismissals.</p>

<p>If you didn’t understand what I said, perhaps it was because SWButterfly’s post was so blatantly wrong that I couldn’t resist mocking it.</p>

19

<p>So, you don’t think the voting rights act is relelvant or necessary these days?</p>

<p>The 14th Amendment was passed over almost hundred years before the voting rights acts were passed, on thoes 100 years, a VERY LONG TIME indeed, many people did not have the right to vote in reality, regardless of what the constitution said </p>

<p>200 years of slavery, after that almost 100 years of voting oppression, and you talk about 40 years ago being such a long time</p>

<p>Please, even in a democracy, we must be vigilent</p>

<p>As a woman whose grandmother couldn’t vote, I take voting rights very seriously</p>

<p>And violations, and whim? Nice way of talking about protecting peoples rights, a whim…</p>

<p>The 60s may be “long gone” but the attitudes are not, and you don’t seem to care about that</p>

<p>So long as YOU have your rights, everyone else be damned…if the southern states are doing everything right, why fear and oppose rules that have been on the books for 40 years? why say, not anymore…</p>

<p>If they have nothing to fear, they will pass the renewal…to do otherwise shows going backwards in time</p>

<p>40 years a long time ago? In the history of civilization, its a drop in the bucket</p>

20

<p>In your post you talk about the amendments, if people were following those amendments, we would never have needed the voting rights acts, but we did, and still do…</p>

<p>Still do not understnad your logic…do you think the voting rights acts were ever necessary? At all? Or were the amendments enough?</p>