<p>I think CGM said it best. The government wants to listen in on our phone calls, track our internet usage, look through our bank and medical records…but isn’t all that interested in protecting or looking after our voting records. People disenfranchised from voting? Piffle. Who cares?</p>
<p>Alrighty then. </p>
<p>I think this inaction reflects the administration and its followers’ intents perfectly.</p>
<p>AriesAthena seems to be arguing from reality, whereas SWButterfly seems to be arguing for a kind of “revenge on the heads of your children.” I’m not sure what you are arguing citygirlsmom. </p>
<p>There is either some current wrong that needs remedy, or there is not. Isn’t that what you are saying Aries?</p>
<p>40 years represents generations of change, I’d say. The point of the voting rights act was to cure the body politic, not to add a new appendage to it.</p>
<p>Clearly the 14th and 15th Amendments provided insufficient legal protection for the voting rights of African Americans from the end of Reconstruction to 1965. Poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, whites-only primaries, and terror were successfully and repeatedly used to undermine the intent of those Amendments. For nearly 90 years, the Courts and the Congress did little. Finally, in 1965, in response to continuing violent efforts by the white South to supress black voter registration (Medgar Evers, Chaney-Goodwin-Schwerner, Liola Luizzo, Selma), the Voting Rights Act was enacted. The Act was grounded in the 15th Amendment’s authorization to Congress to pass appropriate enforcement legislation. Until then, Congress never found the political will to do so.</p>
<p>It’s ironic that for much of the first half of the twentieth century, the 14th and 15th Amendments provided little protection to the very persons for whose benefit the amendments were adopted: African Americans. In fact, for much of this period, the primary beneficiaries of the 14th Amendment were corporations (who were recognized as “legal persons” for the first time).</p>
<p>My point is clear to those willing to hear it: the Voting Rights Act was adopted for a reason and those reasons are not yet behind us. Sad but true.
I suspect the GOP leadership in the House will find a way to renew the Act before the 2006 elections, or they will give African-Americans and their allies every incentive to turnout in record numbers and put the GOP’s narrow House majority in further jeopardy.</p>
<p>citygirlsmom, they haven’t refused to renew it. </p>
<p>They have refused to vote on it at this time because they are disagreeing about some proposed changes to the law.</p>
<p>I have seen no analysis anywhere that suggests that Congress wants the Voting Rights Act to expire, or that they will never renew it. If I’ve missed a source, please enlighten us by sharing it.</p>
<p>I think you’re setting up a straw men here. Who has said it shouldn’t be renewed? Who has said the southern states are “doing everything right.” Etc etc. I’d like to have a good discussion about this, but there needs to be an understanding of nuance! I get that you’re passionate, but you shouldn’t need to exaggerate the claims or intentions of your opponents to demonstrate your concern.</p>
<p>Also, are the provisions put in place for the 2004 election part of the VRA, or something different? I’m talking about the provisional ballots, etc. I work as an election inspector in my state and I think the public aren’t very clear on what they are to be used for. Of course, I don’t think the public are very clear on a LOT of voting regulations.</p>
<p>
Yes. If there is not a current wrong that needs a remedy, then a continuation of the current status is unconstitutional.</p>
<p>My comments towards SWButterfly were directed at the post that stated that you can’t get into court without the Voting Rights Act. Not true at all. You can get into court - pretty easily - because there is a very secure constitutional basis for it. That’s pretty simple to understand, for anyone who takes the time to do it.</p>
<p>While it is possible that some states may slide back into pre-60s habits, that is no reason to deny them the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution. You can modify the legislation to have continued oversight, or to continue federal intervention in some states, but you need a current basis for continued federal oversight. Not a basis grounded in 40 years ago, but a basis grounded in the present time. A “I feel queasy” basis doesn’t pass constitutional muster, either.</p>
<p>You asked. I answered. If you don’t like the results of the answer, fine - but the answer is no less valid.</p>
<p>It was not a flippant anwer. My intent was to point out, as others in this thread have adequately done, that at times, the Constitution of the United States, an idea and foundation that I cherish, has been corrupted or ignored by people who have dominion over the powerless.</p>
<p>Moreover, I fervently believe that the document cannot be correctly applied in a vacuum, which is why I referred to the 3/5 person dictum. It seems that you’ve read much about Constitutional Law. I recommend to you also the writings and biographies of Justice Hugo Black. Yes, the former Klansman and U.S. Senator who some call the father of modern civil liberties. Black’s votes to protect/expand civl liberties were in large part motivated by his experience as a local county-level judge in Alabama, where he saw local powerbrokers and sheriffs routinely railroad the powerless, i.e. people who had ‘minimal standing’ in the community as well as folks who legally had no right to vote.</p>
<p>Are the actions of racists and political demogouges sanctioned by the laws of Alabama et al today? No, obviously quite the opposite. But has the time arrived where the American franchise is completely vaccinated and free from the disastrous interference from either racists or race-biased political opportunists? I do not believe so. Not when I see “partisan volunteers” standing in the voting hall clearly trying to intimidate persons who they presume will not vote for their candidate. Not when I read official documentation that confirms that companies hired by State officials “inadvertently” and erroneously purge thousands of non-white registered voters from county voters lists. Not when I read that county election officials scrutinize that list of those purged names, attempting to decide by ethnicity which names will be restored to the official voter rolls.</p>
<p>No, I am not flippant about the Constitution of the United States. And I live to fulfill opportunity for Americans today, not for some romantic notion of the 1960s.</p>
<p>The Act has another year before expiration. Isn’t this the time to discuss, fine-tune and perfect it before voting? I guess I’d see the reason for upset if expiration was imminent, but it’s not. Which doesn’t mean that the Act should be allowed to expire, of course it shouldn’t, but an entire year out, isn’t this just another excuse to attack republicans?</p>
<p>I agree with Zoosermom. </p>
<p>Instead of just signing it back into being, they are ensuring that it remains constitutional, fine-tuning it, and determining its applicability to 2007. (By the way, if they are extending federal oversight to all states, isn’t that a good thing? Racism knows no borders.) Sure as hell beats lawmakers who worry about Fluffernutters and McDonalds.</p>
<p>“Sure as hell beats lawmakers who worry about Fluffernutters and McDonalds.”</p>
<p>Are you picking on my state?</p>
<p>Oh, I think the Republicans blocking it now are playing for time. If they block renewal now, then they have a chance to block it next year and then it does expire. </p>
<p>I like John Lewis’ take:
</p>
<p>Aries says:
“If there is not a current wrong that needs a remedy, then a continuation of the current status is unconstitutional.”</p>
<p>Are you saying that there are no current problems with voting and people trying to make it more difficult in these states now?</p>
<p>Really?</p>
<p>And we no longer have slavery, so guess anything outlawing slavery should be gotten rid off becuase it is not problem now</p>
<p>By your logic, all laws that stopped problem or created a remedy can be gotten rid of if the problem no longer exists? Is that what you mean, cause that is what you said</p>
<p>So, if we have few incidents of wife beating, we can take that law off the books</p>
<p>Got it</p>
<p>Ask the people in Ohio, who waited in lines, in the rain, in order to vote in Nov '04 (most of whom ended up going home because they couldn’t vote anyway) how they feel about the “problem no longer existing”.</p>
<p>Or in Florida?</p>
<p>Or in North Carolina?</p>
<p>There was so much suspicion of voter disenfranchisement during the last election, that Republican heel digging on this vote only makes people more suspicious.</p>
<p>"Ask the people in Ohio, who waited in lines, in the rain, in order to vote in Nov '04 (most of whom ended up going home because they couldn’t vote anyway) how they feel about the “problem no longer existing”.</p>
<p>Were those people alive at the time they attempted to vote? </p>
<p>Seriously, though, I do think this is a sensitive issue and that appearances are as important as substance. Not for political reasons, though, but because grievous wrong WAS done in our recent past and it is very important to show recognition and understanding of the feelings that are still held and make sure that the citizens at issue know that their right to vote is sacred.</p>
<p>That said, I don’t believe there was any wide disenfranchment of voters in the last election, unless you count the seniors and vehicularly-challenged folks whose rides had their tires slashed. I think this disenfranchisement meme is one of those fallacies that take on the appearance of truth when repeated often enough.</p>
<p>ABut Allmusic, didn;t you know, all is just swell everywhere and old laws, well, we don’t them, gosh darn, cause everyone is good and honest and straightforward and those uppitty people that want to have their rights protected should stop whining, golly gee</p>
<p>It amazes me that the south, who still likes that confederate flag, a flag of non patriotism if I ever saw one, wants to go back to pre-60s laws…they should proudly stand up and renew the Acts instead of hiding and scurrying around making excuses </p>
<p>You either are for voters rights or you are not…to not renew without griping about it is not for voters rights, and no matter how you try and explain it away, to defend people that don’t think these laws are STILL necessary is pretending their is no racsicm in the south anymore</p>
<p>This should be simple and neat</p>
<p>Well, let us see- rich districts LOTS of machines, poor black districts- many fewer machines- </p>
<p>Just to start</p>
<p>If ONE person was taken off the voter rolls because they were black, that is enough</p>
<p>How many people need to not be able to legally vote for you to see a problem</p>
<p>Guess if a bunch of rich white folks couldn’t vote, just maybe you would care</p>
<p>talk to the people who couldn’t vote, whose ballots were thrown out, but whatever, so long as it doesn’t effect you, who cares right?</p>
<p>really sad that people think, well, if it personally doesn’t do anything to me, not my business</p>
<p>“If ONE person was taken off the voter rolls because they were black, that is enough”</p>
<p>Do you have any evidence of this?</p>
<p>That’s my thinking exactly, CGM. Not voting for the law indicates that one is not for voter’s rights. There simply isn’t any other way to read that.</p>
<p>BTW, Zoos, plenty of people would disagree with your conviction that there was not any real disenfranchisement during the last election.</p>
<p>And what shocks me the most is that this should in NO WAY be a partisan issue. Every single American, regardless of party affiliation, should want to ensure that every single eligible American has the ability to vote safely, securely and fairly. This is why the obstruction on the part of the GOP or southern states just smelllllllls!</p>
<p>"And what shocks me the most is that this should in NO WAY be a partisan issue. Every single American, regardless of party affiliation, should want to ensure that every single eligible American has the ability to vote safely, securely and fairly. This is why the obstruction on the part of the GOP or southern states just smelllllllls</p>
<p>It should not be a partisan issue. In fact, until the Act is anywhere near expiration, its discussion and debate should be accepted as a matter of course. The fact that the democrats have created a scandal out of whole cloth is quite disturbing but, alas, that is what has happened.</p>
<p>CGM: No, that isn’t my logic.</p>
<p>Honsetly, you are impossible to try to explain things to. You ask for an explanation; you got an explanation; and you got upset with it. </p>
<p>I highly suggest that you take a law class before berating me. Your analogies are bad. First of all, DV is a state issue, and states have constitutional basis to make laws relating to DV. Congress ONLY has power to regulate elections under Amend. XIV, cl. 5 - i.e. to remedy current wrongs.</p>
<p>That means that, once something sunsets, they have to investigate to ensure that there are current wrongs that need correction. Otherwise, it’s an unconstitutional intrusion into state sovereignty. </p>
<p>If you cannot understand that, please sign up for a Con Law course, but don’t berate me. There’s this little document called the Constitution that some of us happen to care about.</p>
<p>–</p>
<p>I’ve often said that the modern era will mark the point at which liberals start to believe in state’s rights and federalism. While it may seem good to ensure that, Constitution be damned, voting rights are “secured” (and why are only 18% of states subject to this if you wnat to secure rights for all? What about the other 82% of states? Hello, people!) on the federal level, what happens when it’s an issue that you don’t like? </p>
<p>If Roe v. Wade is overturned, you don’t want federal intrusion into the issue. You don’t want a Republican Congress saying, “Every single American, regardless of party affiliation, should want to ensure that every single eligible American has the ability to [be born] safely, securely and fairly.” (Nothing against you, Allmusic - I really enjoy your posts - but your language was easy to copy & paste.) </p>
<p>We saw what happened with the Oregon assisted suicide case. The same logic that is used to prevent states from giving out marijuana by prescription or is used to attempt to ban assisted suicide can be used to prevent medical providers from performing abortions. </p>
<p>Think about what you are doing before you give the federal gov’t power. You might like the consolidation of power now, but please understand that the same power can be used, later, by a federal gov’t that you don’t like in ways that you don’t like. </p>
<p>The Voting Act issue is fairly straightforward. They aren’t saying that they aren’t going to renew it. They aren’t saying that it’s bad legislation. They are just saying that, in order to pass constitutional muster, they have to make findings of fact and investigations that continued federal intervention is required in those states. They also have to ensure that there aren’t other states which are committing violations which would require federal oversight. (That last part, by the way, should get every one of you excited about the delay - if there are voting violations in other states, don’t you want federal oversight? Really, unless y’all just hate the South, which is probably the case, then you should get behind this.)</p>
<p>If that upsets you, then I can only refer you to another country or a remedial civics course.</p>
<p>Just for the record, I feel enormous passion for this issue. If the Act is allowed to expire, I will be quite upset and will act upon my anger. If that would have to be directed toward my own party, so be it. At this point, I feel that democrats are using historical wrongs and exploiting the African American community to make political hay. Absent a crystal ball, no one can say with certainty that the Act will be allowed to expire or that a newly-passed bill next year might not be superior. In light of the fact that many democrats are sure that they will control Congress next year, it is clear that it is in their best interests to wait on this vote, and the current complaints would appear disingenuous on the part of some of the complainers.</p>