The New Racism Rises with Voting Right Act Battle

[Vyan]

Crossposted on Truth 2 Power


The AP Reports.

WASHINGTON - Renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, once a sure thing, hit another bump Thursday as House Democrats threatened to vote against it if any changes by Southern conservatives were added.

"Democrats would not be able to vote for the bill if any one of those amendments passes," said Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. "Any one of them would be a weakening of the Voting Rights Act."

But just what is all this strum and drang all about? What changes to the Voting rights act?

"By passing this rewrite of the Voting Rights Act, Congress is declaring from on high that states with voting problems 40 years ago can simply never be forgiven," said Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga.

Forgiven? Is this about forgivenness or is this about upholding the 15th Amendment of the Constitution which supposedly granted blacks the right to vote way back in 1870?

It wasn't until 1965 - ninety five years later - that any serious protection for that Constitutional right was put in place via the Voting Rights Act. Now, people like Westmoreland are arguing that all our problems were oh so long ago in the 60's - while some rather serious voting rights violations which significantly blocked the ability of African-Amerians to vote appear to have occured just two years ago in Ohio?

Maybe "forgiveness" is something that should be considered once people stop commiting the crime.
In the 19th Century the DOJ documents the methods of disenfrachisment of African Americans as the following:

The extension of the franchise to black citizens was strongly resisted. Among others, the Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White Camellia, and other terrorist organizations attempted to prevent the 15th Amendment from being enforced by violence and intimidation. Two decisions in 1876 by the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of enforcement under the Enforcement Act and the Force Act, and, together with the end of Reconstruction marked by the removal of federal troops after the Hayes-Tilden Compromise of 1877, resulted in a climate in which violence could be used to depress black voter turnout and fraud could be used to undo the effect of lawfully cast votes. Once whites regained control of the state legislatures using these tactics, a process known as "Redemption," they used gerrymandering of election districts to further reduce black voting strength and minimize the number of black elected officials. In the 1890s, these states began to amend their constitutions and to enact a series of laws intended to re-establish and entrench white political supremacy. Such disfranchising laws included poll taxes, literacy tests, vouchers of "good character," and disqualification for "crimes of moral turpitude." These laws were "color-blind" on their face, but were designed to exclude black citizens disproportionately by allowing white election officials to apply the procedures selectively. Other laws and practices, such as the "white primary,", attempted to evade the 15th Amendment by allowing "private" political parties to conduct elections and establish qualifications for their members.

But that did not all end 1965 - which as a matter of fact, was not that long ago.

In one of the day's most emotional speeches, Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., displayed photos of civil rights activists, including himself, who were beaten by Alabama state troopers in 1965 as they marched from Selma to Montgomery in support of voting rights.
"I have a concussion. I almost died. I gave blood; some of my colleagues gave their very lives," Lewis shouted from the House floor, while the Rev. Jesse Jackson, another veteran of the civil rights movement, looked on from the gallery.

If anything, time seems to have dulled our memories of how difficult a struggle was had over this issue in 1965, how strong and violent the opposition remained - 95 years after the Constitution had already closed this issue. Rep Lewis has recently stated:

"(I)t was during the middle of the last census that the Georgia State Legislature authored a redistricting plan that severely diluted the power of the African American vote. It was Georgia that developed the modern-day poll tax, as one federal judge called it, that disenfranchises rural voters, the elderly, the disabled, students and other minorities who have no government photo ID. It is the state of Georgia that has received over 80 objections from the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice since the last reauthorization, pointing to discriminatory voting plans agreed to by state, county, and local governments. And Georgia represents only a part of the over 1000 objections the DOJ has seen fit to make since the last reauthorization in 1982. "The evidence shows that voting discrimination in America is not dead, and the Voting Rights Act must retain its original power in order to assure that democracy prevails in every hill and valley, every city and suburb, on every fertile farm and every desert plain in America. If we as a nation and a people are truly committed to the full participation of every American in the democratic process, then there should be no serious impediment to the passage of H.R. 9. To every Member who has looked at the overwhelming evidence, it is clear that we have come a great distance, but we still have a great distance to go before we can lay down the burden of voting discrimination in America."

As Lindsey Graham inadvertendly alluded during the Alito hearings, the bigots have gone into the closet. The opposition of 40 years ago still exists, only it has learned to cloak itself. To hide in plain site, using issues like Immigration, Bi-lingualism and even partisanship itself as their cover.

Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., opened the debate by calling the conservatives who want to strike the bill's requirements for bilingual ballots present-day "ideological soul mates" of lawmakers who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
"For them, this is not a debate about fairness, it is about ideology. Ideology has no place in today's debate," Hastings said. "We should do this not for the partisan benefit but because, as John Kennedy said, it is right."

What we're seeing here are the tried and true tactics of the 1870's being repeated. Apparently race-neutral restrictions being applied on the appliction of the 15th Amendent, which are not very likely to have a race-neutral outcomes just as we saw in 2004.

Essentially the core of this current debate seems to be the preclearance list, which doesn't allow certain cities and districts to change voting rules without first obtaining clearance from the Department of Justice. Yet the result of the the use of a secondary check on potential abuse of the rules has been highly valueble. The DOJ itself states:

The Voting Rights Act itself has been called the single most effective piece of civil rights legislation ever passed by Congress.

I would argue that preclearance of this type for arbitary and restrictive rules changes - like those made by Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio is something we probably need far more of, not less.
Yes, as this chart shows, we have made progress since 1965, but the fight is not over yet and now is not the time to backslide. This is the return of the old racism in a fresh new face - it's a percursor to the institutions of brand new versions of the poll tax and literacy tests which are designed to knock "undesirable" voters off the rolls - force them onto provisional ballots, and then ignore those votes. Generally these voters have been Democratic, and African-American vote overwhelming Democratic.

Right now, there isn't an issue with a greater and more potentially harmful impact before Congress. Call your Representatives Now Toll Free at : [phone]

Just ask for them by name -either to give your support or lodge your opposition to changes which make discrimination and disenfranchisement easier to accomplish - the Operators will connect you in seconds.
Vyan

[AndyTiedye]

1. Might I Suggest a Compromise

Add OHIO to the list of states that get Federal supervision.

[Vyan]

2. And Nevada n/t