PDA

View Full Version : Threat the voting rights of african americans



Prospero
02-24-2013, 12:35 PM
With all the fury and argumentation on this board about gun rights in the US another crucial issue comes under the spotlight this coming week - at the Supreme Court.
This article discusses it.

Too Fat To Vote: Will A Supreme Ku Klux Kourt Kill Dr. King’s Dream Act? – OpEd

By Greg Palast -- (February 24, 2013)



You know why black folk in the south don’t vote? According to The New York Times and the experts at the Pew Charitable Trust, they’re just too damn fat!

Normally I wouldn’t care what the Times is passing off as fact, except for that, on February the 27th, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether to gut the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The Voting Rights Act was the law that Martin Luther King Jr had a dream about a half-century ago: that all citizens will be able to exercise their right to vote. But, like all pleasant dreams, morning means waking up to the ugly reality sleeping next to you.

The pug-uglies in this case are the four Supreme Court justices hostile to the Act. If one more joins them, you can kiss Martin’s dream goodbye.

The dream-busters are led by Chief Justice John Roberts. In 2009, he wrote, “The historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable.” But – and Roberts’ “but” is huge – the Act is out of date and “fails to account for current political conditions”.

According to Roberts, “Jim Crow laws” – the apartheid rules used in the Deep South to keep African-Americans from the polls – have long passed away.

It’s true, black folks now fare better in Dixie. Why, just last week, Mississippi ratified the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery 147 years after Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation (I kid you not).

So, Roberts is ready to dump the key enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act – the “pre-clearance” requirement.

Sixteen states must “clear” any changes in voting procedures with the US Department of Justice. That’s to make sure there’s no racial monkey business – that new rules aren’t clever tactics meant to remove black, brown, Native American, Catholic, Mormon or other minority voters.

In the current case before the Court, some Rebel states are hollering that they were unfairly singled out for this special scrutiny.

However, it was arithmetic in the law, not the Civil War, that put Mississippi on the list. Before the Act, only seven percent of its black citizens were registered to vote, below the law’s 50 percent line.

In November, at least a few Americans got quite upset to see television coverage from Florida of long lines of black folk waiting four or five hours to vote for the President. So is Jim Crow really dead and gone in Dixie?

That’s the weighty question addressed by the prestigious Pew Charitable Trust.

Why pick on Dixie? After all, despite the hours-long lines of Black voters in Florida we saw with our own eyes, Pew shows that there’s only a 23 minute wait to vote in Florida – less time than it takes to cast a vote in Indiana. Overall, Florida ranks near the best in Pew’s “Elections Performance Index”. Let’s give a medal to Florida’s former Secretary of State, Katherine Harris!

Pew was advised by Yale law professor Heather K Gerken, who explained the study for the New York Times.

“Poor Southern states perform well, and they perform badly. Rich New England states perform well and badly – mostly badly,” she said. In other words, Justice Roberts is right: “The evil that [Voting Rights Act Section 5] is meant to address may no longer be concentrated in the jurisdictions singled out for preclearance.”

In other words, why single out Florida and the 15 others?

But wait. Something’s missing: colour. Sure, the average Floridian waited 23 minutes to vote, but what about black voters?

In November, I joined African-American voters on “Souls to the Polls” day. Their wait for a ballot: four hours. Then I went up the road to an all-white polling station. Wait: zero minutes. There were unused rows of balloting machines, more poll workers than voters and a pot of coffee brewing for the pale suburban-Americans casting ballots.

And Oddly, despite a hot, hot Presidential contest with an African-American candidate, by mid-May 2012, the Census Bureau reported that the number of African-Americans registered declined by over one million. Hispanic names on voter rolls fell, too, despite massive registration drives. A big decline in voters of colour was reported in the South’s huge swing state, Florida.

So, overall voter turnout fell short. But the reason, according to the Pew expert featured in the Times, is that, “States in the Deep South with high obesity problems seem to be having a problem getting people to the polling place.”

Apparently, citizens of colour south of the Mason-Dixon line are just too fat to vote.

Maybe there’s another explanation for black and Hispanic names disappearing from the polls. Willie Steen, a Gulf War veteran, was removed from the voter rolls in 2000 because the Republican Secretary of State of Florida listed him as a felon. I met Steen. He’d never got so much as a parking ticket. He was, like tens of thousands of others, guilty of “VWB”; Voting While Black.

Secretary of State Katherine Harris sent Steen a note of apology for the “error”, but only after the election of George W Bush. Then, in 2004, Steen, who is quite slender, was purged again.

Steen’s name matched that of an Ohio felon named “O’Steen” on a database created by Republican hacks. The name-match game cost 58,000 innocent voters their registrations in just one year.

This was just one method of nine used to hold Florida’s black voting rate to 58 percent compared to 65 percent for whites.

Jim Crow isn’t dead, he’s just changed his white sheets for spreadsheets.

In 2012, Florida’s new Republican Secretary of State Ken Detzner again set out to bleach the voter rolls whiter than white.

Using lists of illegal aliens, the GOP hack marked 182,000 (!) voters whose names matched the deportees.

But wait: it’s a jail-time crime for a non-citizen to register or vote, so that’s one heck of a crime wave.

So how many illegal foreign voters were arrested in Florida? One: an Austrian-Canadian gun aficionado.

Yet, nearly one in ten Hispanic voters would have been barred from the polling booth. But, at the last moment, federal voting rights law stopped the Republican’s latest José Crow manoeuver.

But wait – if the Voting Rights Act required Florida to get federal approval for voter roll purges, how could Steen and other black men have been stripped of their rights?

Answer: Florida lied. The state used a loophole in the Voting Rights Act, claiming the purge was not a change in rules, just a clerical clean-up of the voting lists.

What’s the solution to the new trickery? Not, as Justice Roberts suggests, to eliminate Section 5, but to expand it.

Indeed, the reach of the Voting Rights Act was massively expanded by presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Reagan!

As a result of their changes, states designated officially racist include the Confederate states of… California, Arizona, New York, New Mexico, South Dakota and Alaska. Alaska? You betcha!

And for good reason. Take California – under a Republican Secretary of State, Bruce McPherson, 42 percent of voter registration forms were rejected, an overwhelmingly amount of those Hispanic, Arab-American and Asian. Jim Crow, it seems, became a surfer dude.

In 2004, in McKinley County, New Mexico, only one in ten voters cast a ballot for President – at least, that’s what the machines said. In fact, the voting machines simply disappeared the vote – almost all cast by Navajo Natives. Unfortunately McKinley was, by that time, “bailed out” of the Voting Rights Act, which any state can do by proving it no longer discriminates. (Apparently there’s not much you have to prove.)

And those lines I filmed of black voters standing for hours and white voters waltzing in for a ballot without a wait? That was in Ohio, with arguably the most racially bent voting system in America. (When the black voters finally made it to the voting station, I discovered they’d been given “absentee” ballots, subject to challenge, rather than the regular ballots given to the white voters.)

The horror show in Ohio does not absolve the racist voting systems of Florida, it merely calls for another expansion of the pre-clearance list to reflect a new reality. Jim Crow voting games are more widespread and far more sophisticated today than in 2000 when I first uncovered the Florida black-out.

That’s because Jim Crow is now Dr James Crow, database analyst, a hired gun who knows it’s easier to win elections by blocking voters rather than winning their votes. Identifying and challenging “suspect” voters is far more effective in chasing away black than burning crosses.

In 2012, cyber-guru Karl Rove created a massive voter profiling system called Data Trust. Rove stated then that, for example, “Even a small drop in the share of black voters would wipe out [Obama's] winning margin in North Carolina. If [black voters'] share of turnout drops just one point in North Carolina, Mr Obama’s winning margin there is wiped out two and a half times over.”

A little purge goes a long way. Add in a requirement of voter IDs with photos (which Indiana used to bar about 72,000 black voters this year), and voting games, not voters, will pick our government.

The solution is not for the Supreme Court to let Jim Crow ride again through the Southland, but another expansion of pre-clearance scrutiny to Ohio, Indiana and those states that need a little Reconstruction.

Jericho
02-24-2013, 04:17 PM
Not terribly familiar with the American voting system but, that's pretty fukkin shocking!

fivekatz
02-25-2013, 12:48 AM
I personally can't stand the SCOTUS as it is composed but if this case comes down as some fear the blame is in part on Congress, if understand the case and the issues correctly.

Normally the way our government is constructed, states not the Fed has oversight and control of all elections.

The issue with the 65 Voting Rights Act was that earlier Federal laws (57 I believe)calling for election practices that create equality and eliminate items like literacy tests and land ownership were ineffective.

So the 65 voting rights act gave extraordinary powers to the Federal government over certain states and counties that had a bad record with providing equal voting rights.

This law was challenge in 2009 I believe and at that time while the SCOTUS did not overturn that portion of the law, they did express concerns that not all the states or municipalities which were required to make any and all changes to voting procedures only by the Fed, should necessarily still be made to go to the Fed. The idea is the horrid action of Mississippi are now 60 years old and perhaps things are better. The SCOTUS did argue the constitutional right of the Federal government to have extraordinary oversight of elections when states had failed to act properly. But their opinion also warned that the SCOTUS thought the current watch list was dated and recommended th list be reviewed.

Congress never did address this (shock)!

Sadly this issue is as alive today as it was 60 years ago. But there are new players on the scene like WI, PA and OH, while perhaps AL may not have had an issue of note since 65.

This is tough argument for the government. Because the case will look at the state level of denying them their autonomy as granted by the Bill of Rights when upon inspection there loss of autonomy is based on acts not since duplicated since the 60's.

For the Republicans when it became time in Congress to update that list why would they even bring it to the floor with their current agenda of party first. Since it is the GOP that is attempting to suppress the vote at this point, why not do what they do best and just say "NO". No action is what has made this bill vulnerable. (BTW it was Southern Democrats back in the day that were into voter suppression.)

As far as the title of the OP's title there is no doubt that African-Americans rights are at risk, but so are those of Hispanics, students and any demographic group that a GOP controlled state can target to to suppress. If those people have data that suggest that you and your neighbors and your district and likely to not give them your vote, they will find plans to make it hard for to exercise that vote.

But in the end a SCOTUS loaded with GOP appointments has been given reasonable cause and cover by the GOP house that refuse to even look at the current voting rights map and amend it to reflect the early 21st Century challenges to voting rights. SCOTUS will have the cover of saying the map has aged and the law has not changed with it and therefore strike it down.

It will be intellectually dishonest just Bush v Gore was and just as painful to reverse.

fivekatz
02-26-2013, 07:36 AM
It I must say is shocking that this OP has not attracted more conversation.

Prospero
02-26-2013, 10:40 AM
Surprising indeed Fivekatz - and i do take your point about other groups voting rights being threatened as well.
But the GOP is courting the Hispanic population. They see African Americans perhaps as a lost cause for the moment.

robertlouis
02-26-2013, 10:45 AM
Surprising indeed Fivekatz - and i do take your point about other groups voting rights being threatened as well.
But the GOP is courting the Hispanic population. They see African Americans perhaps as a lost cause for the moment.

Or a group that they don't really like, in their nasty heart of hearts?

brickcitybrother
02-26-2013, 04:26 PM
Best Line

"Jim Crow isn’t dead, he’s just changed his white sheets for spreadsheets."

fivekatz
02-27-2013, 04:49 AM
Surprising indeed Fivekatz - and i do take your point about other groups voting rights being threatened as well.
But the GOP is courting the Hispanic population. They see African Americans perhaps as a lost cause for the moment.The media talks for the moment about the GOP courting Hispanic voters but the Tea Party may make it impossible for the party to include the Tea Party and tone down the racist tone of their current immigration policy.

Further, Hispanic Americans aren't single issue voters and as long as the GOP finds demonizing the lower 1/3 of the American economic language in a way that the audio clips seem to poor white voters that they are somehow excluded from that rederick the GOP will find a hard time playing to Hispanic voters. And the GOP at some point has to figure out that the time hs passed where you could piss off the majority of American's about welfare moms taking money from the defense departments ability to build yet another aircraft carrier to fight a war with no enemy of consequence in sight.

No my friends, the GOP will continue to try and suppress the vote by demographic, age, sexual orientation and non white.

They are the party of angry old white men of all circumstance while representing the 1% of economic elite.

Prospero
02-27-2013, 10:23 PM
New york times two hours ago...

Conservative Justices Voice Skepticism on Voting Law

Voting Procedures: A lawyer for the N.A.A.C.P. talks about arguing in favor of the Voting Rights Act at the Supreme Court.
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: February 27, 2013

WASHINGTON — A central provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 may be in peril, judging from tough questioning on Wednesday from the Supreme Court’s more conservative members.
Justice Antonin Scalia called the provision, which requires nine states, mostly in the South, to get federal permission before changing voting procedures, a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked a skeptical question about whether people in the South are more racist than those in the North. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked how much longer Alabama must live “under the trusteeship of the United States government.”

The court’s more liberal members, citing data and history, said Congress remained entitled to make the judgment that the provision was still needed in the covered jurisdictions.

“It’s an old disease,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said of efforts to thwart minority voting. “It’s gotten a lot better. A lot better. But it’s still there.”

Four of the nine-member court’s five more conservative members asked largely skeptical questions about the law. The fifth, Justice Clarence Thomas, did not ask a question, as is typical.

The law, a landmark achievement of the civil rights era was challenged by Shelby County, Ala., which said that the requirement had outlived its usefulness and that it imposed an unwarranted badge of shame on the affected jurisdictions.

The county’s lawyer, Bert W. Rein, said that the “problem to which the Voting Rights Act was addressed is solved.”

In reauthorizing the provision for 25 years in 2006, Congress did nothing to change the criteria for inclusion under the provision, relying instead on a formula based on historic practices and voting data from elections held decades ago. Much of the argument concerned that coverage formula.

Should the court strike down the coverage formula, Congress would be free to take a fresh look at what jurisdictions should be covered. But making distinctions among the states based on new criteria may not be politically feasible.

Four years ago, the court signaled that the law may need revision to withstand constitutional scrutiny, hinting that Congress might want to take a fresh look at the places subject to the preclearance provision, called Section 5. Congress failed to act.

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said Congress had made a considered and cautious decision in extending the act.

Debo P. Adegbile, a lawyer with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said that “our right to vote is what the United States Constitution is about.”

Section 5, originally set to expire five years after the law was enacted, was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1966 as a rational response to the often flagrantly lawless conduct of some Southern officials then.

Congress repeatedly extended the requirement: for 5 years in 1970, 7 years in 1975, and 25 years in 1982. Congress renewed the act in 2006 after holding extensive hearings on the persistence of racial discrimination at the polls, again extending the preclearance requirement for 25 years.

But it made no changes to the list of jurisdictions covered by Section 5, relying instead on a formula based on historical practices and voting data from elections held decades ago. It applies to nine states — Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia — and to scores of counties and municipalities in other states.

Last May, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the law. Judge David S. Tatel, writing for the majority, acknowledged that “the extraordinary federalism costs imposed by Section 5 raise substantial constitutional concerns,” and he added that the record compiled by Congress to justify the law’s renewal was “by no means unambiguous.”

“But Congress drew reasonable conclusions from the extensive evidence it gathered,” he went on. The constitutional amendments ratified after the Civil War, he said, “entrust Congress with ensuring that the right to vote — surely among the most important guarantees of political liberty in the Constitution — is not abridged on account of race.”

“In this context,” he wrote, “we owe much deference to the considered judgment of the people’s elected representatives.”

The dissenting member of the panel, Judge Stephen F. Williams, surveyed recent evidence concerning registration and turnout, the election of black officials, the use of federal election observers and suits under another part of the law. Some of that evidence, he said, “suggests that the coverage formula completely lacks any rational connection to current levels of voter discrimination,” while other evidence indicates that the formula, “though not completely perverse, is a remarkably bad fit with Congress’s concerns.”

“Given the drastic remedy imposed on covered jurisdictions by Section 5,” he wrote, “I do not believe that such equivocal evidence can sustain the scheme.”

The Supreme Court last considered the constitutionality of the 2006 extension of the law in a 2009 decision, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder. But it avoided answering the central question and ruled instead on a narrow statutory ground, saying the utility district in Austin, Texas, that had challenged the constitutionality of the law might be eligible to “bail out” from being covered by it. Still, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, was skeptical about the continued need for Section 5.

“The historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable,” he wrote. But “things have changed in the South.”

He said: “Voter turnout and registration rates now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.”

“The statute’s coverage formula is based on data that is now more than 35 years old,” he added, “and there is considerable evidence that it fails to account for current political conditions.”

But the chief justice said the court should avoid deciding hard constitutional questions when it could. “Whether conditions continue to justify such legislation is a difficult constitutional question we do not answer today,” he wrote.

Wednesday’s argument in Shelby County v. Holder, No. 12-96, indicated that the justices are now prepared to provide an answer to the question they left open four years ago.

fivekatz
02-28-2013, 07:20 AM
Yes between Reagan and the two Bush's they have left us with some real winners.

Scalia talking about "racial entailment" just reeks of the 47% speech Romney gave his donors. Just so freaking out of touch with the realities of not having white skin in America.

hippifried
02-28-2013, 12:12 PM
What I don't understand is the surprise. Nobody's heard of the "southern strategy"? That was '68. 4 years after the Civil Rights Act. 3 years after the Voting Rights Act. What? You didn't think Honest Dick (Richard Milhous) Nixon got elected POTUS because people liked him, did ya? It works because... Well... Who wants to rock the boat when...:
Louis CK - Being White - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY)