Sunday Reflection: Voting Rights Anniversary

"Today is a towering and certain mark that, in this generation, that promise will be kept. In our time the two currents will finally mingle and rush as one great stream across the uncertain and the marvelous years of the America that is yet to come.

This act flows from a clear and simple wrong. Its only purpose is to right that wrong. Millions of Americans are denied the right to vote because of their color. This law will ensure them the right to vote. The wrong is one which no American, in his heart, can justify. The right is one which no American, true to our principles, can deny. [snip]

This law covers many pages. But the heart of the act is plain. Wherever, by clear and objective standards, states and counties are using regulations, or laws, or tests to deny the right to vote, then they will be struck down. If it is clear that State officials still intend to discriminate, then Federal examiners will be sent in to register all eligible voters. When the prospect of discrimination is gone, the examiners will be immediately withdrawn.

And, under this act, if any county anywhere in this Nation does not want Federal intervention it need only open its polling places to all of its people." -- from remarks by President Lyndon B. Johnson, at the signing of the Voting Rights Act on August 6, 1965.

Few would have thought that nearly 60 years later a right-wing movement in the U.S. would imperil that right to vote. With their decision in Shelby County v. Holder, the right-wing Supreme Court majority voted 5 to 4 to strike down the Voting Rights law's provision that certain states and local government get pre-clearance for any changes to their voting laws, based on their history of discrimination. That, and Republican / New Confederate party efforts to gerrymander Congressional districts and impose restrictions on voting that targeted minority and disadvantaged voters, is giving Republicans improper advantages in states and districts that should be more competitive. The ultimate attack on voting rights was the Malignant Loser's Big Lie and efforts to overturn the 2020 Presidential elections, which would have disenfranchised the 81 million voters for President Biden and ended our democratic republic's existence.

Elsewhere in his remarks, Johnson emphasized the need to register to vote, go out and vote, and then insist on your vote being counted. That's truer today than ever before.

(photo: President Johnson hands a signing pen to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. White House photo)

 

Wisconsin Republican: Voter Suppression Is Going To Help Us!

Dimbulb (are there any other kind?) Wisconsin Republican congressman Glenn Grothman* unintentionally spilled the beans on the real intent of Wisconsin's voter i.d. law on Tuesday.  Here's Seth Meyers on Republican attempts to make voting as difficult as possible in Wisconsin -- and North Carolina, and Arizona (the best starts around 3:35):



Let's pause to give thanks to the Republican Roberts Supreme Court for its gutting of the Voting Rights Act, because this wouldn't be possible without their "help."

* We think Grothman bears a resemblance to the Stupidest Man on the Internet, right wing blogger Jim Hoft.  Agree?

BONUS:  Here's more on Wisconsin Republicans' cynical voter suppression.

Voting Rights And Republicans

(click on image to enlarge)

 (Matt Wuerker, Politico)

Despite occasional "victories," voter enfranchisement once secured by the Voting Rights Act, passed 50 years ago on August 6, 1965, remains under assault by the Republican/ New Confederate/ Stupid Party.

Here's how Republicans "celebrate" voting rights after 50 years:

The Republican National Committee issued a statement on Thursday praising a law that Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have hobbled and that Republican officials have actively sought to undermine through state laws that disenfranchise racial minorities. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus’s statement on the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act even contains a coded call for more laws making it harder to Americans to cast a ballot.

The Clinton campaign has a run-down on where the "well-qualified" Republican candidates cranks stand on voting rights, in case you had any doubt.

Then Is Now Cartoon Of The Day, Cont.

(click on image to enlarge)

(Clay Jones, claytoonz.com)

Fixing the hole blown in the Voting Rights Act by the Republican "justices" on the Supreme Court isn't likely to happen soon.  Greg Sargent explains why:

...There’s no incentive for House Republicans to act. 

“A strong plurality of House Republicans are from the south, and their strategy has been to pack African Americans into one district across some southern states, and preserve every other district for themselves,” [David] Wasserman of the Cook Political report tells me. He adds that Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee each have one such black-heavy district, while North Carolina has two. [snip] 

“House Republicans are pretty happy with the status quo in the south — particularly the fact that packing African Americans has led to safe Republican surrounding districts,” Wasserman continues. “Any efforts to newly implement a pre-clearance regime could interfere with that status quo.”

That's why photo ops are about the only thing we'll get (and then, reluctantly) from the Republican/ New Confederate/ Stupid Party.

Photo And Quote Of The Day - Selma, Alabama

President Obama speaks at Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, March 7, 2015. (Getty Images)

... Right now, in 2015, fifty years after Selma, there are laws across this country designed to make it harder for people to vote. As we speak, more of such laws are being proposed. Meanwhile, the Voting Rights Act, the culmination of so much blood and sweat and tears, the product of so much sacrifice in the face of wanton violence, stands weakened, its future subject to partisan rancor.

How can that be? The Voting Rights Act was one of the crowning achievements of our democracy, the result of Republican and Democratic effort. President Reagan signed its renewal when he was in office. President Bush signed its renewal when he was in office. One hundred Members of Congress have come here today to honor people who were willing to die for the right it protects. If we want to honor this day, let these hundred go back to Washington, and gather four hundred more, and together, pledge to make it their mission to restore the law this year.

Full transcript of President Obama's address here.

A Lifeline for Voting Rights?

In addition to possible, but unlikely, Congressional action focusing on fixes to Section 4 of the VRA, there's certain legal action on the horizon utilizing the VRA's Section 2 to halt discriminatory voting procedures:

There is, however, a possible hurdle for those waging the "war on voting." The Supreme Court undermined the Voting Rights Act by targeting Section 5 of the law -- the provision related to pre-clearance -- ordering Congress to come up with new standards and leaving this area of the law unenforceable. But Section 2 of the VRA -- described by Chief Justice John Roberts in his ruling as "permanent" and applicable "nationwide" -- remains intact.

What does Section 2 of the VRA do?  It

...bans voting procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups.... To win a Section 2 case, the Justice Department or a plaintiff doesn't need to prove that a voting procedure had an invidious intent -- only that it had the result of denying a racial or language minority an opportunity to take part in the political process.

That just might be a legal threshold voting rights advocates can reach;  however, whether courts would hear such an argument prior to a voting procedure being employed during an election is doubtful.  The outcome would also depend, of course, on a fair and impartial hearing (eg., unlike that given the VRA by the antebellum, partisan Roberts court, with its made-up rationales).  Still, it's another possible tool to fight back against Rethuglican voter suppression until we have a Court that can overturn the Shelby County v. Holder decision.

It's Why We Call Them Rethuglicans - Supreme Court Edition

From today's oral arguments in Shelby County (Alabama) v.  Holder, which will decide whether the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is upheld or struck down in part or in full, we have this from the smug reptilian Rethuglican "Justice" Antonin Scalia regarding why the VRA's reauthorization has been passed by increasingly larger votes in the Senate each time it comes up:

"I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes...[snip]

"Even the name of it is wonderful: The Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?"

Even the attorney representing Shelby County wouldn't agree with Scalia that the VRA was a "perpetuation of racial entitlement."  But judging from the questions the five activist right-wing Rethuglican justices posed at the orals today, the VRA is hanging by a thread. Should it be struck down, it will be open season for Rethuglican legislatures in the South and elsewhere to proceed with their plans to disenfranchise as many minority voters as they can before the next election, through bogus voter i.d. and onerous voter registration laws.

"First it was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse," Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful." - See more at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.ruRvAtZF.dpuf

"First it was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse," Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful." - See more at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.8DhZOVOn.dpuf

"First it was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse," Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful." - See more at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.8DhZOVOn.dpuf

"First it was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse," Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful." - See more at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.MVW9AcKC.dpuf

"First it was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse," Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful." - See more at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.8DhZOVOn.dpuf

"First it was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse," Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful." - See more at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.MVW9AcKC.dpuf

"First it was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse," Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful." - See more at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.MVW9AcKC.dpuf