by Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger
Immigration reform activists suffered a disappointing setback this week. The Senate failed to muster enough votes to move forward with an annual defense authorization bill that would have included both the DREAM Act and a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as amendments. At Feet in Two Worlds, Sarah Kate Kramer has a good breakdown of the floor action.
As Kramer notes, not all is lost. The defense bill-and the DREAM Act with it-are certainly stalled, but Democrats say they plan to try again after midterm elections. The DREAM movement, for its part, seems invigorated by the close call.
(This is virtually the same sort of Bush-Administration type of move by the Obama DOJ I described yesterday with respect to undermining progress on the greeenhouse gas front. Again, this is a situation in which there is NO GOP obstructionism that one can point your finger at. This all a matter of internal Obama Administration decisionmaking. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
A two-year battle in the courts concluded this week when the Department of Justice approved Georgia's controversial voter verification system that was originally struck down in 2009 as inaccurate, unreliable, and worst of all, discriminatory against people of color and naturalized citizens. The decision leaves voting rights advocates dismayed as to why the DOJ would allow the state to implement this arguably overzealous and potentially disenfranchising procedure.
Sound unlikely? That's because the news comes from the state of Washington, where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals essentially struck down the state's felon disenfranchisement law because it's racially discriminatory and violates the federal Voting Rights Act.
An equal right to vote is at the core of our democracy. With an African American in the White House, it’s increasingly popular to believe that racial bias no longer exists, especially when it comes to voting. There’s no doubt that our nation has made significant progress in securing equal opportunity, but there’s still a long way to go. That’s why it was so important that the Supreme Court left in tact a key provision of the Voting Rights Act earlier this week. In reauthorizing this part of the Act, Congress reviewed a mountain of evidence showing that, unfortunately, voting discrimination is still a significant problem—especially in those places that were previously segregated by law.
A large, bi-partisan majority of Congress reauthorized the Act after hearing evidence about the hundreds of recent cases in which states, cities and counties denied or suppressed African American, Latino, or Native American votes. They heard of elections rescheduled or cancelled to prevent black workers and students from voting, of election districts intentionally drawn to dilute Latino voting strength, of polling places selected in remote locations to discourage minority voting, of false prosecutions, intimidation, and more. The evidence was from the last decade, not from the 1950s, ‘60s, or ‘70s.
To be sure, these tactics are are more subtle than the fire hoses and violence of past decades. But without continued enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, they would have denied the equal right to vote and, thereby, struck at the heart of our democracy. Things have changed—in large part because of the Voting Rights Act—but the Supreme Court correctly determined that this is not the time to walk away from the civil rights guarantees that protect us all.
As the United States has grown older, it has expanded the right to vote to nearly every group of citizens, with one notable exception: former felons. Today, 48 states have their own laws that disenfranchise convicted felons at some point during incarceration, probation, or parole. This hodgepodge of policies has created confusion for former offenders and election officials alike, and has resulted in the loss of voting rights for about 5.3 million Americans.
In 1965 the course of American democracy changed when the Voting Rights Act was enacted to ensure proper enforcement of the 15th Amendment of the United States Constitution, which grants equal voting rights to people of color. While many strides have been made since the VRA's enactment, including rising voter participation among the nation's historically underrepresented citizens, voting rights advocates argue that it is still a long road to truly non-discriminatory voting practices and a balanced electorate. Now, the course of American democracy may change again as the U.S. Supreme court is considering a high profile case that challenges the constitutionality of a key provision of the VRA.
After the voters spoke last November by turning out in record numbers, we enter a new year with a new president and multiple new agendas for election administration in the states that bring both excitement and concern from voting rights advocates. Whether the discussion is about upholding the landmark Voting Rights Act, the disenfranchisement that comes with voter ID, or even the distribution of provisional ballots, the conclusion remains the same: we should work to protect and facilitate every eligible citizens' right to vote, not impede it.
(Okay, so this post covers a lot of the ongoing horror story of how the media continues to uncritically repeat baseless GOP "voter fraud" claims, but eventually it DOES deliver on the promised morsel of good news from Virginia--hopefully a sign that the tide is starting to turn. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
We spend a lot of time in these news updates showing how charges of voter fraud are used to discredit voter participation efforts and prime the pump for voter suppression efforts, such as the passage of voter ID bills, pushing for proof of citizenship, engaging in draconian voter purge efforts, and imposing sever restrictions on voter registration drives. We have also spent a lot of time carefully delineating the politics behind these efforts, starting with our March 2007 report The Politics Of Voter Fraud and continuing on in these diaries to name but two venues.
Reports and exits polls this entire political season have built a narrative of tremendous, even record-breaking voter participation, pushing us to believe that voter turnout in November will exceed all expectations.
In 2000, Florida's disastrous effort to purge former felons from voter rolls resulted in the disenfranchisement of hundreds if not thousands of legitimate voters and clearly influenced the outcome of the presidential contest in that state. History may repeat itself this November with states taking potentially reckless and unlawful measures to clean voter rolls before Election Day.
I want to address a fundamental misunderstanding that seems to be directed at just about everyone here at Open Left-the notion that just because we frequently critricize Obama, we therefore hate him. This is, quite frankly, such an absurd notion on its face that I've been remise in not addressing it sooner. So let me be as clear as possible: To criticize a politician is not necessarily to attack him. Indeed, it is simply the most basic duty of a citizen, and a necessary precondition for the politician being criticized to reach their full potential.
Our leaders are not kings, indeed, they are not even our leaders. They are followers of the true leaders-those who recognize injustice and refuse to accept it.
Left: Civil Rights marchers paid the price of freedom in Selma, Alabama a week before LBJ took up their cause and introduced the Voting Rights Act, using their rallying cry, "We Shall Overcome." Congressman John Lewis was among those beaten.
Officeholders, on the other hand, may not be true leaders, but they are (1) public servants and (2) official leaders. On both counts, listening and responding to public criticism is, quite simply, an integral part of the job they've taken on. Bad things happen when they forget this-but worse things happen when the people themselves forget this. And that's what we seem to be in danger of, when Obama supporters start treating him like a man who can do no wrong, a man that none of us should criticize. We rightly criticize coservatives for taking this same attitude toward palapable fools, but the atttitude itself is fust as flawed when directed toward far superior men.
And that's where Lynodon Johnson comes it. You see, the Vietnam War was such a terrible event in our history, such a long, drawn-out, bloody crime, that it's difficult for most people to remember all the other things that Lyndon Johnson did-the things that, unlike the Vietnam War, he actually believed in. In order to really understand how bad the Vietnam War was, morally and political for our nation, you have to appreciate how good Lyndon Johnson really was. He was, in terms of his domestic record, the second greatest President of the 20th Century-second only to FDR. Part of his greatness was born of his own intentions, and part of it came from his openness to others.
There is a strong correlation between the Voting Rights Act and the election of minorities to national, state and local levels office, according to this study in the July issue of the PS: Political Science and Politics. In fact, the numbers indicate that without the provisions in the Voting Rights Act, there would be almost no minority elected officials anywhere in the United States.
(My good friend Donna Brazile posted on the anniversary of the Voting Rights Act and the fight that is still going on today to ensure minorities the right to vote. It's a good post, and a good reminder to all of us that the battle for fair voting is not going to end anytime soon, that we have to remain always vigilant. - promoted by Mike Lux)
The United States of America encourages every nation but itself to adopt broad democratic principles and reform. It's time we heed our own call and make a basic policy decision that it is in the best interest of our democratic form of government to encourage all eligible citizens to register and vote.
We know that election laws in some states emphasize voting prevention rather than encouraging the participation of all citizens who have that right. This is one reason why voter participation in the United States is lower than that in many other leading democracies. By contrast, election participation in six states that provide same-day voter registration - Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Wyoming - have reported higher levels of participation with little or no reported election fraud.
An election with integrity is one that includes all eligible and only eligible voters. While it is important to prevent and discourage any fraudulent and deceptive practices, our most urgent call today must be the systematic removal of all structural and political barriers that prevent eligible citizens from participating in their own government.
It's time to act before the next presidential election.
STATE BLOGS
