[President Lyndon Johnson at the signing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law.]
Their 5-4 decision yesterday was in favor of striking down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. That provision, Section 5 of the Act, required certain states and counties where voter discrimination against black Americans was rampant to get "pre-clearance" from the U.S. Justice Department for any changes in voting procedure. This was to prevent any attempts to suppress the vote among black voters. The states that are currently affected, as of 2008, are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. In addition, counties in California, Florida, North Carolina, and South Dakota, as well as townships in Michigan and New Hampshire are included under the Act.
The Act has been up for a vote four times since its initial enactment, on whether or not to uphold temporary sections and provisions of the Act. In 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2006, they have remained upheld. In the last congressional vote, it was upheld by a 390-33 vote in the House of Representatives and a unanimous 98-0 vote in the Senate. On July 27, 2006, then-President George W. Bush signed the Act's reenactment into law for another twenty-five years.
The Act should not have needed revisiting until the year 2031. Yesterday's vote stunted that.
The reasoning, if it could be summed up in one word, is that the provision, the very core of the Act, is "irrelevant". In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that things in this country regarding racism and racial voting discrimination have changed for the better, arguing that discrimination, which he openly admitted still exists, is far different today than it was in 1965. True, but has it changed enough? Notice he doesn't say racial voting discrimination no longer exists or is at such low levels as to deem it irrelevant, just that the provision of Act is irrelevant.
"While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy the problem speaks to the current conditions," Roberts continued. He described the way the areas covered by the Act is determined as having "no logical relation to the present day". That's funny, it has been in Congress, the very body the Court said should be in charge of rectifying this, that has been where attempts to suppress the vote, including local governance. (Hint, Justice Roberts: while less, racism still exists.)
As soon as the Court's ruling came down, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced that "the state's voter ID law will take effect immediately" and "redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government." (The same was attempted in Texas in 2011, and put in place and struck down by a federal court in 2012.) Redistricting maps, also known as gerrymandering, is one way of suppressing and intentionally swaying voter turnout.
Judge Roberts also cited how the Act states that "all changes to state election law -- however innocuous -- [are halted] until they have been precleared by federal authorities in Washington, D.C." It is the issue of something being innocuous that raises a red flag for me. Sometimes, it's not even on a statewide level, but on a local level, as in a county, that this gerrymandering takes place. One example is how Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinch lost his congressional seat in last year's midterm elections because of county redistricting.
Moving a polling place from one side of town to other or limiting voting hours (in an effort to "save money" or because of a "lack of volunteers") may seem relatively innocuous on the surface. For those who miss out on voting because of these moves -- maybe because of their work schedule or their inability to get, say, across town to the polling station for lack or limit of public transportation -- those actions are nothing less than disenfranchising. The smokescreen on how innocuous these moves are is becoming thinner and thinner.
In her dissenting opinion, Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted how the overwhelming House and Senate votes in 2006 were an obvious sign that the country remains in favor of these provisions staying intact. She cited numerous legal cases in which attempts to deal with this issue piecemeal proved time and time again to be not sweeping enough and ultimately ineffective. She wrote that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted as a response to "a century's failure to fulfill the promise of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution."
In her expression of the role of the Supreme Court in this case, Judge Ginsburg notes that any evidence given for a reauthorization should show less evidence of what is at the center of the argument -- thus, the law or statute is working -- than when initial presentations were made. She wrote, "If the statute was working, there would be less evidence of discrimination, so opponents might argue that Congress should not be allowed to renew the statute. In contrast, if the statute was not working, there would be plenty of evidence of discrimination, but scant reason to renew a failed regulatory regime." Clearly, Section 5 has been in place for nearly a half-century and has been working for just as long.
What about if it wasn't in place, either by non-renewal or striking it down as unconstitutional? We will now find out, with Texas and Arizona, two states that had been affected by Section 5, leading the way.
Redistricting, voter ID cards, "voter protection", limiting or eliminating early voting, and voter rolls purging have been become commonplace enough to be called prevalent. Names like Texas Governor Rick Perry, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, and Pennsylvania House Republican Leader Mike Turzai, among others, have usurped ... no, they have tried to usurp more important names and places. Names such as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, Thurgood Marshall, Julian Bond, Dick Gregory, James Bevel, and many others...and such places as Selma, Alabama; Montgomery, Alabama; Birmingham, Alabama; Memphis, Tennessee; and on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.
And those who gave their lives in the fight for equal rights -- sometimes while intentionally standing up for them, some while doing ordinary non-protest activities -- can never be forgotten. Some of their names include Emmett Louis Till, Willie Edwards Jr., William Lewis Moore, Medgar Evers, Rev. James Reeb, Viola Gregg Liuzzo, Vernon Ferdinand Dahmer, and, of course, Rev. King.
As a white male, it is easy, and I would argue logical, to ask why I am being so emphatic on this issue. Fair enough. Here's why: civil rights are not just for blacks, but for everyone. When some faction of our numbers is denied equal rights, we are less of a nation. No, it doesn't affect my money, bank account, type of clothing, social status, etc., but civil rights are human rights. As a human being, it is illogical and inhumane to me to fight or argue against them. I'd want to do the same and would want the same to be done for me. Wouldn't you? It really is that simple to me.
Another idea I had for the title of this blog was "Term of the Day: IN VAIN" because it seems, at the onset, that all of the hard work, the loss of life, and the struggle itself were all in vain. Indeed, it seems that way...at least for now. The fight was never fully over. Major victories, like the Voting Rights Acts of 1965, have occurred, and those victories are great and necessary. The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday dismantled all of that struggle, and set us back forty-eight years.
Like with its vote in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, the Supreme Court has become the latest bastion for the dismantling of the United States of America. Such a distinction, which seems to have resided with only the Executive and Legislative branches, now resides in all three branches of our government. "[O]f the people, by the people, and for the people"...makes you wonder what people, exactly, are the powers that be thinking of.
The struggle is, unfortunately, renewed, expanded, and intensified. The fight goes on. There is a lot of catching up to do.
Terry
No comments:
Post a Comment