Sunday, July 21, 2013


Lawmakers Consider Retooling Voting Rights Act

|Blog ---
Congress this week has convened its first hearings about the Voting Rights Act since the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of that law last month.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., testifies at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Voting Rights Act on Capitol Hill in Washington, on July 17, 2013.

The meetings offer some insights into what, if anything, lawmakers will do to restore the stricken section that enables the Justice Department to review in advance changes to state voting laws.

Fixing the Voting Rights Act

When the Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act this month, they left in place the section of the law that requires some states and parts of states to get pre-clearance from the Justice Department before implementing new voting laws.

House Republican Urges Voting-Rights Fix Before Elections.

A House Republican lawmaker said the Supreme Court’s decision rolling back a core part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act “severely weakened” balloting protections and urged Congress to rewrite the provision before the 2014 elections.

Representative James Sensenbrenner told the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington yesterday that the majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, ignored provisions in the law that allow state and local governments to escape oversight if they comply with anti-discrimination rules.

The fact that voting jurisdictions targeted by the law haven’t qualified for that provision “is evidence that the VRA’s extraordinary measures are still necessary,” said Sensenbrenner, 70. He was House Judiciary Committee chairman when Congress reauthorized the law in 2006.

“Voter discrimination still exists, and our progress toward equality should not be mistaken for a final victory,” the Wisconsin Republican said.

The hearing on the Voting Rights Act was the first by the Judiciary Committee since the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling on June 25 invalidated the formula for determining which states need federal approval before changing election rules.

The court said Congress lacked grounds for requiring some states, and not others, to obtain federal approval. Roberts’s majority opinion said Congress may create a new formula based on current voting conditions in specific jurisdictions.

Voter Identification

Less than 16 months from the 2014 midterm elections, little consensus has developed between the Democratic majority in the Senate and the Republican-controlled House on revising the landmark civil-rights law.

It has been used to halt thousands of state and local voting changes, including voter-identification laws in Texas and South Carolina last year.

“No one’s right to vote in any part of this great nation should be suppressed or denied, but yet we continue to see that discriminatory practice today,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat.

Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Judiciary panel, urged Democrats to propose a remedy to the court’s ruling.

“We could cover the whole country,” Grassley said. “We could identify jurisdictions engaging in discrimination in the 21st century.” On the day of the court’s ruling, he said the law was no longer necessary because states covered by it “don’t have discriminatory voting any more.”

President Barack Obama said after the ruling that he was “deeply disappointed” and called on Congress “to pass legislation to ensure every American has equal access to the polls.”

‘Will Act’

While Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, promised after the decision that the Senate “will act,” Republican House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio told reporters after the ruling that he was “reviewing the decision.”

The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold its first hearing on the Voting Rights Act today. Sensenbrenner, who said he’ll also testify in the House, called on Congress to fix the court’s ruling before the next election.

“We have to have the protections of the Voting Rights Act,” he said.

Under the preclearance requirement, all or parts of 15 states were required to have federal approval before changing election districts, amending voting rules or moving a polling place. The Justice Department used that provision, which covered virtually the entire South, to object to more than 2,400 state and local voting changes from 1982 to 2006.

Combating Discrimination

The Voting Rights Act was enacted to combat discrimination that kept black people away from Southern polling places for generations.

A separate section of the law bars voting discrimination nationwide and isn’t affected by the ruling.

“Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions,” Roberts wrote for the court.

Michael Carvin, an attorney who defended Florida Governor Rick Scott’s plan to purge non-citizens from the voting rolls, told the committee that Roberts’s opinion was a “very important step in protecting individual liberty.

” He said minority voting rights were protected by other provisions in the Voting Rights Act and that lawmakers would be “wise to wait and evaluate” whether another law is needed.

Luz Urbaez Weinberg, a Republican commissioner in Aventura, Florida, told the committee that federal voting regulations must be tougher to catch instances of voter suppression that have become “extremely sneaky, extremely sophisticated and extremely smarter” since the 1960s.

“I’m very scared as an elected official for my constituents,” she said.
Tags : , , ,



Popular Posts


Well, the way they make shows is, they make one show. That show's called a pilot. Then they show that show to the people who make shows, and on the strength of that one show they decide if they're going to make more shows.

Like you, I used to think the world was this great place where everybody lived by the same standards I did, then some kid with a nail showed me I was living in his world, a world where chaos rules not order, a world where righteousness is not rewarded. That's Cesar's world, and if you're not willing to play by his rules, then you're gonna have to pay the price.

You think water moves fast? You should see ice. It moves like it has a mind. Like it knows it killed the world once and got a taste for murder. After the avalanche, it took us a week to climb out. Now, I don't know exactly when we turned on each other, but I know that seven of us survived the slide... and only five made it out. Now we took an oath, that I'm breaking now. We said we'd say it was the snow that killed the other two, but it wasn't. Nature is lethal but it doesn't hold a candle to man.

You see? It's curious. Ted did figure it out - time travel. And when we get back, we gonna tell everyone. How it's possible, how it's done, what the dangers are. But then why fifty years in the future when the spacecraft encounters a black hole does the computer call it an 'unknown entry event'? Why don't they know? If they don't know, that means we never told anyone. And if we never told anyone it means we never made it back. Hence we die down here. Just as a matter of deductive logic.