NationStates Jolt Archive

According to the AP, they do seem to be the ones who don't want to renew and/or amend the act which was created to prevent sidelining voters based on their skin color with "tests". Are the congressmen's arguments valid or are they just trying for a smokescreen with which to go back to filtering voters based on race?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/26/AR2006062600676.html

Congress Urged to Renew Voting Rights Act


By ERRIN HAINES
The Associated Press
Monday, June 26, 2006; 2:51 PM

ATLANTA -- Civil rights advocates urged Congress on Monday to quickly renew provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, saying the "heart and soul" of the act is under attack by Southern Republicans.

"Martin Luther King's bones must be rattling in his grave that in 2006, these Dixiecrats are being possessed by the ghosts of (the late Sens. Strom) Thurmond and (Herman) Talmadge," the Rev. Joseph Lowery said at a news conference hosted by Concerned Black Clergy.

Members of the American Civil Liberties Union, Southern Christian Leadership Conference and Concerned Black Clergy of Metropolitan Atlanta called on Congress to renew the legislation before their weeklong July 4 recess.

In particular, they criticized Georgia Republican Reps. Lynn Westmoreland and Charlie Norwood, saying the two congressmen and other Southern Republicans who support amendments to the legislation were delaying the renewal of one of the major achievements of the civil rights movement.

The congressmen have argued that renewal of the act unfairly singles out nine states for federal oversight, without crediting them for making strides against past discriminatory voting practices.

Westmoreland spokesman Brian Robinson accused the voting rights advocates of resorting to name calling.

"It's sad that an issue as important as this is going to be muddied by such shameful tactics," Robinson said.

"Congressman Westmoreland is trying to modernize the Voting Rights Act so we can focus more attention on where there are problems today," he said. "Georgia has made tremendous progress and we should be judged on what we're doing today. We should not be judged eternally based on the 1964 presidential election."

Daniel Levitas of the ACLU Voting Rights Project in Atlanta urged people to contact their representatives this week and urge them to renew the act immediately.

"(Section 5) really is the heart and soul of the expiring enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act," Levitas said. "The amendment proposed by Norwood would gut Section 5 entirely. It's basically a 'get out of jail free' card for all of the Section 5-covered jurisdictions."

That is too bad. The GOP originally voted for it by a higher margin than Democrats.

That is too bad. The GOP originally voted for it by a higher margin than Democrats.

I think they are mostly opposing non-english ballots (on the theory that only citizens can vote and if you are a citizen you have to pass an english test) and special restrictions on 11 states that the other 39 dont have (on the theory that the law should apply to all states or none).

Maybe, but take out that act, and you could get significant cases of abuse as was the case prior to its legislation.

Maybe, but take out that act, and you could get significant cases of abuse as was the case prior to its legislation.

That's all they are trying to do, but the progressives and many republicans are scared to modify this "sacred" act, for fear of being accused of being "anti-voting."

i'm not familiar with this act but, judging from the reaction of civil rights groups, it sounds like some Republicans may be preparing ground for another shady re-election...

That's all they are trying to do,

Remove the act or abuse voting rights? It's hard to imagine that without this act, the people in charge wouldn't abuse voting rights again. And how would you stop people from fixing elections by denying entire ethnic blocks because of their voting trends?

Remove the act or abuse voting rights? It's hard to imagine that without this act, the people in charge wouldn't abuse voting rights again. And how would you stop people from fixing elections by denying entire ethnic blocks because of their voting trends?

How do you deny a whole voting block by removing the mandate for non-English ballots? Are non-citizens supposed to vote?

How do you deny a whole voting block by removing the mandate for non-English ballots? Are non-citizens supposed to vote?

Are you sure that it's ONLY non-English ballots that they want removed? As I said, the act was put in place to stop gross breaches of voting rights with procedural testings. Take that act out, and you'll be pre-1968 again. How would you stop it from happening again? Or claiming that because some people are felons, they can't vote when they aren't in the first place? By the time it's all cleared up, oops, too late, election date is past.

That is too bad. The GOP originally voted for it by a higher margin than Democrats.

Yeah, and then all the Dixiecrats left the Democratic party and joined the Republican party.

Your specious point is like claiming that Italy is the most powerful country in the world and then pointing to the accomplishments of the Roman Empire.

Are you sure that it's ONLY non-English ballots that they want removed? As I said, the act was put in place to stop gross breaches of voting rights with procedural testings. Take that act out, and you'll be pre-1968 again. How would you stop it from happening again? Or claiming that because some people are felons, they can't vote when they aren't in the first place? By the time it's all cleared up, oops, too late, election date is past.

Don't you know that state authority is sacrosanct and that Republican's are only trying to restore it?

Except with medical lawsuits.

And voting against republicans.

And Marijuana.

And Credit Protection.

either all 50 states must have every judicial district approved, or none. All or None.

If anyone thinks racism is going to come back like it was in the sixties, they're full of it.

The voting rights act will pass with a bipartisan vote. The question is whether the South should still be singled out for what they were like 40 years ago. They should not be.

If anyone thinks racism is going to come back like it was in the sixties, they're full of it.

Racism is just one aspect of it. The primary reason was to ensure that whichever party you wanted to won by blocking voting blocks with opposing trends.

The Voting Rights Act was a check to prevent that. Take it away, and you can bet the farm that we'll see a whole bunch of obstacles thrown up to frustrate rival voters.