Voting Rights Act Before The Supreme Court
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-02-26/voting-rights-act-supreme-court
The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution made it illegal for states to deny voting rights based on race or color. But Southern states enacted poll taxes and literacy tests to keep blacks from voting. Then in 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 of the Act identified nine states for their history of discrimination. The new law required these states to get “pre-clearance” from the government before changing their voting laws. Critics of Section 5 say the formula is outdated and violates states’ rights. But supporters argue voting rights are still at risk in these areas of the country and need special protection. Diane and guests discuss the future of the Voting Rights Act at the Supreme Court.
Guests
Jeffrey Rosen
professor at George Washington University Law School and legal affairs editor of The New Republic; author of "The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries that Defined America"
Sherrilyn Ifill
director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Michael Carvin
partner at Jones Day and former Department of Justice official in the Civil Rights Division, Reagan Administration (1985-1987).
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Firehouse? ecgberht2? sorry I don't get your reference.
Did anybody know that King Ecgberht lived long enough that he would have received a couple years or more of Social Security (a program fortunately legal in that constitutional monarchy, as opposed to the illegal nature of the program in the United States despite being found legal by the only relevant arbiter)?
Saxon OE was a cauldron of culture with Viking and Frankish influence for centuries enriching their society. Modern English is so rich due to those and later mixing with other cultures.
Not sure what this has to do with civil rights, but it would be great if all of us recognized the greatness of others, neighbors and strangers. We are enriched by discourse from others, and how we treat each other should be the main criteria of how ethical we are.
What is the value of questioning the motives of others? Asking Cui bono is important, but so is finding out the goals of each of us for the society.
ramblings, sorry
Visitors to the south often find a carefully partitioned environment - one that separates the tourist from the true community. Nowhere is this more evident than in New Orleans. Until such time that the "minority" members of these communities agree that it is time to amend the Voting Rights Act I am satisfied with the obligations imposed on these states. Thank you for this conversation one that enables us to pierce the veil.
Diane, I agree with your points on this topic. But please stop cutting off people who disagree with you. It undermines your position.
I was so incensed at the rudeness of it that I had to turn the show off. It's unfortunate, because this is such a fantastic issue.
NTGA wrote: "Ridiculous, aren't the Justices who dissent in essence saying that they don't believe a given case and it's ruling is constitutional? "random individual" I can't have an opinion?"
Yes, you and I have opinions about if a law should be ruled unconstitutional. But technically it is the Supreme Court that determines the constitutionality of a law. Making the leap to say that programs that have been duly litigated and found constitutional are instead illegal is not stating an opinion. That is misinformation. Perhaps saying that you are upset that they were found legal is an opinion. As a point of explanation, say you disagree that a jury found someone not guilty. Fine so far. Saying that the person is a criminal is technically wrong and could be considered libel.
Duh, yes. the 1859 ref was a cheap shot. Guilty as charged.
Why are so many posts missing????
ADMINISTRATOR PLEASE ANSWER
"Making the leap to say that programs that have been duly litigated and found constitutional are instead illegal is not stating an opinion. That is misinformation. Perhaps saying that you are upset that they were found legal is an opinion"
Hair splitting, lets just say I side with the dissenters who believed the decisions were not Constitutional.
Not going to put much effort in this if my posts are being removed.
To Not that guy again:
I was responding to NPRisajoke's insulting comment,"What’s ridiculous is your willful ignorance of the facts." As for the points I had to offer: they were made in an earlier post. As for your observation of his having made "a lot of good points"... Ha! (That's me laughing) Do you now consider that an insult? As Salman Rushdie once said, "No one has the right to not be offended."
Ernest: Bravo on your comments. You are right on target with your statement "My point is not that discrimination doesn't exist, but rather that BOTH black and white have lost focus on what it takes to get ahead. Some whites (disturbingly) trying to maintain control over the inevitable change in demographics hang onto the old prejudices. However, some blacks (disturbingly) hold onto the view that their lack of upward mobilty is due to continued rampant discrimination even in face of significant numbers of black politicians, athletes, and entertainers acheiving success."
The evidence of the loss of that focus is in the postings today by the likes of specifically: Pancake Rankin, Etaoin Shrdlu and Blueneck Billy Bob...
Note how they are all too willing to lay 100% of the blame on partisan disparity. Being moored in this kind of political muck and mire is what keeps us all, black, white Asian etc. and a nation at a stand still. Come on guys... can't we rise above the opportunity to hurl rocks long enough to make a difference with our comments?
Time to be part of the solution and not add to the problem by heaping ignorance on top of bias.
John Hutchinson, you called me ignorant. And you have yet to offer anything substantive. Frankly, I can't compete with your ability to make yourself seem small and uninformed, so keep those posts coming. Obama's dumbed-down campaign was created for people just like you.
john hutchinson wrote: As for the points I had to offer: they were made in an earlier post. As for your observation of his having made "a lot of good points"... Ha! (That's me laughing) Do you now consider that an insult?
Are you the one flagging the posts?
Points? All I saw was a personal vendetta and the desire for revenge. In your second comment, it was nothing more than a slam on someone you violently disagree with and nothing offered as to why, only personal insults. But it's gone, who cares anyway, live and let live dude. NPRisajoke's comment was way more substantial than yours, regardless of the political message.
john hutchinson wrote"the smug tones from those states who refer to the voting rights act as "outdated" or in need of "moving into the 21st century" are so arrogantly inappropriate as to warrant a stern rebuke when we remember the clear and indisputable backwardness that is the history of those same states. How dare they? They have not yet earned back the right to be trusted by a society still committed to principles of justice."
citizencontact wrote:
"Firehouse? ecgberht2? sorry I don't get your reference".
Really? Really? "I am clueless how someone could not be aware of" the firehouse effect, cc!
Especially you; your pontificating about SOTUS and Constitutionality is a prime example as is 90% of the posts on this board ... give or take.
Firehouse Effect: The Firehouse Effect posits that firemen with a lot of idle time between calls often sit around talking with each other. Because they are like-minded in certain aspects, (they're all firemen) and because they only discuss a limited number of topics, over time they cease questioning each other and often converge on conclusions that an outside observer would find illogical or ridiculous.
Some of us here enjoy the give and take of ideas and information without the inclination or DESIRE (emphasis not anger) to squeeze out other points of view, and then talk about how open-minded we are. Or, for that matter, how "incapable of openness to other ideas and viewpoints" other participants are. Knowing what you believe and being able to articulate it does not make one "incapable of openness to other ideas and viewpoints".
to NPRisajoke guy:
So, I guess that means you are from the south and are over 50. Well, if that's the case then it's official, your own ignorance is inexcusable. As for anything substantive offered in my original posts: I believe my observations on the smug and arrogant attitudes of those Alabamians seeking to throw down the Voting Rights Act were quite substantive. Too bad you don't agree.
To Not that guy again:
To answer your lame question, no I'm not flagging anyone's post. But I am glad my original post bugged you. "Vendetta and the desire for revenge" ? If by that you're suggesting that my distrust of the state that in my lifetime did everything it could, legally or illegally to prevent African Americans from voting is unfounded, then you are wasting my time.
john hutchinson wrote: "But I am glad my original post bugged you"
Actually I had to go back and find it because I didn't realize you had a previous post, I glossed over it because it didn't say anything.
I bet you did flag me, you're obviously an emotional hot head.
ecgberht,
Thanks for explaining the firehouse reference. Every once and awhile I dip into this open non-moderated discussion boards. I prefer listservs or coffee shops or conferences where people are more open to conversation that develops ideas. There are better venues online then drshow, but NPR is an excellent source of information and sometimes I end up here. But it always seems like a dead end for new ideas or for reaching consensus or even agreeing on facts. I can appreciate how some might enjoy the banter here, but it is not my cup of tea. You seem to appreciate it, so have fun.
Ciao for now,
Daniel
Ernest on February 26, 2013 @ 7:09 am wrote: “My point is not that discrimination doesn't exist, but rather that BOTH black and white have lost focus on what it takes to get ahead.”
Thanks for the clarification, that does change things considerably.
I’m not sure I agree with the point you are making (certainly not entirely), but it’s quite different from the impression you gave in your first Comment.
To Not that guy again, writing on February 26, 2013 @ 9:23 am:
What’s truly “mindblowing” is the fact you, and the obvious member of the “hardcore right” behind the site you linked to, think there’s anything “mindblowing” at all in that report. Let’s look at the facts.
The first witness starts by complaining about too many “privacy covers” being handed out with ballots. Now, it’s not exactly clear what those are, but it appears to be a means to allow people to vote privately. News flash! That’s how all ballots are supposed to be voted. Ever hear of secret ballots? The only person who’s supposed to know how a particular person voted is the voter!
Then she also complains about too many “spoiled ballots”. What exactly does that mean, and how is that voting fraud? As I recall there were plenty of “spoiled ballots” in West Palm Beach Florida in 2000, but when an investigation was launched to examine this (and other voting “irregularities”), it was quashed courtesy of the conservatives on the Supreme Court. (Who, by a strange coincidence, all happened to be Republicans.)
Finally, she talks about the voting results and implies there was something fishy because it was so lopsided. Now, aside from the fact that we don’t know who this person is, or what qualifications or expertise she has to testify on this subject, we also don’t know how accurate she is. (Yes, that’s a polite term for “is she lying?”)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Remember during that election for the Wisconsin Supreme Court the Republican candidate was losing, until the head of the local election board pulled a rabbit out of her hat (actually, more ballots out of . . . . somewhere)? Did you consider that “suspicious” the time, did that woman?
And what the heck does any of that have to do with Voter ID?
As for the second witness: let me state that I’m no fan of same-day registration, and her testimony gives me support for that position. But even there her objection seems to be with the polling officials not doing their job, not with any “voter fraud”. (Again, Voter ID wouldn’t make a difference to what she was talking about.)
However, that witness did touch on the real problem with our election system (beyond gerrymandering, the influence of money, etc.): the poor job the Boards of Election are doing. There have been numerous studies of the failure to properly maintain and update the registration lists. I can testify directly to that myself.
For years I would walk my district carrying nominating petitions to get signatures. I would use the registration list provided by my county’s Election Board to locate houses where voters of the proper party were located. And every year, when I got to the house, I’d be told that the person I’m looking for had either moved, died, or was no longer registered in that party - even after I informed the Board of the mistake!
A good friend of mine moved “back East” from where I live now. But guess what? She’s still registered to vote here! That’s the real problem, and Voter ID laws will do nothing to solve it.
To Not that guy again, writing on February 26, 2013 @ 10:55 am:
Just because you don’t like “federal welfare programs” doesn’t make them unconstitutional. They’ve been upheld by numerous Justices, both conservative as well as liberal.
Regarding the whole “Is the Constitution Dead or Alive” dispute - frankly I consider it one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. The correct answer is it’s both! The words on the printed page don’t change (absent amendment), but our understanding of their meaning and application definitely does! (Again, both conservative and liberal Justices recognize that.)
And beware of conservatives claiming to do one thing, while actually doing the opposite. A good example is the case of D.C. v. Heller (the Second Amendment case) where, under the guise of following the “original intent”, the conservative majority effectively erased the first 13 words of the Amendment, even though that’s perhaps the only place in the Constitution where the intent is spelled out!
And they did so with “reasoning” that would get an “F” on a law school exam, along with a suggestion from the professor that they try another profession.
(For more examples of conservative “judicial activism”, try reading, or stomaching, The Slaughter House Cases, Plessy v. Ferguson, or Lochner v. New York. All three are prime examples of conservatives making law up out of thin air!)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
And before you assume that I disagree with anything conservative judges decide, let me add that I agree with the judgment in D.C. v. Heller. There clearly is an individual right “to keep and bear arms”. What I object to is the way the conservatives went about deciding that. (Unlike you, I’m not “result oriented”.)
climatewiz1 on February 26, 2013 @ 3:16 pm wrote: “Note how they are all too willing to lay 100% of the blame on partisan disparity.”
I’m curious on what basis you make that accusation against me? As of the time you wrote, I had posted exactly one Comment (at 5:06 am). Now, while it’s true I made reference to a false campaign statement by Romney, and to “many of the conservatives” continuing to believe in that lie (but note: I didn’t say all conservatives), that was simply to identify the Comments on the All Things Considered webpage I was referring to - the ones that introduced racism into a discussion where it had no business being.
Tell me, sir, did you bother to look at those Comments? Did you, in particular, spot the one by “P S” where she asked about the “black composition” of Louisiana versus Vermont? Can you figure out how that could possibly be relevant to the discussion? (Which was the fact that Romney tended to win the States with the highest percentage of non-income tax payers, and Obama tended to win the States with the lowest - contrary to Romney's assertion that the “47%” would always support Obama.)
I certainly see no relevance. Louisiana, after all, has a higher Black population than Vermont, yet Romney won in the former and lost in the latter. The same is true for Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia - they all have a higher Black percentage than Vermont, and they also have more of that “47%” - but Romney won them all.
And what of the postings of people on “your side”? (Not that guy again, for example.) They seem to be just as partisan, and “moored in this kind of political muck and mire”.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Oh, and I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the Justices who are expected to view the Voting Rights Act with disfavor are “conservative Republicans”, as are most of the people speaking against it.
There will no “solutions” as long as you remain deliberately blind.
ecgberht2 on February 26, 2013 @ 3:57 pm wrote: “Some of us here enjoy the give and take of ideas and information without the inclination or DESIRE . . . to squeeze out other points of view, and then talk about how open-minded we are.”
Yes, but unfortunately you don’t fit that description.
Dear Not that guy again:
I sincerely hope your Comments aren't being deliberately removed, and that it's just a glitch in the system. (It's happened to me sometimes.)
But if you are being "censored", then let me say I share your outrage.
Ciao.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
ecgberht2 on February 26, 2013 @ 3:57 pm wrote: “Some of us here enjoy the give and take of ideas and information without the inclination or DESIRE . . . to squeeze out other points of view, and then talk about how open-minded we are.”
Yes, but unfortunately you don’t fit that description.
So, what? You're trying to pick a fight?
Instead of just insulting me with rhetoric, why don't you post some examples where I've tried to chase other people off the board? I'll check back in a couple of days and see if you've found anything.
EXACTLY!!!
All good points! Good for you.