Getty Images
Almost exactly a year ago, Josh Gerstein noted, "In a political system where even the most trivial issues trigger partisan rancor, the Voting Rights Act has stood for several decades as a rare point of bipartisan consensus. Until now."
Quite right. As recently as 2006 -- hardly ancient history -- the Republican-led House and Republican-led Senate reauthorized the Voting Rights Act with overwhelming support. Then-President George W. Bush celebrated the law's extension with a high-profile signing ceremony.
But as the Republican Party has grown increasingly radicalized, the bipartisan support for the Voting Rights Act has quickly evaporated -- Attorney General Eric Holder recently noted that there have been more conservative legal challenges to the Section 5 of the VRA over the past two years than during the previous four decades. All of this is culminating in a critical Supreme Court showdown, with oral arguments set to begin two weeks from tomorrow.
Ari Berman reports in The Nation on what's at stake, and who's driving the fight.
Last November, three days after a presidential election in which voter suppression played a starring role, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to Section 5 of the VRA, which compels parts or all of sixteen states with a history of racial discrimination in voting to clear election-related changes with the federal government....The lawsuit, originating in Shelby County, Alabama, is backed by leading operatives and funders in the conservative movement, along with Republican attorneys general in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas. Shelby County's brief claims that "Section 5's federalism cost is too great" and that the statute has "accomplished [its] mission."
The current campaign against the VRA is the result of three key factors: a whiter, more Southern, more conservative GOP that has responded to demographic change by trying to suppress an increasingly diverse electorate; a twenty-five-year effort to gut the VRA by conservative intellectuals, who in recent years have received millions of dollars from top right-wing funders, including Charles Koch; and a reactionary Supreme Court that does not support remedies to racial discrimination.
The timing of the right's campaign against the VRA is important to understand in context.
Indeed, the fact that aggressive Republican challenges to the Voting Rights Act have occurred over the last two years is not a coincidence -- GOP policymakers nationwide launched an ambitious "war on voting," deliberately creating longer voting lines, closing early-voting windows, addressing imaginary voter fraud through punitive voter-ID laws, restricting voter-registration drives, and overseeing an anti-voting campaign unlike anything seen in the United States since the days of Jim Crow.
And that was before the 2012 elections. Since then, Republicans have picked up where they left off, expanding these efforts and even considering a scheme to rig the system through which presidential electoral votes are allocated.
In other words, there's a larger effort underway, the elements are not unrelated. Republicans believe they'll lose if they compete on a level playing field ... so they restrict voting rights ... which is illegal in several states under the Voting Rights Act ... so they target the VRA for elimination.
Berman's piece details the history of the law and the players gearing up behind the scenes to destroy it, and it's well worth your time. The larger takeaway is obvious: more so than at any point in recent memory, the Voting Rights Act is needed, and the Republican campaign to crush the law deserves to be a national scandal.
Leave a Comment:
This will test the integrity of the court systems. There is no way a rational judge can rule that voting rights are not under attack.
Then just how do you explain "Citizens United".
Scalia and the conservatives have been pressing the argument that disputes on redistricting are nonjudiciable. First they assert that there is no measure for judging the fairness of a redistricting plan. Given this- they assert courts cannot rule and must abstain from any such cases.
The answer is no. This means that if Scotus rules the district system non-judiciable it is therefore unconstitutional because there is the constitutional guarantee of one person one vote cannot be protected by the courts.
------------
Note there is nothing in the constitution about congressional districts. It is an invention of the states, and up until the 70s there were states with representatives elected at large. Many countries have representation where the citizens vote their preferences for all representatives from their "state" at once- and their preferences are porportionally allocated based on their votes.
I'd guess Lebowsky would explain that ruling by pointing to his use of the word "rational."
Chris Hayes makes the point that our expectation of apolitical judges is the crucial site of the irrationality.
And the irrationality is our own, not that of the judges. Scalia and his conservative allies on the court is executing a rigorously rational campaign of using the courts to achieve political objectives.
The current Court has no problem reversing much older precedents than "one man, one vote."
Scalia and his conservative allies on the court is executing a rigorously rational campaign of using the courts to achieve political objectives.
This is totally ironic because the purpose of the SCOTUS was to be an apolitical body, a balance for the executive and legislative branches.
I think Hayes' analysis is that it always has been political. It's not a cynical perspective. The idea is simply that what Congress does is make law, what congress does is execute law, and what the Judiciary does is interpret law.
Why should we assume that the first two, of making and executing are political in the extreme, while interpretation is somehow divinely immaculate, unsoiled by lowly political goals?
The reason lies in fundamentalist idolators of Enlightenment principles that the priests of logic are voices of divine wisdom. They are not, nor should we regard the 7 justices as otherworldly priests, but very much as political players- and very powerful ones at that due to their lifetime terms.
The modern day Republican party can't win on the issues, so they try to reduce the voter pool among Democratic voters. I see their logic, but if that's the case, it is past time for a moderate, center right party to form and drop the teabagging Republicans. I tend to vote Democratic, but nations do run better with a pair of rational political parties.
Exactly right. Instead of coming up with policy positions that people can take seriously, they do nothing but lie, puke up talking points, and supress voters. They know they can't win on their The wealthy will trickle down (IOW, piss on you) and you will be very, very happy with anything they opt to give you (because, we, the GOP don't think you deserve a representative government, only the job creator class does. (Let's not talk about who the job creators are...because they are as much the people who have money to buy stuff. But let's not give the GOP too much to comprehend...they have limited ability.)
"...but nations do run better with a pair of rational political parties."
And therein is the conundrum. The GOTP have proven over and over and over that they are many things "rational, reasonable, knowledgeable, competent, reality based, et.al" are none of the words that I would use to describe them....
Corporations are people but minorities aren't. Why is that so hard to get? Right, shooter?
and urbanites are only 3/5 person compared to a rural (real) person.
</snark>
It will be interesting to see what argument the right will make against the VRA, although I'm sure it has something to do with trampling their constitutional rights in some way.
It's like Karen Finney said last night on Last Word (talking about the VAWA), the right seems think that they have to give up rights in order to give them to someone else.
All of us who want the keep our democracy need to pay close attention to who is running for Secretary of State in our respective states. We fell asleep in 2010. We must not do that again.
In WI the Republicans keep passing bills that are diminishing the power of the Secretary of State to a figurehead office.
That will change once a Republican holds the office.
we will see what happens. but, it's obvious - they are trying to take away the RIGHT TO VOTE
Not at all. They're just making sure that people don't vote for the wrong people, or alternately that the wrong people don't vote.
"We can't allow people to keep their rights; It costs too much!"
Seriously, how is that a valid argument at all?
Right, Dave. These people must think that the Supreme Court operates free of charge.
Supreme Court Justices are many things, but inexpensive isn't one of them.
White Resistance has a long and ugly parallel legacy to our American Experience. We are witnessing the last vestiges of such untoward political machinations!
J. C. Calhoun fetish if you ask me! -Kevo
The campaign against the Voting Rights Act is indeed a scandal, and the article in The Nation is excellent. We have more on the Voting Rights Act on our website here: http://www.afj.org/connect-with-the-issues/voting-rights-act.html
Alliance for Justice
Washington DC
www.afj.org
If the Republicans were honest brokers we wouldn't need VRA, but they aren't, and have clearly shown what their intentions are. Their desire to win at all costs has corrupted them and they are shameless in their tactics. If they think they are winning the hearts of the American people they are wrong and if they think there will not be consequences for their vile behavior they are wrong about that as well.
Republicans are under pressure from the southern states to deliver these challenges to the VRA which is what caused the Southern Dems to change parties. The SCOTUS must have been out of their minds to take such a case up for a decision on the merits with the current political structure. They would be better off deciding a procedural issue to send it back to the lower courts and avoid any controversial decision. There is a possibility that changing the VRA could bring out the African-American vote in the next election. A successful challenge to the VRA could blow up in the Republicans faces but they are too dumb to realize it. Trying to restrict voting in the last election brought about the opposite of what Republicans wanted to do.
The republicans shot their own selves in both feet! They can't have it both ways....suppress the votes, rig the electoral process, voter IDs....and then argue the VRA is no longer needed. They can't win. Actually, it seems that everything they try to do....they out themselves. That's why they secretly pass laws they know the public won't stand for....This is just another thing they will not win.
On the one hand, I say let the Republicans do whatever they like. I'll be more than happy to spend the next four years spreading the word that this is what people are voting for when they vote Republican: unbridled, unabashed racism, sexism, and every possible sort of "Them"-ism.
On the other hand, I weep for democracy when this is the level we allow one of our two major, storied political parties to sink to. A loyal, coherent opposition is essential to a stable government in a system like ours, and for the last four years the Republican Party has been borderline-treasonous, not to mention willfully incompetent and incoherent.
"Grab the ballot boxes boys. The south will rise again....and were taking everyone down with us" Watching the Grammys Sunday night and heard a cryptic song about Forrest Gump. At the time I thought "What the....." . Now I realize that Forrest was named after a one eyed grand master of the KKK in Tenessee nicknamed the Imminent Cyclops out of respect. Now there is a referendum on changing the names of public parks in Tennessee who are named for KKK leaders and confederate heros. They are threatening to take their opposition to the State Supreme Court. This reactionary republican movement is not a mote point but a call to action against going backwards. What Supreme Court Judge wants to go down in history as voting against the VRA in 2012?
Power corrupts. The thought of losing power makes people do desperate things, like extreme gerrymandering, Jim Crow, excessively long times to vote, excessively hard ID requirements to vote. The purpose of these kinds of tactics is to exclude undesirables from voting because they will not vote for your positions, which are in opposition to theirs. On a large scale, it is a policy of being against the majority. It is a form of rule by the minority. When the minority becomes so entrenched as not to be able to be removed from power, it become tyranny by the minority. That is what has happened in those states with extreme gerrymandering: the minority can never be removed because the districts are cherry-picked to make it virtually impossible for the democrats to win. Hence, we now have tyranny by the minority in those states with severe gerrymandering.
Eventually the majority will have had enough of these Republican tactics and treat them to Shermans March part 2.
Here's whySection 5 of the Voting Rights Act is bad policy, outdated, unconstitutional,
and ought to be struck down by the Supreme Court: http://www.pacificlegal.org/opeds/Overturn-unconstitutional-Voting-Rights-Act
What’s especially ironic is that the principal use to which Section 5 is put today is forcing jurisdictions to create and maintain racially segregated and gerrymandered
voting districts – which is completely at odds with the original ideals of the
Civil Rights Movement.
There are other federal laws available to protect the rights
of voters, and they don't raise the problems that Section 5 does.
What happened with the "Southern Strategy" was that the Southern parasite, which has provided the balance of power between the national conservative party and the national progressive party since the founding of the country, on the principle that whichever party they support allows them their "peculiar institutions" without opposition, was leaving the Democratic Party due to its "treason" to the ancient alliance over the issue of Civil Rights. When the Republicans came calling, the parasite determined that there would be no more treason, and that it would aim to take over the host. Which we can now see it has done. Unfortunately, as anyone who has studied biology knows, when the parasite takes over the host, the host dies. That is what we are seeing happen.
The solution is the destruction of the parasite and its Confederate cancer. It's going to take a national alliance similar to the international alliance that was necessary 75 years ago to get rid of the international fascist cancer. The Confederacy has to be stopped before it destroys the country.
For those like Marc above who decry "extreme gerrymandering" as a tactic used only by the Republicans to prevent Democrats from winning... Wake up!!
A) When Democrats are in charge of redistricting, they also go to whatever lengths they can to expand their power. I live in Texas. For over 100 years, Texas was a solidly Democratic state, until in the 1980's and 1990's when Republicans began to sweep the state into a Republican stronghold. Back in 1990, though, Democrats still had all power in the state legislature -- and controlled redistricting. The Democrats at that time created THE MOST EXTREME gerrymanders ever seen in Texas for Congressional and State Legislative districts. Even the Republican gerrymanders of today cannot equal them for convoluted district lines. The most severe gerrymanders were in the creation of districts for African-American and Latino voters, which brings me to point B.
B) Look around and look at where you see some of the most egregious-looking district shapes. A disproportional amount of these are MINORITY DISTRICTS. As I've said before, if you want to create a minority district, GERRYMANDERING is your friend. Why? Because you can't often just draw a neat circle around a group of African-American or Latino voters to make a district. You usually have to wind around and grab pockets of voters here and there to get the right racial or ethnic proportions. (see Illinois Congressional District 4, for example) Gerrymandering is the #1 tool in use today to create minority districts.
C) Minority districts, gerrymandered as they often are to provide a reasonable opportunity for minorities to elect a candidate of their choice, are many times the most lopsided and uncompetitive districts politically as you'll find anywhere. African-American districts in Texas are typically 70% of more Democratic.
@Roger Clegg, it's really annoying and a bit disgusting when those who lean right try to turn the hard-fought civil rights progress made in the 20th century on its head in order to justify regressive conservative policy. The argument at your link requires one to check one's brain at the door in order to buy it. No longer any need for Section 5, times have changed? Really?:
Federal judge rips Jon Husted for unconstitutional change to Ohio election rules
Judge blocks Pennsylvania voter ID law for November election
Federal Court Blocks Controversial Texas Voter ID Law
Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law
In South Carolina, Shockingly Candid Talk About Voter Suppression
Section 5 is needed now more than ever. The only thing that is actually 'insulating' GOP officials from the rabble-at-large is the abuse of gerry-mandering by the GOP itself - it's astonishing that one would try to blame Section 5 for abusive GOP tactics.
This lawsuit is another WHITE SUPREMACIST move!! The LUNATIC rea-bagger THUGS and ALL republicans show they are truly RACIST & BIGOTED!!!! I have NO FAITH in the U S SUPREME COURT!!! THey are so politicized and LEANS to CONSERVATIVE RIGHT-WING NUTS that it is LIKELY TO UNDO the VOTING RIGHTS ACT!!!! If they do this the CIVIL RIGHTS & HUMAN RIGHTS of ALL AMERICANS WILL BE DESTROYED!!! When the public revolution against the continuos erosion of American CIVIL & HUMAN RIGHTS the results will be DEVASTATING due to the RACIST, BIGOTED WHITE SUPREMACISTS!!!
The Voting Rights Act has been in the cross hairs of the TEA-types and TEA-questers of the Republican party since passed and signed into law. TEA-types have been making headway against the VRA by taking over local and state political offices and fighting from another angle with lawsuits and failure to implement passed legislation. It's all about control. TEA-types want control, which they tasted in the 2010 mid-term. It is at the local and state level where the greatest control and influence can be exerted, and that is how they have gotten as far as they have. Voters need to make drastic changes in the legislative mix in Washington to pass laws benefiting the middle class and voter disenfranchisement. We well know the truth of the concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people and the concentration of power in stricter, less compassionate hands. The current mix in Washington still has many to throw out of office.
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9TjVsQa57c )
"Sweep the HOUSE CLEAN....in 2014"
Oops
Steve Benen's article is written with a little too much hyperbole, trying to take a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and cast it as a blatant and sweeping attack on the entire VRA or on the very principle of minority voters having a vote at all. He would also like you to believe this is a new phenomenon just popping up in these last few years as a means of diminishing minority voting rights.
First off, Section 5 challenges are not that new. Ever during the 2006 debate to re-up the Act, there were discussions about the continuation of Section 5. Note that the primary voting rights protections in the bill, encapsulated in Section 2, have NOT been under attack.
Section 2 says that you can use district-drawing techniques (like packing and cracking, as they are called) to debilitate or eliminate districts where minority voters could elect a candidate of their choice.
Section 5, on the other hand, is in many respects the implementation of punitive measures for limited jurisdictions. Certain states and other jurisdictions deemed in the 60's and 70's to have had a history of racial discrimination were ordered to MAINTAIN (ie. not RETROGRESS) any gains made in minority power (unless unavoidable because of population shifts, etc.)
To ensure this directive, the named jurisdictions would have to clear any potiential changes involving voting with the Feds (usually the Department of Justice) prior to implementation (hence PRECLEARANCE).
An interesting feature of the preclearance process is that the submitting jurisdiction has the burden of proof to show it is in compliance -- DOJ does not have to overcome a burden of proof to render the jurisdiction out of compliance. DOJ admits that it often relies on the reaction of minority groups in rendering their decisions. That makes sense unless carried to far.
In 2003, for example, Democrats did not like the Republican's new Congressional plan. In hopes of having the plan rejected, minority legislators lined up to express opposition. One Latino legislator complained his reelection chances were severely diminished in the new redistricting plan. Demographic statistics, however, did not support the contention his district was in jeopardy, yet primarily on the legislators word, DOJ refused to preclear his district. It should be noted that the legislator DID have to run once in the district as it was drawn, and won comfortably.
In other words, the preclearance process places certain jurisdictions under the burden of proof in a system where a lot of subjectivity is known to come into play.
Corrections: paragraph 2 -- EVEN during the 2006 debate...
paragraph 3 -- Section 2 says that you can NOT use...
Did I read the excerpt from Berman's article correctly, and did he actually mention "conservative intellectuals?" Isn't that an oxymoron?
One more observation from a theoretical level...
To me it is unfortunate that the representational process of districting tends toward maintaining a SEPARATION of races and ethnicities in order to distribute political power. This was the subject of the major redistricting challenges in the 1990's, when some jurisdictions were going to extreme lengths to separate groups from one another when forming districts (see Shaw v. Reno and related cases).
I favor policies which will tend toward more integration of us all as fellow Americans, if ways can be found to not trample the voting strength of minority voters in implementing those policies.