WASHINGTON, June 20 — House Republican leaders today abruptly canceled a planned vote to renew the Voting Rights Act after a rank-and-file rebellion by lawmakers who say the civil rights measure unfairly singles out Southern states and promotes multi-lingual ballots.
The reversal represented a significant embarrassment for the party leadership, which has promised a vote on the landmark anti-discrimination law and hailed its imminent approval in a rare bipartisan press event on the steps of the Capitol last month.
But lawmakers critical of the bill mutinied in a closed meeting of House Republicans this morning just hours before the vote was expected to occur and several said it was uncertain whether a majority of Republicans would back the legislation at this point.
“A lot of it looks as if these are some old boys from the South who are trying to do away with it,” said Representative Lynn A. Westmoreland of Georgia, who said it would be unfair to keep Georgia under the confines of the law when his state has cleaned up its voting rights record. “But these old boys are trying to make it Constitutional enough that it will withstand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court.”
Despite what appears to be mounting Republican resistance, the leadership issued a statement declaring that once the concerns of lawmakers are addressed, it will move ahead with a vote on what the leaders described as one of the nation’s most important civil rights laws.
“While the bill will not be considered today, the House G.O.P. leadership is committed to passing the Voting Rights Act legislation as soon as possible,” the statement said.
Democrats and civil rights groups expressed severe disappointment in the change of plans.
Disgraceful. Not surprising, but disgraceful nonetheless.
Yeah, I don’t know that Southern Republicans ever identified so closely with Lincoln as us yanks would hope. But LOL anyways. Fuck those guys.
I really can’t blame them. The Voting Rights Act specifically requires Southern states, and no one else, to get court approval before changing their election laws. Now, whether that’s a good idea or not, it is a little unfair to single them out at this point in time.
I’m not big into whining about who gets to be Prez after a tied election, but even so, I don’t think the Republicans have really positioned themselves as being concerned about everyone having the opportunity to vote.
That said, Ohio is not a Southern state. Maybe we could add it?
Actually didn’t realize that. There’s enough bigotry and shenanigans everywhere in the U.S. that they should simply make the act applicable to all 50.
It’s more than a little unfair, it completely ignores modern electoral problems and provides a false feeling of security to people that their voting “rights” are being respected. I think Mrs Westmoreland is on to something:
YEAH. Alaska. That’s the first state that jumps to my mind when I think of places needing special supervision during elections. The VRA as it stands right now is obsolete and ought to be amended.
Now, as for the multiple language ballots/translators for non english speaking areas, I am a little more uncertain. While on the one hand it strikes me that someone who has insufficient English to handle a ballot (a non butterfly ballot, that is) needs a lot more than a translator’s help, I can understand the arguments for this. But I think the more reasonable answer is to employ a ballot simple enough for anyone who can handle our alphabet to grasp and make it universal, rather than creating an additional level of possible interference at the ballots. I am sure the people putting this as an argument are just reacting directly to anti-immigrant pressure, but whatever their reasons I’m not so positive they are wrong.
Glenn, do you really need to chime in with posts that make sense? Unless your post affirms that Republicans are evil racists, please don’t speak up again.
“The Southern Strategy”, m’boy. Look it up.
I know what that is, but I also know what it isn’t. I don’t see how legitimately representing Southern states is a part of a sinister conspiracy. At no point have I heard a Republican, or anyone, say that less supervision is the answer. Their point is that it is ridiculous to pretend that the voting problems of 1964 are worth singling out the south over. Either everyone goes down for it, or no one.
You can claim as many backhanded motivations for that as you please, but their actions and words stand on their own. Whether racist, populist, or controlled by aliens from the planet Xenu, they still seem to have a pretty coherent argument.
Look, the truth is there are racially motivated voting problems all over the country - Ohio was mentioned as a prime example. I don’t think we’re going to be able to get it added to that legislation. Why? Because the numbers really don’t serve Republican interests. Black folks don’t vote for Republicans.
So what’s the real motive here? Poor little Southern fried Republicans feeling picked on unfairly or do they really want to be able to mess about with Black voters more than they already do?
If you had Democrats, even Southern Dixiecrats - what’s left of them, signing on to this I’d feel less apprehensive. As it is, this reeks. The Republican leadership knows it reeks. And they’ll be trying to beat the good old boys back into line before middle America gets a whiff of this.
Q.F.T.
Republicans and others have shown ample means wholly external to the VRA to accomplish those goals. Whatever catastrophe you think is being averted would only be ameliorated by spreading the VRA to all states, and not much would change if it was done away with all together. Or is it that you think the VRA is the only thing keeping Georgia from implementing literacy tests again (which would likely have a much greater effect on minorities other than your beloved straw-blacks, such as immigrants).
So what’s the real motive here? Poor little Southern fried Republicans feeling picked on unfairly or do they really want to be able to mess about with Black voters more than they already do?
Yeah, that’s the motive. Or, Elvis told them to do it. Or it doesn’t fucking matter what their motives are, because they’re still right. As you demonstrate so keenly…
If you had Democrats, even Southern Dixiecrats - what’s left of them, signing on to this I’d feel less apprehensive.
…when you give this scum the benefit of any sort of credibility. As if the motives of so many “civil rights” groups and minority politicians of the sort whose approval you obviously require don’t obviously rely entirely on the inverse of (and arguably much more damaging in the present day) the hatemongering you accuse Republicans of using.
As it is, this reeks. The Republican leadership knows it reeks. And they’ll be trying to beat the good old boys back into line before middle America gets a whiff of this.
Wait a minute. Who are these good old boys? Are they good old boys that want voting rights protected for blacks? I’m very confused with all of your race-in-america cliches.
Just try this on for size. Pretend these Republicans are Walter lecturing you about your rug. They’re not wrong, they’re just assholes. Now if you are content being wrong so long as you are sticking it to your version of the man, then so be it. But don’t pretend you are arguing logically when all you have is innuendo.
You do understand why the Voting Rights Act was introduced, right, LK? Are you saying there isn’t any more need for it or are you saying it should be universal? Because if you believe for the second that the latter will come out of Southern Republicans you’re a bigger fool than I took you for.
Come on. Since when were white Southern Republicans denied a right to vote? Your whole argument about both sides being equal in this matter is just silly. I live down here and while things aren’t as bad as they used to be there’s still alot of shady business especially where politics are concerned. And it’s not the black community trying to keep the whites from voting, now, is it? Don’t have to look much further than Florida in the 2000 elections to have that demonstrated for you.
It’s only a pity Florida isn’t on that list. You think the Republicans are going to put it on?
Stop with the self-righteous victim act. It’s just sad. Seriously. Poor Republican Southerners. So misunderstood.
I think this particular example is not the best attack on current Republican positions and tactics. The Voting Rights Act definitely served a critical funtion in its time, but there are some legit complaints regarding current application (Georgia in particular from what I understand). The bigger issue tying this up seems to be the attempt to insert bi-lingual ballotting requirements into the process and I think that is a legitimate area for national debate.
I say either fight the bilingual ballot issue separately or expect extended debate.
Yeah, they need to be emulating, say, IL (Chicago), Ohio, Florida, etc. in terms of perfect voting practices.
Yes.
Are you saying there isn’t any more need for it or are you saying it should be universal?
I’m saying in its current form it addresses few of the legitimate issues with voting we have now, and that its unequal application makes it doubly egregious. So either the halfassed law applies to everyone, or no one, and that seems like a pretty reasonable argument for Republicans.
Because if you believe for the second that the latter will come out of Southern Republicans you’re a bigger fool than I took you for.
The point is that they don’t have to come up with a better alternative to say that this one is hopelessly dated and unfair. What I’m curious about is why your apparently unimpeachable civil rights advocates/Democrats aren’t offering coherent alternatives rather than flogging this dead horse in a feeble attempt at race baiting.
Come on. Since when were white Southern Republicans denied a right to vote?
What on earth does that have to do with anything?
Your whole argument about both sides being equal in this matter is just silly.
That’s not my argument. That argument has nothing to do with the matter at hand even if it were true, and I never made it. Try reading what I post before you flip out.
I live down here and while things aren’t as bad as they used to be there’s still alot of shady business especially where politics are concerned.
Uh huh. And none of that is being covered by the VRA as it currently stands, which is why it needs to be updated.
And it’s not the black community trying to keep the whites from voting, now, is it?
That’s just idiotic. Is there a logical fallacy you won’t commit, or is it simply a problem with reading comprehension?
Don’t have to look much further than Florida in the 2000 elections to have that demonstrated for you.
Which is, actually, an argument for my side of the case. If you would, at least read your own posts if not mine.
It’s only a pity Florida isn’t on that list.
It’s not a “pity”, it’s the whole point of the discussion. Issues like Florida were the raison d’etre of the original; either extend the outdated measures to everyone, update it and then apply it to everyone, or fuck off with the whole thing.
You think the Republicans are going to put it on?
I don’t know. Do you think the Democrats are? Because that would be the correct way to address this alleged stalling: offer an alternative grounded in 2006 and then call them racist if/when they stall that too. Instead, they jump directly to the race baiting Rainbow Coalition bullshit, having learned nothing from their lack of success in the past.
Stop with the self-righteous victim act. It’s just sad. Seriously. Poor Republican Southerners. So misunderstood.
They’re not victims, they’re just right in this case. The fact that you consider the two terms interchangeable says a lot.
Anyhow, you’ve moved past insulting my intelligence to just being a prick. I’m sure what you expected was another qt3 love in on how super bad Republicans are, but the facts do not support you at all. Stick to “Bush has poopy pants” or whatever and I’m sure you’ll get what you’re looking for…just so you know, it’s people like you that ensure the Democratic party never becomes a viable alternative for people fed up with Republicans. You’re the same batch of fanatical lies but minus the success.
I take it people are talking about section 4?
The formula for coverage under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act
As enacted in 1965, the first element in the formula was whether, on November 1, 1964, the state or a political subdivision of the state maintained a “test or device” restricting the opportunity to register and vote. The Act’s definition of a “test or device” included such requirements as the applicant being able to pass a literacy test, establish that he or she had good moral character, or have another registered voter vouch for his or her qualifications.
The second element of the formula would be satisfied if the Director of the Census determined that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age voted in the presidential election of November 1964. This resulted in the following states becoming, in their entirety, “covered jurisdictions”: Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia. In addition, certain political subdivisions (usually counties) in four other states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and North Carolina) were covered. In fully covered states, the state itself and all political subdivisions of the state are subject to the special provisions. In “partially covered” states, the special provisions applied only to the identified counties. Voting changes adopted by or to be implemented in covered political subdivisions, including changes applicable to the state as a whole, are subject to review under Section 5. The Supreme Court has determined that “changes affecting voting” that are subject to review generally fall into four categories: (1) changes in the manner of voting; (2) changes in candidacy requirements and qualifications; (3) changes in the composition of the electorate that may vote for candidates for a given office; and (4) changes affecting the creation or abolition of an elective office. Presley v. Etowah, 502 U.S. 491 (1992).
In 1970, Congress recognized the continuing need for the special provisions of the Act, which were due to expire that year, and renewed them for another five years. It added a second prong to the coverage formula, identical to the original formula except that it referenced November 1968 as the relevant date for the maintenance of a test or device and the levels of voter registration and electoral participation. This addition to the formula resulted in the partial coverage of ten states, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Wyoming. Half of these states (Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, and Wyoming) filed successful bailout lawsuits.
In 1975, the Act’s special provisions were extended for another seven years, and were broadened to address voting discrimination against members of “language minority groups,” which were defined as persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage." As before, Congress expanded the coverage formula, based on the presence of tests or devices and levels of voter registration and participation as of November 1972. In addition, the 1965 definition of “test or device” was expanded to include the practice of providing any election information, including ballots, only in English in states or political subdivisions where members of a single language minority constituted more than five percent of the citizens of voting age. This third prong of the coverage formula had the effect of covering Alaska, Arizona, and Texas in their entirety, and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota.
In 1982, the coverage formula was extended again, this time for 25 years, but no changes were made to it. Section 4, along with those other sections that are dependent upon it, such as Section 5, 6, and 8, will expire on August 6, 2007.
Looking at the last Presidental election’s turnout numbers, everyone is above 50% on both now, with the exception of CA at 48% and TX at 47% on voting age population - they both have registered voter turnout in the 70% range, though. That does leave the possibility of “specific jurisdictions” having crap registration and turnout numbers; if the entire number is only barely above 50 like a lot of states have, there’s probably areas way below that.
There’s a “bailout” provision that looks to me like all the states could easily demonstrate they’ve solved their problems and get out of the current version of the law; not sure why they haven’t.
LK: I’m going to go ahead and apologise for questioning your intelligence. You’re not a dumb guy. But you say things that make zero sense to me at times. And I’m very, very, frustrated right now with folks on the right and Republicans in general for, well, pretty much fucking up my country. Sometimes that does get personalized and directed unfairly.
I don’t trust Republicans, or conservative leaning independants that can support the theocratic leanings and imperial presidency notions of that party, these days with only a handful of conditional exceptions. If they say something is “up” I’m getting to the point I’m pretty sure “down” is a safe assumption for the true state of the thing.
In this case as well. The way I see it, from a somewhat more dispassionate perspective, is that you see flaws in a system and would rather have it done away with entirely than retained for what good it does. I’m assuming it does some good since you can’t find a single civil rights group, who represent the people most effected, agreeing with this flock of white Southern Republicans that ending the Voting Rights Act or modifying it more to their liking would be a good thing.
And since I’m in don’t-trust-those-lying-motherfuckers mode, this is going to color my thinking as well.
BTW, remember the moron who couldn’t name the 10 Commandments on the Colbert Report even as he insisted he couldn’t think of a better place to put them than in government buildings and courthouses?
He’s the guy behind this one. Oh, yeah. Genius.
Southern Republicans picked this moment to stall the extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that had been enacted after a century of African-American disenfranchisement in the South. Their ringleader, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, is also the sponsor of bills that would require the display of the Ten Commandments in the House and Senate as well an of amendment to the Constitution to justify these sorts of displays. On June 14, he ventured forth to explain his proposals on Comedy Central, where comedian-interviewer Stephen Colbert asked him a trick question, “What are the Ten Commandments?” “You mean all of them?” Westmoreland stammered. “Um. Don’t murder. Don’t lie. Don’t steal. Um. I can’t name them all.”
It’s all good. A lot of assumptions are easily made when we are trained our whole lives to regard each political problem as having a left and right side, and anything that goes against our side is automatically for the other (sort of like GWB’s with us or against us). I’m not trying to patronize you or anything of the sort, I just didn’t think I was making the argument you thought I was. Or something.
Anyhow, there are times when everyone makes zero sense. Sometimes, it’s a matter of course for the poster, and other times it is just a problem of further clarification. Hopefully, this was the latter.
I don’t trust Republicans, or conservative leaning independants that can support the theocratic leanings and imperial presidency notions of that party, these days with only a handful of conditional exceptions. If they say something is “up” I’m getting to the point I’m pretty sure “down” is a safe assumption for the true state of the thing.
I don’t trust either of those two groups, but I think people like you adopting an automatically adversarial response to everything they do, +/- a conspiracy theory or two, is really going to make it difficult yet again for any sort of opposition to maintain a message of any sort. You have to focus, I believe, if you are to stand a chance of getting your kind of people in charge, or else the more unscrupulous Republicans will gay/flag/terror bait their way to another batch of congresspersons.
In this case as well. The way I see it, from a somewhat more dispassionate perspective, is that you see flaws in a system and would rather have it done away with entirely than retained for what good it does. I’m assuming it does some good since you can’t find a single civil rights group, who represent the people most effected, agreeing with this flock of white Southern Republicans that ending the Voting Rights Act or modifying it more to their liking would be a good thing.
Once again, I think your criticism is accurate to a point, but excluding “civil rights groups” from the same standards to which you hold more conservative lobbies is a big mistake. Their motives and means can be just as questionable. Their actions and causes are just as likely to be based on demogogy, if not moreso because of the very nature of their work.
And since I’m in don’t-trust-those-lying-motherfuckers mode, this is going to color my thinking as well.
Don’t let it. At the risk of Koontzing you, you’re playing their game.