Federal Voting Rights Act Continues to Target the South

[monsoon]

Some of you who follow the news might have heard the House has voted to extend the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. While this sounds good on the surface one has to look at the details of this act to see that it targets the South as special places of discrimination. Article 5 of this Act states the places shown in this map, have to get special federal approval to change their voting rules because they are seen as places where racial discrimination against Blacks has taken place in regards to voting.

What do you think of this? (Especially since most of the country is exempt from these reviews)

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

Voting Section Home Page

Section 5 Covered Jurisdictions

[ironchapman]

I was looking at Congressman Lynn Westmoreland's website the other day and found a press release opposing extending the current Voting Rights act.

I do agree with him when he says that things have changed since it was passed. There is a need for the modernization of it.

Here is the press release he has for today on the passage of it:

"We came up short today of the votes we needed to modernize and strengthen the Voting Rights Act, largely because of partisan posturing, ignorance of the act

[triadcat]

I do find it strange that they target ALL of VA, SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX and AZ.

It appears that much of New Hampshire (A New England state) is also targeted.......weird.

I wonder whats up with the selected counties in NC, Fl, CA, MI and SD??

[Brent]

I'm glad that it has been extended. I'm suspicious when only white conservative dudes want to repeal things. It should be expanded to cover the entire country though.

[Spartan]

I don't mind this act in principle, but I do take issue with section 5 regarding preclearance. The issues happening in the 1960s that brought about this bill are no longer valid. It is an unnecessary and unfair section of this law that specifically targets Southern states.

[johnnydr87]

I'm glad that it has been extended. I'm suspicious when only white conservative dudes want to repeal things. It should be expanded to cover the entire country though.

I agree. Every state should be targeted.

I'm completely surprised that Arkansas was left out. I personally know loquacious racists (and closet racists). Not that many, but enough to put us under the same restrictions as the other southern states, and probably nation.

[AuLukey]

It is strange to me that the entire states of SC and VA are considered "racist" (by this definition at least) and the state of NC is practically passed over. It seems only a handful of counties in the entire state, mostly bordering the state lines, are targeted. NC is just as "racist" as any of the Carolinas region are. This indeed seems to be an odd way of targeting counties.

I'm guessing that those two or so counties in New Hampshire got mad about the entire state being targeted and had themselves removed from the list. It seems funny only those were left out in that state.

Who knew the Everglades were racist?

[monsoon]

.... NC is just as "racist" as any of the Carolinas region are. This indeed seems to be an odd way of targeting counties.

I'm guessing that those two or so counties in New Hampshire got mad about the entire state being targeted and had themselves removed from the list. It seems funny only those were left out in that state.

Who knew the Everglades were racist?

Are you actually serious with this? How do you know specifically which areas are racist or not?

[DruidCity]

Whatever the Federal laws are, they should be enforced countrywide.

It is absurd for the Federal government to place specific value judgments on individual states and

counties. It's politics at its worst.

[bobdreamz]

honestly I don't know why they have targeted certain states.....racism exists everywhere and knows no state or political lines.

[AuLukey]

Are you actually serious with this? How do you know specifically which areas are racist or not?

haha, that's my point exactly met. I'm asking what defines a county as racist or not? How is one entire state more racist than certain individual counties in other states? This is stupid and should have some explination as to why it was selected. You can't possibly measure opinions such as this accurately. And yes I'm serious, how could you say NC is less racist than SC or VA? There is no proof otherwise, in either direction. Other than opinion, who's to accurately say Nevada is more racist than New Mexico? If they even did this to one state, then every state should have to do it.

[krazeeboi]

If anything, I think states with high Latino immigration rates should be "targeted." In this day and age of "immigration reform," I would think legal Latino citizens would be subject to greater scrutiny when attempting to exercise their right to vote than Blacks.

[AuLukey]

If anything, I think states with high Latino immigration rates should be "targeted." In this day and age of "immigration reform," I would think legal Latino citizens would be subject to greater scrutiny when attempting to exercise their right to vote than Blacks.

Yea but these days, what states DON'T have high latino immigration rates outside of the northern mid-west and upper New England?

[krazeeboi]

Yeah, that's true, but still I think the point stands. If Latino immigration rates were taken into account, you'd see more Western states in particular colored.

[monsoon]

Illegal's and green card holders can't vote so that point is not really relevant to this discussion. For latinos, who are citizens, I don't think there are any institutionalized restrictions to keep them from voting.

[krazeeboi]

I understand that, but my point is that with immigration reform being such a hot topic these days, legal Latino citizens can automatically be subject to greater scrutiny regarding their legal status, so it can be easier to discriminate against them simply based upon ethnicity. Just as there were illegal reading tests in the 50's and 60's to discriminate against Blacks, who's to say these cannot pop up today to discriminate against Latinos?

Just trying to provide another way of looking at the issue.

[Spartan]

You could also argue that the voting process itself disenfranchises any non-English speaking legal immigrant in a way, since most everything that happens is in English, including the voting process. The whole thing is not too dissimilar from the literacy tests you mention.

[rusthebuss]

Let me ask you guys a question........when you here racist do you assume its a white person? If so that is wrong. I grew up in a black neighborhood and always got called racist things. I'm tired of black racist and other racists being down played in this country. I'm tired of double standards being enforced in this country. I had nothing to do with slavery and I shouldn't have to pay for it either. I know its off topic but I've been discriminated plenty of times when trying to find a job.

[krazeeboi]

I think your comments would be a bit more appropriate for this thread. We don't want to get off-topic here too much.

[rusthebuss]

I think your comments would be a bit more appropriate for this thread. We don't want to get off-topic here too much.

Yeah you are probably right but it does pertain a bit to this.

[monsoon]

You could also argue that the voting process itself disenfranchises any non-English speaking legal immigrant in a way, since most everything that happens is in English, including the voting process. The whole thing is not too dissimilar from the literacy tests you mention.

Well..... Only citizens can vote and for an immigrant to become a citizen, they have to demonstrate they can speak english. As a result, the number of non-english speaking people who can vote is very very small.

However.... The Federal Voting Rights Act, the one we are discussing here, requires that all municipalities provide ballots in other languages if requested. This is done at great expense even though less than 0.5% of the ballots are cast are a non-english ones.

This isn't an issue.

[MR-2]

What do the colors mean specifically?

[ironchapman]

I found this today on Lynn Westmoreland's website (the article, though, is apparently originally from the Chicago Tribune):

Some officials, scholars say Voting Rights Act needs update

.......................

That some House Southerners appear to be standing in the way of renewing the law allows the situation to be easily caricatured as a fight between congressional supporters of civil rights and retro Southern obstructionists.

There's just one problem. Even some left-of-center legal scholars agree with the Southerners that the provisions should not be renewed without modifications.

.......................

"If Congress goes and passes the current version ... as is, with a 25-year extension ... then there is a significant danger that the measure is struck down," said Richard Hasen, a law professor at Loyola University Law School in Los Angeles who describes himself as part of the Democratic Party's left wing.

"What I sense is that there are a number of people who are supporters of the act, but who don't want to speak up for political reasons and say the act has to be updated, to say that 2006 is not the same as 1965," Hasen said."

Turns out modernization of the act isn't something supported only by Southern Conservatives.

Now I do support monitoring the elections in counties where there is still a problem (from what I hear, Taliaferro County in Georgia is an example of one that does require such monitoring). However, voter intimidation is not a problem in many counties, so I don't think the act should bother with them (punish the troublemaker, not the entire group).

[rocky top buzz]

I think Georgia had voter reform right no. If you are a legal registered voter, you have to have some form of state issued picture ID to prove who you are. If you were too poor, the state would come to you, take your picture, and give you your card. Of course, the federal government knows best and struck that down. I think picture ID's nationwide would be a great law to replace the current voting rights act.