Here's the other shoe dropping--the first one having dropped three years ago, when the House Republicans, and Bush, renewed the Voting Rights Act, and in so doing made a big show of their "pragmatism" vis-a-vis black voters.
"The Republicans want to take the issue off the table for the 2006 elections and avoid a repeat of 1982, when the Reagan administration fought with a Democratic-controlled Congress over an expansion of the law," reported msnbc.com. "Today's political climate is much different. Republicans strategists are making a determined pitch to black voters, and top-tier black Republican candidates are coming to the fore, offering a chance to reshape the party's image." Such was the credulous assessment not just of the press, but even of staunch Democratic champions of civil rights, like Rep. John Lewis: "The Republicans are reaching out to the African-American voters," he said. "They want to make a dent with the black electorate, take some of those voters away from the Democratic side." That last statement was quite true, but not as Lewis meant it. The GOP had been, was then, and still is zealously committed to a vast rollback of minority voting rights (except, of course, for the minority that keeps on voting for the GOP). And so there has, in fact, been no "determined pitch" or "reaching out" to African-Americans, but only the repeated claim that such a drive is underway. It is unfortunate, to put it mildly, that such a propaganda claim would be confirmed by mainstream journalists and liberal Democrats, who've thereby helped the GOP obscure its efforts to "make a dent"--a huge dent-- in "the black electorate" (and in the Hispanic electorate, the student electorate, the labor electorate, the Native American electorate, and so on). And as the party's claim of "outreach" was a ruse, so, of course, was that ostensible Republican decision to approve the Voting Rights Act--for, while they did formally approve it in the House, they did so in full confidence that Roberts and his men would fix the act eventually, and in a way that would protect the congressmen from any fall-out. Back in 2005/6, the question on all minds was whether the Republicans would renew the act in its entirety, or strip out Section 5. To everyone's (naive) surprise, they finally took the former course--and lots of credit, undeserved, for having seen the light. And now we're seeing the Roberts Court prepare to do, in their illustrious chambers, what those canny legislators had the brains to keep from doing right out in the open: Section 5 is evidently doomed. And this not the only step that the Republicans are taking to ensure themselves another too-good showing on the next Election Day. And they'll keep taking such illicit steps--and many of those steps will be successful--if we don't wake up and start demanding real reform of our elections. MCM p.s. Below the Times article, there's an alert from the National Campaign for Fair Elections. April 30, 2009 Skepticism at the Court on Validity of Vote Law By ADAM LIPTAK http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/us/30voting.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print WASHINGTON - A central provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, designed to protect minorities in states with a history of discrimination, is at substantial risk of being struck down as unconstitutional, judging from the questioning on Wednesday at the Supreme Court. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whose vote is likely to be crucial, was a vigorous participant in the argument, asking 17 questions that were almost consistently hostile to the approach Congress had taken to renewing the act in 2006. "Congress has made a finding that the sovereignty of Georgia is less than the sovereign dignity of Ohio," Justice Kennedy said. "The sovereignty of Alabama is less than the sovereign dignity of Michigan. And the governments in one are to be trusted less than the governments in the other." Georgia and Alabama, along with seven other states and many local governments, mostly in the South, are subject to Section 5 of the act, which requires them to seek federal permission before making changes in voting procedures. Ohio is not covered, and only two townships in Michigan are. In reauthorizing Section 5 for 25 years in 2006, Congress did nothing to change the criteria for inclusion under the provision, relying instead on a formula based on historic practices and voting data from elections held decades ago. That seemed to rankle Justice Kennedy. About two-thirds of his questions concerned the coverage formula. "No one questions the validity, the urgency, the essentiality of the Voting Rights Act," he said. "The question is whether or not it should be continued with this differentiation between the states. And that is for Congress to show." The court has often divided 5 to 4 in highly charged cases involving voting and race, with Justice Kennedy casting the swing vote. Should the court strike down the coverage formula in Section 5, Congress would be free to take a fresh look at what jurisdictions should be covered. But making distinctions among the states based on new criteria may not be politically feasible. "It is one thing to retain coverage of jurisdictions that have lived with the constraints of Section 5 for some time," Nathaniel Persily, a law professor at Columbia, wrote in The Yale Law Journal in 2007. "It is quite another to heap a new and costly administrative scheme onto jurisdictions unaccustomed to needing federal permission for their voting laws." At the argument Wednesday, Justice Kennedy said there was evidence that "it costs the states and the municipalities a billion dollars over 10 years to comply." Congress collected thousands of pages of information concerning continued problems in the covered jurisdictions, some of which Justice Stephen G. Breyer summarized. Virginia and Texas, for instance, still have significant disparities in voting registration rates, Justice Breyer said. The number of minority officeholders in Mississippi, Louisiana and South Carolina, he added, "is still not great." But Congress did much less work in comparing practices in jurisdictions covered by Section 5 to those in jurisdictions that are not. Had Congress taken account of more recent data, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. suggested, it might have drawn the coverage lines differently. "The difference between Latino registration and white registration in Texas was 18.6 percent, which is not good," Justice Alito said, "but it's substantially lower than the rate in California, which is not covered - 37 percent." The case, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, No. 08-322, was brought by a small Texas water district. Gregory S. Coleman, a lawyer for the district, began his argument with a relatively modest request - that the district be allowed to "bail out" of Section 5 coverage. But the possibility of a ruling on that or another narrow ground did not seem to attract much interest from the justices. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked Mr. Coleman to describe an acceptable coverage formula. Mr. Coleman sidestepped the question but said that only Hawaii would be covered were recent data plugged into the old formula. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked Debo P. Adegbile, a lawyer with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, whether "today Southerners are more likely to discriminate than Northerners?" Mr. Adegbile responded that "the pattern has been more repetitious violations in the covered jurisdictions and more one-off discrimination in other places." While questioning at the Supreme Court is an imperfect indicator of how the justices will vote, Justice Kennedy gave every indication on Wednesday that he believed that the justifications offered by Congress for retaining Section 5 had fallen short. "This is a great disparity in treatment, and the government of the United States is saying that our states must be treated differently," Justice Kennedy said to Neal K. Katyal, a deputy United States solicitor general. "And you have a very substantial burden if you're going to make that case." Mr. Katyal responded with an appeal to the history of the Voting Rights Act. The law, Mr. Katyal said, was "one of the most transformative acts in American history." It is, he said, still justified, "because with this act what Congress did was essentially redeem itself in the eyes of the world." Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company * Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Today the Supreme Court heard arguments on the constitutionality of Section 5 of the VRA Section 5 continues to be a critical element in preventing discrimination in voting across the country <http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/projects/voting_rights/page?id=0035>Read more detailed information about the case here and forward it to your friends and colleagues Dear Mark, Because of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act minorities do not have to overcome poll taxes, literacy tests, "grandfather clauses" and other discriminatory measures in order to exercise their right to vote. Despite this progress there is still much work to be done. That's why today's oral argument before the Supreme Court on Section 5 is so important. Section 5 is a critical provision of the VRA that requires any new voting procedures be "pre-cleared" by the government in certain jurisdictions to prevent rule changes that would disenfranchise minority voters. Recognizing the importance of Section 5, Congress has reauthorized it four times, most recently in 2006 with broad bipartisan support. As Congress found in 2006 when it underwent an exhaustive inquiry into the continuing need for key provisions of the VRA, Section 5 continues to be a critical element in preventing discrimination in voting across the country. While Section 5 has done a tremendous job at empowering all eligible voters to participate in the democratic process, its work is not done <http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/projects/voting_rights/page?id=0035>Click here for more detailed information about this case and forward it to your friends and colleagues. We need your help as we continue the fight for minority voting rights! The Lawyers' Committee has been a leader in this case, representing the Texas State Conference of the NAACP and Austin Branch of the NAACP in the case Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder in both district court, where the case was dismissed, and now at the Supreme Court. The case began when a small utility district, located in Travis County, Texas, sought to be exempted from Section 5 coverage via the so-called "bailout" provision of the Voting Rights Act which allows jurisdictions to opt out of Section 5 coverage, or, in the alternative, to have the reauthorized Section 5 declared unconstitutional. <http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/projects/voting_rights/page?id=0035>Click here for more detailed information about this case and forward it to your friends and colleagues. We need your help as we continue the fight for minority voting rights! The continuing need for Section 5 was clearly illustrated by the work of the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act in 2005. Established by the Lawyers' Committee, the Commission held 10 regional hearings covering practically every state in the union, and built an exhaustive record of discrimination in voting. The Commission report found that, while evidence of the VRA's positive impact is clear, racial and language minorities are still vulnerable to historic tactics and new devices designed to dissuade and disfranchise. Minorities face unequal access to the ballot ranging from voting barriers to challenges electing representatives of their choice. During the oral arguments, Justices Souter and Breyer referred to the large record at Congress' disposal, thanks to the work of the National Commission, when questioning the plaintiff's attorneys' assertion that Congress did not have sufficient evidence to draw from when they reauthorized the act. Additionally, Justice Ginsburg referred to the repeated litigation where the Lawyers' Committee represented African-American students at Prairie View A&M in Waller County, Texas on behalf of the NAACP as further evidence that Section 5 is still needed. The Supreme Court should rule on the constitutionality of Section 5 by June. We need to prepare now for the possibility of needing Congress to ensure adequate protections are in place for minority voters. With you help, the Lawyers' Committee and Election Protection will continue to fight racial discrimination across this country. Thank you, Jonah Goldman Election Protection Leader Director, National Campaign for Fair Elections <http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/admin/voting_rights/documents/files/0002.pdf>P.S. Read the brief the Lawyers' Committee submitted to the Supreme Court here. <http://www.nationalcampaignforfairelections.org/page/m2/4b660ab1/1ba9d69c/870a4b5/410d033/535308351/VEsD/>Support the National Campaign for Fair Elections - donate today! This email was sent to: mark.mil...@nyu.edu <http://www.nationalcampaignforfairelections.org/page/m2/4b660ab1/1ba9d69c/870a4b5/410d034/535308351/VEsA/>Click here to unsubscribe. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to Mark Crispin Miller's "News From Underground" newsgroup. To unsubscribe, send a blank email to newsfromunderground-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com OR go to http://groups.google.com/group/newsfromunderground and click on the "Unsubscribe or change membership" link in the yellow bar at the top of the page, then click the "Unsubscribe" button on the next page. For more News From Underground, visit http://markcrispinmiller.com -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
