Liberals are jumping all over Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s comment yesterday during an oral hearing in which he asked whether continuing the special enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act in some states was a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Many, including his court colleague Justice Sonia Sotomayor, seemed to interpret it as questioning whether the right to vote is itself a “racial entitlement.” For his pains, Scalia was branded a racist. What is left of the aging remnants of the once-vital civil rights movement are hoping that outrage about that remark can galvanize public pressure not just for the continuation of the Voting Rights Act as it currently stands, but against both voter integrity laws and the system of racial majority districts.
The problem with the critique of Scalia is pretty much the same as that with the defense of the legal status quo. What is at stake in this debate and the legal case in question–Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder–is not the right to vote, which Scalia supports as much as any liberal. There is no evidence that anyone in Shelby County is trying to reinstate Jim Crow laws or prevent African Americans or other minorities from exercising their constitutionally protected right to cast a ballot. Nor is there any evidence that this is true anywhere else in the states and counties that remain under direct federal supervision as a result of the 1965 law. The entitlement in question is rather the ability of the Justice Department to act as a national elections commission in certain areas that were once strongholds of racial hatred, even though the country has changed markedly in the last half century. Instead of promoting the false charge that Scalia is a segregationist, the focus should be on who benefits from the continuation of Section Five of the Act. The answer is: a class of political elites that benefit from the creation of racial majority districts.
As both the plaintiffs and some of the justices pointed out yesterday, the problem that that provision of the law was designed to address has been solved. Voter turnout of blacks is actually higher in the nine states covered by the Act than in the rest of the country. The continuation of Section Five–in which certain areas must prove they are not discriminating against minorities rather than forcing the government to prove that they are–does, however, hamper the ability of legislatures to redraw districts or to pass voter integrity laws that liberals falsely allege are directed against minorities.
It must be understood that once the detritus of segregation and other laws intended to prevent blacks from voting were swept away, the main point of the law has been to create a system that enshrined racial gerrymandering as the norm. Since it was assumed that whites would never vote for an African American, the courts mandated that congressional and legislative districts be drawn so as to ensure that blacks and in some cases Hispanics would be able to elect one of their own.
This led to a vast expansion of the number of blacks in Congress and in state legislatures, but ironically also hurt the party that most of them supported. The districts created by this racial gerrymander were often bizarrely drawn and had little to do with geography or history. But the main point is that they drained black Democratic voters from other districts that ensured the engineering of a few safe Democratic seats. Yet they also made the remaining districts much whiter and, ironically, far more likely to be Republican.
That was good for the few black politicians who were in possession of these safe Democratic and racially homogeneous seats, and for the Republican Party that cleaned up everywhere else. Whether that is actually good for the country or for African American voters, who have little influence on the composition of Congress and whose representatives are the products of petty one-party autocracies, is another matter entirely.
Just as crucial to understanding the impact of this case is the way the Civil Rights Act has become a weapon to use against voter integrity laws. What is left of the civil rights movement has embraced the cause of stopping voter ID laws as a way of reviving their influence. Minorities are no less capable of getting the same photo ID that is needed to conduct just about any transaction in the modern commercial world or to interact with government than anyone else. But the left attempts to argue that opposition to them is indistinguishable from that of racial justice. This is absurd, and it is opposed by what polls have consistently showed to be the vast majority of Americans—including minorities—who think laws that seek to prevent electoral cheating are inherently reasonable.
The current interpretation of the Voting Rights Act gives Attorney General Eric Holder the right to oppose these laws and to brand them as racist. As the president’s mention of the issue in his State of the Union showed, this is an attempt to play the racial card for partisan purposes. It also gives aging rights groups who have outlived their usefulness a new lease on life. But all this also undermines any notion that what is at stake in the Shelby case is anything remotely connected to the original intent of the 1965 law.
The South has transcended its tragic past and is no more nor less racist than any other part of the country. But given the inability of so many in Congress on both sides of the aisle to rise above their own self-interest on this issue, the court is the only venue that can talk sense and end a practice that now does more mischief than good. Protecting the right to vote is a sacred cause that deserves the support of all Americans. But the preservation of this outmoded system, or wrongly branding Scalia a racist, has nothing to with that.
Thanks for shining a different light on the subject than the one we've been given by the MSM.
"There is no evidence that anyone in Shelby County is trying to reinstate Jim Crow laws or prevent African Americans or other minorities from exercising their constitutionally protected right to cast a ballot. Nor is there any evidence that this is true anywhere else in the states and counties that remain under direct federal supervision as a result of the 1965 law." n nWhich is why the Act should be retained and indeed EXPANDED to include states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, where voter suppression attempts are most egregious.
There is quite a bit of evidence that Shelby County interferes with the right to cast a ballot. n nSince 1975, violations of the Voting Rights Act have been found in Shelby County 20 times.
pj, what years did those violations occur? You are citing less than one violation per year, and it would be relevant to know if they were all e.g. in 1976, or all before 1980, or if they continue to the present day. It would also be helpful to know what the violations consisted of.
What years did these violations occur? n nThe very case before the Supreme Court rose out of a violation in 2006. n nThe city of Calera redrew its council districts in a manner that would have eliminated the councils' sole minority representative. It did so without applying for pre-clearance.
Thanks. But that may or may not be proof of intent to suppress voting rights. It may simply be failure to obtain pre-clearance of an innocent move that would not be a violation in another city that was not already subject to an order.
Simply an innocent move to eliminate the sole minority representative in the council, eh? n nYou are arguing for equal protection for people who discriminate against minorities. n n
No, I am asking for evidence of improper animus and that this was more than a routine redistricting, and you are relying on name calling to avoid having to supply any. The decision may have been racially motivated, it may have been partisan, it may have been merely stupid, and it may have been none of these and merely a technical violation of an order that should have been lifted a decade ago. You have made up your mind that it is the first of these, and that anyone who asks inconvenient questions is defending evil people. Whether you compound that error is up to you, but I am hoping you are sufficiently honest and intelligent not to do so.
Sarcasm is not proof. Neither is presumption.—
Proof is how the case turned out. n nCalera, Alabama lost the case. The election result was nullified. A new election was held, with the candidates running for at large representation, which replaced the disputed redistricting. n nThe minority candidate who lost his seat in the disputed election won his seat back in the subsequent election. n nNow, you can choose with whom you wish to stand. That is not sarcasm, or overstating a case. If you wish to stand with the folks who tried to redistrict the sole minority councilman out his seat, that is your choice. n n
Yes, proof that the city violated the act by failing to seek permission. For whatever reason, the distinction escapes you, but the distinction is the reason that neither the AG's charging decision nor the court outcome proves or disproves you point, and why your ad hominem argument is unfounded.I grow tired of repeating myself. Apparently you do not.—
No, proof that the city violated the act through a redistricting that discriminated against minority voters, and by conducting an election without preclearance of that redistricting. n nI will take blame for your confusion. Instead of writing that the city did not ask for preclearance, I should have written that they did not receive preclearance. n nCalera officials had a choice. Submit their redistricting plans to the U.S. District Court in D.C., or submit them to the Attorney General. It appears that they chose the latter. The Attorney General objected to their submission, not on the grounds that they failed to apply for preclearance, but on the grounds that their plans discriminated against minorities. n nThe earlier link I provided explains the choice Calera had: "The jurisdiction can file an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Unless the court determines that the jurisdiction has established the absence of both a discriminatory purpose and effect, the change cannot be implemented. As an alternative, the change can be submitted to the Attorney General. Unless the Attorney General informs the jurisdiction that it has not met its burden of showing the absence of both a discriminatory and effect within 60 days after receipt of a completed submission, the jurisdiction is free to use the change." n nProof of intent is immaterial. What matters is the presence of a discriminatory purpose and/or effect. The Attorney General filed his objection before the election. It was at that point that Calera did not have preclearance. Calera then proceeded to conduct its election, adding another violation of Section 5. n nThere is no way around the fact that Calera was found by a court of law to have changed its districts with discriminatory purpose and/or effect. n nAsking for proof of intent is pointless. n n n n n n n n
<DIV>Unfortuantely you continue to repeat the same fallacy: that the city's failure to seek pre-clearance and their inability to disprove discriminatory purpose somehow proves they had a discriminatory purpose. It does not. All it proves is that they violated the statute. This is a distinction that you find difficult to grasp, but it is crucial to determining whether an action was immoral or merely prohibited. Malum prohibitum offenses are often matters of strict liability, but that strict liability neither proves nor disproves that the act complained of was malum per se. </DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Suppose someone deliberately runs down his estranged wife with his car. As a condition of probation, he is not permitted to drive a car except to go to or from work, unless he obtains prior court approvalf. Three months later he drives to the supermarket to do some shopping and does not seek court approval. His wife also shops at that store, and was walking across the parking lot as he was driving in. That's certainly sufficient evidence that he violated probation. It is not sufficient evidencethat he was again running down his wife with the car, or that it was his purpose to do so. </DIV> <DIV>
The city did not initially fail to seek preclearance. They submitted the redistricting and annexation proposals to the Attorney General. He objected to their proposals, based solely on the question of whether Calera had established both the absence of any discriminatory purpose and effect. n nIt was prior to the election that Attorney General Mukasey filed his objection to Calera's proposals. That objection amounted to a denial of preclearance, again, based entirely on the issue of discriminatory purpose and effect. n nCalera ignored the objection and, without preclearance, held the election. n nAt that point, Attorney General Mukasey asked for a three judge panel to nullify the results of the election. He noted that Calera had now violated Section 5 twice. They had proposed changes that he found to have a discriminatory purpose and effect, and they held an election under those changes without preclearance. n nThe three judge panel ruled in favor of the Attorney General, and vacated the results of the election. n nThe analogy you drew is absurd. n n n n n
"based entirely on the issue of discriminatory purpose and effect." – in which the burden of proof was placed on the county to prove a negative. Intent of purpose to discriminate may indeed be there, but was never proven — or requred to be proven – at any level. n n"They had proposed changes that he found to have a discriminatory purpose and effect," — not according to the language you cited._ n n"The analogy you drew is absurd. " but not nearly as absurd as insisting that failure to prove lack of discriminatory intent is the same as proving existence of discriminatory intent.
Let's be clear about what you claim is lack of intent: n nCalera attempted to eliminate its only majority African American district by changing its composition from 70% registered Black voters to just 29.5%. This is a district that had been created in the first place as a result of a consent decree in a prior voting rights litigation. n nYou are dancing on the head of a pin defending people who have a history of discriminating against minority voters.
It may have also been simply a move to push the issue to the SC so the racial gerrymandering of the districts could be ended at long last. I don't know one way or the other, but it is a possibility. Though it's more likely that the main purpose was simply to have reasonable boundaries set up for the districts instead of the asinine ones that have been created. n nHere in north Fl, we have one of the most useless people in Congress – Corrine Brown – comfortably elected year after year due to her district being redrawn in 1990 (the year she ran) specifically to get such a person elected. This district actually CURVES around particular areas of Jacksonville in order to give her the most favorable vote possible. It extends through 8 counties running north to south for almost 90 miles (with the bend in the district, it's about 100 miles long).
You mean attempts to prevent organized fraud by the Democrats, right?
TrollelA, Philadelphia has gone out of its way to try to suppress GOP votes, and in at least one precint to tolerate threats of violence against white voters. In the 2012 election, one Philly precint even forcibly excluded official GOP poll watrchjers, in violation of law, and suffered no consequences for it. The rest of your post is non-sense and relies on long-debunked legends.
Well an expansion of the VRA to cover the entire country would at least have the virtue of being Constitutional. n nBut ironically, it is the VRA and the provisions for compacting black voters into "majority/minority" districts that allowed the GOP to keep control of the House in 2012. Were this provision to be overturned, you would theoretically greatly reduce the number of black Representatives (by diluting the black vote) but increase the number of Democrats in total (assuming that blacks could be relied upon to continue their near automatic voting for Democrats, even after the removal of the racial loyalty motivation).
And Chicago where Republicans are trying to suppress the rights of the non-living to vote.
Perhaps, but without much success. It's tough to curb a long recognized right.
I have lived all of my 64 years in the South. As a kid I witnessed: Blacks to ride in the back of the bus, separate water fountains and restrooms (white fountains and restrooms clean and sanitary- black facilities- not so much. How African-Americans could travel-I don't understand b/c they were not allowed in restaurants or hotels unless they were in "that part of town". Schools?-segregated. Going to the doctor? -separate waiting rooms. Jobs? That would be laborer or service industry. Voting? not encouraged. Any African American born after 1965 or so does not have a clue about real discrimination. Today's South is totally different. IMHO African Americans are limited only by their own ambitions and abilities.
It is interesting that the same group, same judges, who without any evidene of voter fraud, are claiming voter fraud as an excuse to supress voter turnout through restricting early voting, requiring voter ID, purging legal voters and creating 8 hour lines to vote in minority districts are now claiming in spite of evidence like Alabama that in 2004 voted to keep “Seperate but Equal” in its state constitution that protection for minority voting is no longer needed. Remember, but for the voting rights act David Dukes would be a U.S. senator. The screams against the voting rights act in spite of evidence of its need by the same people trying to supress voter turnout by claiming without evidence voter fraud, screams why section 5 of the voting rights act is still needed.
“Voter integrity laws”? What a great euphemism for voter suppression! The very use of that phrase makes the case that the voting rights act is still very much needed.
And yet, Commentary magazine is now in the business of defending the most vile and reactionary positions being espoused on the political scene. n nWhat a change from what had once been a magazine of thought and insight
Clearly, the VRA should, from the outset, have applied to all states or none. But, as long as there was the compelling evidence that it was disproportionately needed in certain jurisdictions, there was practical, if Constitutionally dubious, reason for its SELECTIVE application of more onerous procedures for local administration of elections. n nHowever, it is the hallmark of cynicism to assume that those conditions which made plausible the application of Constitutionally unsound constraints continue today. What we are seeing is an emotionally charged innuendo that Jim Crow is still alive and well, Then our intelligence is further abused with specious argument that the failure to vote for Obama in satisfactory numbers and that support for measures to assure the integrity of elections are evidence or even indications of a propensity to rig elections. And, somehow, we are invited to close our eyes to the remedies available in existing and uncontested law should actual incidents arise of deprivation of the right to vote.
There's plenty of evidence that Mr. Tobin is telling a lie when he writes, "There is no evidence that anyone in Shelby County is trying to reinstate Jim Crow laws or prevent African Americans or other minorities from exercising their constitutionally protected right to cast a ballot. Nor is there any evidence that this is true anywhere else in the states and counties that remain under direct federal supervision as a result of the 1965 law." n nThat is not true. It is false. Voter ID laws are Jim Crow by another means. n nMore than 600 million votes have been cast in elections in states requiring voter id. The total number of in person voters presenting false id's was less than 12.
"Voter ID laws are Jim Crow by another means. " nBecause Blacks can't get ID's and whites can? Doesn't that make TSA a racist organization? And banks? n nEric Holder gave an outraged speech purporting to explain why demanding photo ID is racist. But his Justice Department demanded that you present photo ID to be admitted to the room where he was speaking. n n"The total number of in person voters presenting false id's was less than 12 " In other words, there is at least some reason to believe that photo ID laws deter vote fraud. Thank you. You may now proceed to call me names for disagreeing with you.
Your chance of being a second prize winner in Powerball is much higher than the chances of a person presenting false id in order to vote.
I believe what you mean is: those odds are higher than the chances of getting CAUGHT presenting false ID (or no ID). And the reason that's so is *precisely* because of the lax status quo that Republicans are the only ones pointing out.
Nonsense. One individual with false ID out of every 50,000,000 votes cast is not reason enough to inconvenience millions of people.
I''ll take your word for the relative odds of Powerball vs. false ID. But we were talking about whether there is more risk of fraud when voters are NOT asked to present ID. If there is greater chance of fraud, and if the ID requirement is equally applied, there is no justrification for your charge that voter ID laws are Jim Crow by other means. Please try to follow the discussion.
For all practical purposes, there is no fraud. The problem does not exist. Asserting the problem exists is false. It is a lie of the Right used to make it more difficult for minorities and the poor to vote. Obtaining an ID is NOT easy for some poor people. That's why it is an instance of Jim Crow being brought back.
An excellent analysis of this situation is "Voting Rights–and Wrongs: The Elusive Quest for Racially Fair Elections" by Abigail Thernstrom.
Here we go … the incidence of fraud was so low, that it can't possibly be a problem. But we ask for ID [needed for more mundane things] and you and yours scream"Jim Crow!!!!!11one!!!1" nYou are intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt.
The more intellectually dishonest because we were talking about whether asking for ID was justified, and he switched to a discussion of the rate of false ID. If no ID is required, how are the rates of false ID even remotely relevant?
In many jurisdictions, a voter signs his name in a book — without seeing his previous signature — before he casts his ballot. Matching signatures should be more than enough for an ID. Claiming that it is not is a lie of the Right.
How can a law requiring an I.D. be "racist"? Thats downright stupid. In every other civilized country you have to show an I.D. to vote. 0bama always holds up Europe as a role model. I happen to know everywhere in Europe the voting requires ID. They are laughing at us, I have relatives there, they really are laughing at this insanity. "Stupid Americans!"
One option, instead of requiring an ID to vote, is to use the model set up in Iraq and Afghanistan – require all voters to dip their finger in an indelible ink. Then have a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in federal prison for voter fraud. Actually, I would be all for this method in addition to requiring an ID. n nIn Florida: n"All US citizens are required to provide proof of US citizenship and identity. Non-citizens are ineligible for food assistance." n nTherefore, if minorities are disproportionately affected by the need for an ID (state id is around 20.00 and free if you can prove hardship) due to having low income, how do they get food stamps? n nThe reality is that Obama and Democrats don't want tougher laws or enforcement measures because 1 – (lesser) most voter fraud at the national and especially the lower levels tilt votes in their favor and 2 – (greater) They love the whipping horse of yelling "Jim Crow" and victimizing blacks and hispanics. The entire party electoral strategy is built around this (and the emerging whipping horse of 'homosexual orientation discrimination').
A law requiring an ID can easily be racist.
Section 5 requirements, pre approval by DoJ, now pales in comparison with current, legal, means of controlling the outcome of the voting. The target is not blacks but challengers. The current gerrymandered voting districts are openly touted as a means to destroy the minority party, or to insure that the grim reaper is the sole being capable of installing a new office holder. The voting districts are computer drawn to assure that many voters are permanently disenfranchised, regardless of their skin color.r nWhen it was enacted, Section 5 was considered a drastic, temporary infringement of selected political districts who were promised that it would last 5 years. That was two generations ago. After electing a black President twice, it is a difficult argument that blacks can not gain high office in America. Chief Justice Roberts stated the truth: the way to end discrimination, is to end discrimination.
Gee I said this myself a few days ago: disenfranchising the Elected Class would benefit almost everyone else, and gerrymander lawsuits of all types essentially keep the Elected Class in power, as of course would their unrestricted Gerrymandering – but at least with THAT, it is clear who exactly is to blame…
We are agreed they did not ask for consent. We are not agreed that you cited any facts that show an intent to suppress minority voters or to discriminate against minorities, which is what you accused me of defending. Perhaps you have overstated your case just a bit?
It is not MY case. It WAS the case of The United States of America, under Attorney General Michael Mukasey, v. The City of Calera, Alabama. There is one statement I made that needs to be corrected: the violation occurred in 2008, not 2006. n n"On August 25, 2008, the Attorney General interposed a timely objection under Section 5 to the submitted annexations to the City of Calera's redistricting plan and the 177 annexations on the grounds that the submitting authority had failed to meet its burden of establishing that the proposed changes would not have a discriminatory purpose and effect on minority voters. " n n"Defendants have not obtained a judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to Section 5 declaring that the proposed districts and annexations have neither the purpose nor the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color." n n"The failure of defendants to obtain Section 5 preclearance of the proposed district boundaries and annexations renders these voting changes legally unenforceable." n n"Unless enjoined by this Court, defendants will continue to violate the Voting Rights Act by continuing to administer and implement the objected-to change in district boundaries and electorate by certifying the results of the August 26, 2008 and October 7, 2008 elections. The prevailing candidates will be sworn into office on November 3, 2008." n n"WHEREFORE, the United States of America prays that a court of three judges be convened to hear this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1973c and 28 U.S.C. 2284 and thereafter enter a judgment: n n(1) Declaring that the changes in district boundaries and electorate for City of Calera elections constitute changes affecting voting within the meaning of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973c, and are legally unenforceable because they have not received the requisite preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; n n(2) Declaring that implementation of the changes in district boundaries and electorate for City of Calera elections violates Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973c; and n n(3) Enjoining defendants, their successors in office, their agents and all persons acting in concert or participation with them, from administering or implementing the district boundaries and electorate to which the Attorney General has interposed a timely objection unless and until preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42, U.S.C.1973c, is obtained; and n n(4) Enjoining defendants, their successors in office, their agents and all persons acting in concert or participation with them, from certifying the results of the August 26, 2008, and October 7, 2008 municipal elections, which was based on the district boundaries and electorate to which the Attorney General has interposed a timely objection unless and until preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42, U.S.C.1973c, is obtained; and n n(5) Enjoining defendants, their successors in office, their agents and all persons acting in concert or participation with them, from swearing in the prevailing candidates on November 3, 2008, which would be based on the district boundaries and electorate to which the Attorney General has interposed a timely objection unless and until preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42, U.S.C.1973c. n nPlaintiff further prays that this Court grant such additional relief as the interests of justice may require, together with the costs and disbursements of this action." n n( If you think the case is overstated, write a letter of complaint to Ex-Attorney General Michael Mukasey. ) n n n n n n n n
No, the DOJ does NOT say that there is proof of improper animus. Go back and read the language you quoted. DOJ points out that the statute presumes improper animus, and puts the burden of proof on the city to rebut the presumption. By contrast, your case is that improper animus existed — something that DOJ does not allege, at least in the part that you quoted. So yes, it seems to me that you have overstated your case.DOJ was simply applying the statute, and have pleaded a case under that statute. But you are stating that violation of the statute shows discriminatory intent, which it does not.—
C-Span2 televised the oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Friday night, March 1, and will rebroadcast them later this week. You can also go to the C-Span website and hear what was said.
Yes, that is indeed evidence that they violated the statute, which I am not disputing. I am disputing your assumption that violation of the statute proves they intended to discriminate. I am not saying they had no intent to discriminate, but I am asking for proof of that intent, which you have yet to supply. The distinction seems to escape you.—