Turning the clock back on voting rights
Counting the Cost
Shelby County, Ala., is suing the Justice Department because they think that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (and its reauthorization in 1982 and 2006) is unfair.
The facts—the small city of Calera, Ala., redistricted its boundaries in a way that the sole African American councilman lost his seat. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act forced a new election with different boundaries, and Ernest Montgomery regained his seat. Shelby County (which includes parts of Birmingham) objects to the provision of the Voting Rights Act that requires that areas with histories of past discrimination submit a request for changes to the DOJ or a federal court in advance. This would include many southern states, as well as areas, like Alaska, that have historic discrimination against native people, and places like Texas and parts of California, that have historic discrimination against Latinos. They say that it’s all equal now and there is no need to monitor them.
Not surprisingly, conservatives and the attorney generals of several affected states have filed amicus briefs to support Shelby County. These include the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas. Additionally, the usual suspects like the Conservative Legal Defense Fund, the Cato Institute, the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Southeast Legal Foundation (among others) have lined up to support Shelby.
It is not surprising that the conservative Project 21, nominally an African American organization, has lined up to support Shelby. It is more surprising that the National Black Chamber of Commerce has filed an amicus brief. I’d be most interested in learning where the Black Chamber polled its membership before filing this brief. If I were a member, I’d have to cancel my membership. If my dues were used to support that nonsense, I’d be repelled. I guess it just goes to show that “everybody brown ain’t down,” and to raise questions about this organization.
Many suggest that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act means there is no need for Section 5. While Section 2 allows lawsuits, it forces plaintiffs to show that changes in voting provisions are motivated by “invidious practices.” Section 5 says that those who are known to have engaged in such practices are required to have the Department of Justice review them.
If our nation had never chosen to implement the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, there would have been no need for the Voting Rights Act. The 14th Amendment actually states that state population decides the number of congressional representatives, but if enough people are denied the right to vote, congressional representation should be reduced. This provision has never been enforced, even when the whole Black population in some southern states could not vote.
The 15th Amendment prohibits denying the right to vote based on race, color, and previous condition of servitude, and authorized Congress to enforce this amendment with the appropriate action and legislation.
Until 1876, federal troops enforced the right that African Americans had to vote, spurring an unprecedented level of African American civic participation. Because the African American population (and number of voters) was greater than the number of Whites in Mississippi, Louisiana and South Carolina, African Americans were elected as lieutenant governors, secretaries of state and treasurers (not to mention Gov. Pinchback of Mississippi, who served a scant two months and was denied seats he was elected to in the Senate and in Congress).
Additionally, 16 African Americans served in Congress—two in the Senate and 14 in the House of Representatives. No wonder some were eager to nullify the 15th Amendment. Federal troops were withdrawn from southern states in 1877; in 2013, 136 years later, southern states are asking that voting protection be withdrawn from their states.
Why? Just as the election of 16 African American legislators alarmed the South, so has the election and re-election of President Barack Obama alarmed our nation. His election reminds us all of the power of the vote, and emboldens those who would limit it. That’s why several states have passed voter indentification legislation requiring people to have an official government I.D. in order to vote. That’s why a 102-year-old woman waited more than six hours to vote. That’s why some states have consolidated voting places, making people travel farther and wait longer to vote.
We don’t have poll taxes anymore (although forcing people to travel more than an hour and wait more than an hour is an implicit poll tax), nor do voters have to take a fitness test, so the means of voter suppression have been both more and less subtle. It reminds us of why we had the 14th and 15th amendments, and in our nation’s failure to implement, the Voting Rights Act.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard these arguments on Feb. 27. We must be alarmed and, if we live in states that filed amicus briefs, aware of those who would suppress our vote.
Julianne Malveaux is a Washington, D.C.-based economist and author.
DISCLAIMER: The beliefs and viewpoints expressed in opinion pieces, letters to the editor, by columnists and/or contributing writers are not necessarily those of OurWeekly.
The Senate’s Gang of Eight have put together an 844-page monstrosity known as the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act, legislation that President Barack Obama says he “basically approves” of.
The crafters of this essentially unreadable bill were senators Dick Durbin (Illinois), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Michael Bennett (D-Colo.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.).
The right wing seems determined to associate President Barack Obama with any government program that helps people on the bottom. Thus the term Obamacare used to attack the health care program that President Obama fashioned and worked with Congress to approve. While Obamacare is not perfect, it brings more people into the healthcare system, and further solidifies the safety net that many have attempted to fray.
Although still very cautious, cognizant of starting a firestorm that can become instantly uncontrollable, a growing number of African American leaders and spokespersons are asking the Obama administration, “OK, you’re a second-termer now—not running for reelection . . . . Where is the love you’re supposed to show us?”
I never considered the late Rodney King anything of a philosopher, but as one observes Washington shenanigans, especially around fiscal matters, it seems that Brother King had a point. Can we all just, maybe, get along?
I was among the 33.5 million people who sat riveted to their televisions, parsing every second of the State of the Union address. I was stunned to learn, through a Washington Post article by Lisa De Moraes, that viewership was less substantial for this address than last year’s 38 million, and even lower than the 48 million that watched in 2010. Are people less interested in what our president has to say? Or is there something else going on?
In any case, from my perspective this was an important and significant State of the Union address.