The Supreme Court has opened the floodgates: Less than a year since state legislatures, governors and secretaries of state in both the north and south tried to suppress minority voting via a bagful of dirty tricks, the Supreme Court has gutted the long-standing Voting Rights Act–which has long been lauded as one of the most successful pieces of civil-rights legislation ever enacted in the U.S. Ignoring what happened during the 2012 presidential campaign–remember Florida? Ohio? Pennsylvania?–the Supreme Court thinks that “our country has changed,” we’re post-racial [They’re joking, right?], and that we don’t need to make sure, in advance, that states don’t enact discriminatory voting laws. But the 5-4 Supreme Court majority essentially gives a free pass to any state that wants to do precisely that.. The laws might not stand forever, says the Court’s decision, but what the heck: States can enact them and worry about court challenges later. Great plan. Remember how well that worked for us before the Voting Rights Act?

That’s my take on it. Here’s how political cartoonists portray the Great Supreme Court Voting Rights Debacle of 2013.

[cincopa AELArOLhBx_z]

The post Supreme Court shreds Voting Rights Act: Political cartoonists respond appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Perhaps if it hadn’t been for the Bush v Gore Supreme Court case, we would give the Supremes the benefit of the doubt when it comes to rendering a case based on actual legal considerations, rather than political ones. Now, once again, they have presented us with a decision that, whether legally sound or not, just doesn’t pass the giggle test.

As the New York Times reported, “The Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 25, 2013) effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.

The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, exactly 100 years after the  Fifteenth Amendment to the constitution made it unconstitutional to discriminate against African-Americans in exercising the right to vote. But the constitution is not self-enforcing; legislation has to be passed in order to carry out and enforce the mandates of the constitution. As part of the Civil Rights movement and the Great Society, Congress stepped up in 1965 and insisted that federal marshals ensure voting rights for African-Americans in those states that had historically discriminated against African-Americans.

Now the Supreme Court says that there is not sufficient current evidence that southern states would discriminate. Advocates of striking down the key provision of the voting rights act argued that the South has changed, and that such discrimination would not exist in sufficient numbers to make a difference.

But what does common sense say? It says that southern states are not ready to have full control over their elections. Consider that African-Americans make up 37.5% of the population of the state of Mississippi, more than in any other state. Yet in the 2012 presidential race, President Barack Obama received only 43.5% of the vote in Mississippi and he was soundly trounced by Mitt Romney who received 55.5%.

A cursory examination of these numbers shows that Obama received only 6% more votes than the total of African-American votes (Obama received over 95% of the African-American vote). The numbers play out that Obama received approximately 15% of the vote from Caucasian voters. There’s nothing subjective about this. Democrats in general have consistently lost southern states since 1968, the first presidential election year after the Voting Rights Act was passed.

The conservatives on the Supreme Court can argue all they want that the empirical evidence is on their side. But that’s simply not true. They are correct that there is a body of empirical evidence that helps substantiate their position, but this evidence is minimally relevant to the case. The irony of this decision is if the Supremes had sided with Al Gore in 2000, we would have a different make-up of the Court now and more just rulings. The shame continues.

The post This is what happens when the Supreme Court loses sight of common sense appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The deadline for voter registration has come and gone in my state. But the memories linger on. Carrying a clipboard stocked with the 19^th-century voter registration cards we use in Missouri, and fully equipped with the sense that registering to vote—whether Democrat or Republican—is a beneficial activity,  I’ve been out there talking to people.

[Sidebar: A Republican acquaintance of mine, when told what I’d been up to, and knowing that I’m an Obama supporter, thought he was being clever when he winked and said, “I guess you’ve been doing that in East St. Louis, right?” Around here, that’s code for African-American neighborhoods, and I don’t find racist humor at all amusing.]

So, if I’m looking for lessons learned from my voter registration activities this year, that might be the first one: We most certainly do not live in a post-racist America.

Here are a few more. They’re less galling, more nitty-gritty, and, particularly in one instance, actually inspiring:

1.

Despite Americas low voter turnout rate, being a registered voter still has cache. What makes me think that?  Because I’ve observed that people do not want to admit that they are not registered, and that is why, when I walk around with a voter registration clipboard, I’ve learned not to ask, “Are you registered to vote?” Instead, I try to remember to ask them if their voter registration matches their current address, or if they’ve moved since the last time they voted. [I can usually get a laugh if I add to that list, “Or have you entered the witness protection program?”

2.

Once you have moved, it can be hard to remember your previous address. Often, when a person is filling out a change of address for voter registration, he/she has to think hard about the old address. Lesson learned:  We Americans don’t just move. We move on.

3.

People who are ineligible to vote are very well informed about their status.  Non-citizens.  Too young (but often looking, to these aging eyes, much older).  People with a felony conviction. In that instance, the legal system is, apparently doing an excellent job of informing people that they can’t vote .In my state, people with felonies can re-register when they are “off paper,” meaning when they have completed parole. On that point, they seem not as well informed.  (Suggestion: On that auspicious day when you get off papers, parole officers—or  somebody—should  welcome people back into democracy, inform them of their restored civil rights, and perhaps even hand them a voter registration card.)

4.

Too many people, even when offered the chance to register right then and there, decline, for reasons that work directly against their own self interest. I’ve heard a lot of these reasons, and i am certain that others manning the front lines of voter reg can cite many more:”My vote doesn’t count.” Right. Tell that to Missouri State Representative Stacey Newman, who won her primary election by precisely one vote.”The winner is destined to win, and nothing we do can change that.”And here’s my favorite from my most recent go-round:  “I take my voting advice from Homer Simpson. Homer says, “I  feel like a real American when i don’t vote.” (Homer has a point. A satirical point. Not a serious point, sir.)

5.

And, if you think it is hard to persuade an undecided voter, try convincing an apathetic or uninformed eligible citizen simply to register.  One young man told me that he doesn’t vote because it doesn’t matter. (I asked, by the way, and his non-voting was not based on religious beliefs.)  Pressing him a bit I noted that he was just coming from a doctor’s appointment at a federally funded clinic, and I was wondering how that was working for him. “It’s good,” he said. “I really need my Medicaid.” “Hmm. maybe you should vote,” I replied. “If you want Medicaid, you need to vote for people who want to keep it and give it government money.” “Nah,” came the answer. “I just don’t vote.”

The best and most effective argument for registering to vote that I heard this year came from another volunteer. Trying to persuade a man who was very reluctant to register, she told him her story:  “I grew up in South Carolina, where my parents couldn’t vote, had to sit in the back of the bus and drink from the ‘Coloreds Only’ fountain,” she said.  “Then, in 1965, with the stroke of a pen, we got the Voting Rights Act, and everything changed. And I want you to realize that, with another stroke of another pen, that could all go away again. And that’s why you need to register and then vote.”The young man said he’d think about it, but he walked away. And then, one hour later, he came back and registered to vote for the first time in his life.

And that’s why I’m keeping my clipboard.

The post Lessons learned by a clipboard-carrying, voter registration volunteer appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The federal Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. Ironically, it passed just a year after Republican Senator Barry Goldwater’s launched his southern strategy in his race against Lyndon Johnson for president. Johnson’s commitment to civil rights as well as his Great Society meant that progressives would have very little strength in the South. However, as more and more African-Americans became enfranchised to vote, progressives achieved a number of important victories in the south, albeit primarily on the state and local level.

Recent pronouncements by Republican leaders, including presidential candidates, clearly indicate that they have not accepted the most progressive victories in the New Deal, Great Society, and as recent as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. One of these areas is voting rights. On Tuesday, March 13, Rachel Maddow interviewed Rev. Al Sharpton about a variety of issues related to voting rights. Below is a key excerpt from the interview. Also included is a link to the actual interview. Rachel Maddow’s introduction to the topic is about five minutes long; the remaining five minutes in the clip contain her interview with Rev. Sharpton.

Maddow: With the challenges to voting rights, in Alabama, Mississippi, even Wisconsin. etc., is it 1965 all over again?

Sharpton: I think that it’s the spirit of 1965. I think that we’ve gone from the poll tax to now photo ID. It’s like we’ve gone from Jim Crow to James Crow, Jr., Esquire. It’s more polished, more sophisticated, but the results are the same. If you an impact disproportionately on poor people, working class people, students who don’t have this kind of photo ID, seniors, and minorities, it’s designed to stifle the vote. Well that’s what Dr. King and others fought against in 1965 where they just outright wouldn’t let people vote. Here you’re putting an impediment there but you know what the results will be. It’s “fixing” a problem that doesn’t exist; there is no massive voter fraud. There was 0.0003% according to the Bush Administration of fraud that they found. So why are we changing the law when there’s no reason to change ID? We’re not against ID. Why not use the same kind of ID they used when Reagan ran or Clinton ran or both Bushes ran? Why all of a sudden now do you need it? You’re only see it [concern about voter ID] in the general election where they are targeting, trying to make it difficult for certain people who are trying to vote.

Maddow: Texas almost made it too easy to see the partisan dimensions here. You could argue that ID is not about race, even though it has a disproportionate racial impact; that’s not what it was about; you can make that same argument about the poll tax back in the day, but Texas did this nice thing where they decided that the voter ID that would count includes your license to carry a gun but not your student ID.

Sharpton: In Georgia, you can use your ID from certain state universities but not from certain historically black colleges. So I mean they have not been very subtle about it and I think that our job is to inform the public and I think that the Justice Department’s job is right; they have to pre-clear where there is a disproportionate impact on minority voters. It is ironic to me and insulting that we would as a nation celebrate Dr. King and then undermine what Dr. King is being celebrated for. One of them is voting rights.

INTERVIEW:

The post Civil rights: How different is today from 1965? appeared first on Occasional Planet.