President Obama Teleconference to call for restoration of the Voting Rights Act

Chris Wallace, moderator of The Hunger Games GOP presidential debate on FAUX News, plans ‘some doozies’ to ask the candidates.

voting-rights-act-signed-16x91Hmmm, I wonder whether he will begin by reminding the candidates that “Today is the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,” and ask them where they stand on GOP voter suppression tactics enacted in Red States since the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act, and whether they are willing to pledge to restore the enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act?

Bwahahaha! This is never going to happen. The last time that Chris Wallace asked a “gotcha” question in the 2012 presidential debates, disgraced former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich fed him to the rabid dogs of the FAUX News audience seated behind him. Newt Gingrich BLASTS Chris Wallace for his “Gotcha” Questions at IA Debate. Wallace’s butt-pucker expression was priceless.

Since the media villagers are all going to be focused on this clown car wreck of a GOP debate instead of the anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, the White House is doing some counter-programming of its own that will likely elicit little attention from the feckless media.

The Hill reports, Obama to call for Voting Rights Act restoration on law’s anniversary:

President Obama will call for the restoration of the Voting Rights Act on its 50th anniversary Thursday, the White House said.

Obama will hold a teleconference to commemorate the landmark legislation and call for its renewal, following a 2013 Supreme Court ruling that voided one of its central provisions.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who rose to prominence in the 1960s as a civil rights leader, will participate.

The event will allow Obama to draw a sharp contrast with Republicans, many of whom argue some provisions of the 1965 law went too far. It will take place on the same day as the first GOP presidential primary debate. 

Read more

GOP threatens government shutdown over Confederate flags and Planned Parenthood, but will not consider a bill to restore the Voting Rights Act

This coming Thursday, August 6, is the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in American history.

Voting-RightsWhen the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the coverage section, Section 4 of the Act, in 2013 in Shelby County v. Holder, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that Congress remained free to try to impose federal oversight on states where voting rights were at risk, but must do so based on contemporary data.

The Tea-Publican controlled Congress has failed to act on this suggestion from the Court, preferring the status quo of a gutted Voting Rights Act, followed by the largest number of voting restrictions enacted by GOP states since the Jim Crow era.

A bipartisan bill introduced by Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and John Conyers (D-Mich.) in response to the Supreme Court ruling that struck down Section 4 of the law in 2013 was introduced in 2014, and again earlier this year (The Sensenbrenner-Conyers bill, known as the Voting Rights Amendment Act). Bill To Restore Voting Rights Act Gets Another Bipartisan Push. A separate Democratic bill has also been introduced. Democrats Unveil Bill To Restore Gutted Voting Rights Act (The Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015, which goes beyond the version introduced in 2014).

Democrats have made a push for Congress to vote on these bills on the eve of the anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, but Tea-Publican congressional leaders have refused.

Read more

The GOP campaign to dismantle the Voting Rights Act of 1965

This coming Thursday, August 6, is the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in American history.

Jim Rutenberg of The New York Times in a lengthy exposé, “A Dream Undone,” examines the 50 year GOP campaign to dismantle this landmark piece of legislation. A Dream Undone (excerpts):

Screenshot from 2015-08-01 16:19:52[I]n the American South in 1956, not every would-be black voter was an Air Force officer with the wherewithal to call on the local election board; for decades, most had found it effectively impossible to attain the most elemental rights of citizenship. Only about one-quarter of eligible black voters in the South were registered that year, according to the limited records available. By 1959, when Frye went on to become one of the first black graduates of the University of North Carolina law school, that number had changed little. When Frye became a legal adviser to the students running the antisegregation sit-ins at the Greensboro Woolworth’s in 1960, the number remained roughly the same. And when Frye became a deputy United States attorney in the Kennedy administration, it had grown only slightly. By law, the franchise extended to black voters; in practice, it often did not.

What changed this state of affairs was the passage, 50 years ago this month, of the Voting Rights Act. Signed on Aug. 6, 1965, it was meant to correct “a clear and simple wrong,” as Lyndon Johnson said. “Millions of Americans are denied the right to vote because of their color. This law will ensure them the right to vote.” It eliminated literacy tests and other Jim Crow tactics, and — in a key provision called Section 5 — required North Carolina and six other states with histories of black disenfranchisement to submit any future change in statewide voting law, no matter how small, for approval by federal authorities in Washington. No longer would the states be able to invent clever new ways to suppress the vote. Johnson called the legislation “one of the most monumental laws in the entire history of American freedom,” and not without justification. By 1968, just three years after the Voting Rights Act became law, black registration had increased substantially across the South, to 62 percent. Frye himself became a beneficiary of the act that same year when, after a close election, he became the first black state representative to serve in the North Carolina General Assembly since Reconstruction.

Read more

Closing arguments in North Carolina Voting Rights Act trial

The parties rested their case on Thursday in the Voting Rights Act trial in North Carolina. Closing arguments were made to the Court on Friday morning, and this afternoon. Here are two articles from the Winston-Salem Journal about the close of the trial.

Here is the preview of today’s closing arguments. Closing arguments in voting rights trial set for today:

WillimaBarberBy about noon, a three-week trial on North Carolina’s election law — one of the most sweeping changes in voting practices in the country since the U.S. Supreme Court dealt what critics consider a blow to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — will end, and the decision on whether the law discriminates against racial minorities will be left up to a federal judge.

Attorneys on both sides officially rested their cases Thursday. State attorneys rested after calling their sixth witness — Brian Neesby, business systems analyst for the State Board of Elections. Plaintiffs, including the N.C. NAACP, called four rebuttal witnesses, including Allan Lichtman, a political science professor at American University, and Charles Stewart III, a political science professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Plaintiffs also called Daphne Ganey, 25, who is from Winston-Salem, and George Bailey, 21, a student at Winston-Salem State University.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder is presiding over the case and will ultimately make the decision later this year.

Read more

California’s minor political parties appeal ‘top-two’ electoral system to U.S. Supreme Court

In January of this year, the Court of Appeal of the State of California (1st District, Division 1) upheld California’s “top-two” primary electoral system in the case of Rubin v. Padilla (.pdf):

StopTop2We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the action. Given the structure of California’s “top-two” electoral system, minor-party candidates have no right to appear on the general election ballot merely because they have made a showing of significant public support. The role played by the general election under the former partisan system is fulfilled by the primary election in the top-two system, and there is no material barrier to minor-party participation in the primary election. Further, the failure of minor-party candidates to appear on the general election ballot does not substantially burden their members’ rights of political association and expression, and California’s interest in expanding participation in the electoral process is adequate to justify any burden that may occur. Lastly, because California’s electoral system treats all political parties identically, plaintiffs’ claim that they are denied equal protection of the laws is groundless.

This is a sweeping dismissal of minor political party rights and limiting the choices of voters in a general election.

Read more