Democrats and Phantom Voter Discrimination

American Thinker

July 31, 2013

Eric Holder looked Texas dead in the eye, and has drawn the proverbial line in the sand. He is demanding a federal court order which will require Texas to submit to federal "preclearance" for any potential changes to voting laws, despite the Supreme Court's ruling last month which deemed any such requirements by the federal government unconstitutional.  

Texas, Holder insists, is still racist place (seemingly evidenced by nothing more than a predominantly Republican makeup), and if left to its own devices, minorities will suffer disenfranchisement today, just as they did in 1965 when the Voting Rights Act was passed.

While there is the obvious problem that this is a move to circumvent the Supreme Court decision, there is a more fundamental problem with this assumption. Not only is voter discrimination in Texas not a problem that warrants federal oversight today, as the Court correctly surmises, but voter discrimination in Texas wasn't a significant problem that warranted federal correction in 1965. Don't take my word for it. Take it from the horse's mouth. The most influential backer of the Voting Rights Act said precisely this, way back then.

Lyndon Baines Johnson's relationship with civil rights prior to 1960 was markedly different than the man Democrats remember as the bold challenger of discriminatory social conventions like segregation. When Harry Truman pushed for civil rights in 1947 and '48, for example, LBJ was one of his biggest opponents. Yet as the tide of public opinion turned against the historically held Democrat touchstone of segregation in the following years, LBJ eventually saw the writing on the wall.

So when Eisenhower offered his dedication to civil rights legislation in 1957, LBJ found himself conflicted, caught between his devotion to segregation and his ambition to become president. In the end, he remained loyal to both in that year, outwardly supporting the '57 civil rights bill while colluding with other Democrats like Richard Russell of Georgia in amending the bill "so as to minimize its impact," which ultimately watered it down enough that the bill evaporated in a heated legislative process.

But by the time LBJ had become president, he recognized that efforts to desegregate the South were gaining popularity with unstoppable steam, so he seized the opportunity to outwardly champion civil rights. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which journalist Ronald Kessler recalls LBJ saying would ensure that "those niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years," LBJ continued his courtship of the minority vote by embracing calls for voter's rights legislation.

CONTINUED: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/democrats_and_phantom_voter_discrimination.html?utm_source=07-31-13&utm_campaign=AT+Newsletter+07-31-13&utm_medium=email#ixzz2acz7jzu1

Supreme Court strikes down key voting rights provision

June 25, 2013

The Supreme Court Tuesday struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act, ruling unconstitutional a provision of the landmark civil rights legislation used to promote the political power of minority votersacross large swaths of the southern United States for nearly four decades.

In a 5-4 ruling that split the court along ideological lines, the court freed some or all of 15 states from the requirement that all changes to voting laws, procedures and even polling place locations get advance approval from the Justice Department or a panel of federal judges.

The court’s conservative majority said when Congress reauthorized the law in 2006 it did not have sufficient basis to re-adopt the formula set decades earlier.

Those challenging the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance provision, known as Section 5, argued that it unfairly punishes the covered states and communities by singling them out for special requirements based on evidence of racial discrimination in 1965 rather than the present day. The challengers also claimed that the rule placed costly and cumbersome burdens on the covered jurisdictions by requiring that changes as minor as a shift in polling places be submitted to Washington for approval.

Supporters of keeping the law intact urged the justices to respect Congress’s judgment that the preclearance procedure was still needed to various tactics that have been used to limit the voting power of African Americans and other minorities. In 2006, the Senate backed reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in a unanimous, 98-0, vote. The House signed on by a lopsided margin of 390-to-33.

President George W. Bush, flanked by civil rights leaders, held a Rose Garden ceremony to sign the bill, which extended the preclearance rule through 2031.

In last fall’s election, the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance rule played a central role in derailing so-called Voter ID legislation in several of the states where it was passed. Federal courts blocked such a measure in Texas and effectively postponed such legislation from taking effect in South Carolina. A Mississippi law was blocked by the Justice Department.

However, civil rights groups managed to find ways to block voter ID laws in two states not covered by the preclearance rule: Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In both cases, state judges prohibited enforcement of the measures in 2012. However, the laws are expected to go into effect in future elections.

Tuesday’s decision was widely expected, especially in the wake of a 2009 ruling in which eight justices signed onto an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts saying the operation of the law “now raises serious constitutional concerns.” Justice Clarence Thomas, the sole dissenter from that 2009 opinion, wanted to strike down the preclearance provision at that time.

CONTINUED:  http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-ruling-93324.html#ixzz2XErk9LKp

SUPREME COURT INVALIDATES KEY PART OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT

The Blaze
June 25, 2013
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act cannot be enforced unless Congress comes up with a new way of determining which states and localities require federal monitoring of elections.

The justices said in 5-4 vote that the law Congress most recently renewed in 2006 relies on 40-year-old data that does not reflect racial progress and changes in U.S. society.

The court did not technically strike down the advance approval requirement of the law that has been used, mainly in the South, to open up polling places to minority voters in the nearly half century since it was first enacted in 1965. But the justices did say lawmakers must update the formula for determining which parts of the country must seek Washington’s approval, in advance, for election changes.

In short, the provision is unenforceable as it stands, but could be updated.

Here’s how the New York Times puts it: “The Supreme Court struck down a central portion of the Voting Rights Act on Tuesday, effectively ending the practice in which some states with a history of racial discrimination must receive clearance from the federal government before changing voting laws.”



CONTINUED: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/25/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-part-of-voting-rights-act/

NC LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

July 7, 2011


NC Redistricting

The Redistricting Committees recently released congressional district maps, the second milestone in the redistricting process for North Carolina. Redistricting House and Senate committee members will take public comments today, July 7th from 3:00 to 9:00 p.m. at nine locations across NC. Democrats are out in numbers at these meetings seeking to change the proposed maps.

Currently for the U.S. House of Representatives, NC has 13 districts held by 7 Democrats and 6 Republicans. In 2010 before Republican Renee Ellmers defeated Democrat Bob Etheridge in the 2nd district, the count was 8 Democrats and 5 Republicans. The proposed maps trend toward 10 Republican and 3 Democrat seats. The three overwhelmingly Democrat districts would be the 1st, the 4th, and the 12th, currently held by G. K. Butterfield (D- 1st), David E. Price (D-4th), and Mel Watt (D-12th). Democrats in jeopardy under the plan include Mike McIntyre (7th), Larry Kissell (8th), Heath Shuler (11th), and Brad Miller (13th).

An important fact considering the governor's recent unprecedented vetoes is that she cannot veto the Republican redistricting plan. However, the plan does have to be reviewed by the U.S. Justice Department for compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

The Republicans have faced a barrage of complaints on redistricting from Democrat and NAACP spokesmen, using terms that appear to have been prepared by a single source such as "racism," "segregation," and "packing" and "cracking" minorities. This observation is independent of the news media's reporting on redistricting, which is generally negative.

Senator Rucho, Chairman of the Senate Redistricting Committee said, "The previous map was Democratic gerrymandering," adding "this is fair and legal."

Please attend the meetings and make comments to support our Republicans on the Redistricting Committees and in the legislature.

Public Hearings scheduled for today, July 7, 2011 from 3:00 to 9:00 p.m. are as follows:
(from ncga.state.nc.us)

NC Museum of History, First Floor Auditorium
5 East Edenton Street, Raleigh, NC 27601-1011 (Wake County)

Fayetteville Technical Community College, Cumberland Hall Room 308
2201 Hull Road, Fayetteville, NC 28303 (Cumberland County)

Guilford Technical Community College, Learning Resource Center (Library)
Jamestown Campus, Room 325
601 High Point Road, Jamestown, NC 27282 (Guilford County)

UNC-Charlotte, J. Murrey Atkins Library
Room 143, 9201 University City Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28223-0001 (Mecklenburg County)

UNC-Wilmington, Education Building
Room 266, 601 S. College Road
Wilmington NC 28403 (New Hanover County)

Western Carolina University, Cordelia Camp Building
Room 133-B, 69 East University Way
Cullowhee, NC 28273 (Jackson County)

Roanoke-Chowan Community College, Jernigan Building
Room 126, 109 Community College Road
Ahoskie, NC 27910 (Hertford County)

Appalachian State University, Anne Belk Hall
Interactive Video Services, Classroom 023
224 Joyce Lawrence Lane, Boone, NC 28608 (Watauga County)

Asheville-Buncombe Technical Community College
Asheville Campus, Ferguson Building
Ferguson Auditorium, 340 Victoria Road
Asheville, NC 28801 (Buncombe County)

Sources: ncga.state.nc.us; Washington Examiner, "North Carolina redistricts," by Michael Barone, Jul 1, 2011; News-Record, "Lawmakers hear from public on Congress lines," AP, Jul 7, 2011; wral.com, "'Fair and Legal?'" Jul 1, 2011 and "New congressional districts lean R," Jul 1, 2011; and News & Observer, "GOP redistricting 'bonanza'? Four Democrats would find it harder to maintain their seats," by Jim Morrill and Rob Christensen, Jul 2, 2011.