Chron weighs in on Voting Rights Act
by Owen Courrèges · 06/26/2006 7:30 amThe Chronicle has weighed in on the renewal of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires preclearance of apportionment plans by the US Justice Department, and the result is hardly surprising:
When the Voting Rights Act was passed, it was easy to spot attempts to disenfranchise minority voters. Most took place in the South. In recent years, though, attacks on voter rights and access to polling places have erupted all over the map. In the last presidential election, some of the most egregious violations occurred in Florida and Ohio — states largely exempt from Section 5.
In an ideal world, the proposal of some Texas Republicans would indeed be law. The preclearance rule would apply to everyone. In reality, as the Texas delegation well knows, any such amendment to the Voting Rights Act would be a poison pill and prevent renewal.
States now exempt from Section 5 would furiously resist any attempt to rope them in, and administering universal application would be nearly impossible.
So basically, since having preclearance for everyone isn’t possible, we should have preclearance that discriminates unfairly against Southern states? That sounds monsterously unfair.
What’s more, it’s not constitutional. One of the reasons why the Supreme Court gave Section 5 a pass was because it was applied only to a few states and was temporary. Well, we’re passed the temporary stage, and the grounds for applying Section 5 exclusively to the South have passed. The Chronicle just admitted that. So now, the Chronicle is backing a law it knows to be unconstituional.
The Texas lawmakers’ second argument, unlike the first, is indefensible:
I don’t think we have racial bias in Texas anymore," asserts the optimistic U.S. Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock. Really? The controversial redistricting of Texas congressional districts (deemed objectionable by the Justice Department’s career lawyers) and recent attempts by the Legislature to require voter IDs suggest otherwise.
Is the Chronicle actually accusing Republicans of being racist on these grounds? Both of these actions can be explained by partisanship or political principle. Voter IDs are designed to prevent voter fraud, and although redistricting was done along racial lines in many cases, that was inevitable in a world where minorities tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. However, the motive was not racist, but partisan. The Chronicle knows this, but would rather say something they know to be a lie.
So the Chronicle’s argument is based on something that isn’t constitutional, and something that’s a lie. Not a very good batting average, eh?
Filed Under Uncategorized · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
13 Responses to “Chron weighs in on Voting Rights Act”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
It’s time to non-renew Section 5. Requiring proof of citizenship is a issue that needs to be done to prevent voter fraud.
Fact is, having to show a valid photo ID to vote hurts the Democrat party. It hinders their ability to have fraudulent votes counted in their favor.
I am all for photo ID. Unfortunately, these can be forged, and although it may be difficult for dead people to get a photo ID, it is possible! We already have to give our thumbprints for our driver’s license - could we tie into that system to make sure that duplicate voting is being suppressed (and real voters are counted accurately)? I hate the thought that my vote, paid for with my tax dollars and my citizenship, is being diluted by hooligans, rascals, and people whose allegiance is not to this country. ARRRGGGGHHH!!
I am not as fearful of illegals voting as I am of dead people and vagrants (who just happen to be legit citizens). My experience is that illegals try to vigorously operate below the radar, but there are political operatives who would drive zombies to the poll to turn out the vote.
A robust ID requirement seems fair to me, as long as, the ID can be obtained for free by the poorest of citizens. Otherwise the ID becomes a de-facto poll tax, which will not stand a challange in court.
Simple
It is time to issue national ID cards, with picture and fingerprint for all citizens and LEGAL immigrants. They are to be used for voting, banking, employment, insurance, etc. and also all transactions where your SS card is now required. There is nothing racist about this.
#4 Simple:
I know that illegals vote. Years ago, I saw a woman whom I KNEW was illegal at the polls. When I approached her and asked if she was a citizen, she looked at me all confused and said “no”. Immediately, the Democrat rep at the polls jumped up and whispered in her ear, whereupon she looked at me and said, “Yes,I am a citizen.” I thought about challenging her vote, but due to other circumstances and the people involved, decided to drop it. But if she was voting, I’m sure her friends are, too.
How can Section 5 even be Constitutional? How does “equal protection under the law” apply if only certain states are affected by this? It either needs to apply to all states, or none at all.
When I had to show a photo ID at a store to write a check I thought it was to protect me. Didn’t know they were being racist. I will have to watch next time and see if they let only white people write checks.
The illegal/foreign language issue and renewal of Section 5 of the VRA are separate issues.
The preclearance portion of Section 5 covers Alaska, but not Arkansas. It covers Manhattan, but not Queens or the Bronx. Chicago ain’t covered, but New Haven, Conn. is.
The North Harris County/Montgomery County Community College District (or whatever it’s called) got its preclearance for reducing voting sites to campuses only. Not a problem at the DOJ. Collin and Bexar counties recently had MUD elections in areas that had only ONE voter (moved in a temp basis, in a trailer). Not a problem at DOJ.
But when the Attorney General attempts to look into the recent Democratic primary in Jim Wells County (where a whopping 65 percent of the voters participated — more than half mail-in ballots — compared to about four percent statewide) the DOJ Section 5 lawyers warned Texas that it would count as a “strike,” meaning a longer period for the state to have standing to seek a court rememdy to remove itself from Section 5.
Under Section 5, Bellaire could not consolidate pollings places (say, the First Methodist Church and the fire station) without the fed’s blessing. Neither could Juno, Alaska. But Newark, New Jersey, Little Rock, Arkansas, and San Francisco, California are free to change times, dates, polling places, manner of elections, districts, etc. without DOJ approval.
How about them apples.
Tedtam,
You actually know that “an” illegal voted. I would agree that a few will vote, but most will not.
In any case, strengthening the registration process will end the ambiguity.
Simple
I am against one more stinking ID requirement. We have quiet enough now. If people aquire their voter registration by fruad then so be it. Most have better things they want to steal than a voter ID if they go to all that trouble. I follow the old Texas way: You are who you say you are. Fine. I need prove nothing to anybody about my birth or my citizenship. I am here and will continue to be. The US and Texas governments are lucky I allow them to exist on the ground of my birth. Texas will still be Texas if we clean out every government from Local to Federal level and start all over. Not a bad idea, really. No more midnight raises or raises tied to judges’ salary increases. No more wealth gained on the backs of the taxpayer. How many have known state reps that were strictly middle class who now are very very rich?
How many have you met from a life devoted to service that became wealthy? Any that do are likely not as devoted to the higher good as one would hope. It is just easier to let them get away with it. It isn’t right. Just easy.
Fingerprint is the way to go. Since birth & death records are available to every state, those should be combined with the voter base. No picture ID required. You punch in your SSN, you put your fingerprint on the plate….if they don’t match on the third try, the constable takes you away and talks to you until he’s satisfied you are who you say you are…or you are placed into custody to be hauled before a judge….and don’t tell me the cops can’t make that decision…they do it every day on traffic stops if your car registration doesn’t match who you say you are.
It requires more ID to buy a Benadryl in Houston than to vote. Think about that….