Tag Archives: Voting Rights Act

Is Voting Rights Act Protection a legal entitlement Supreme Court Must Overturn

Black Conservatives  rally against continued use of  Section 5 reverse discriminatory Voting Rights Act current use

Black Conservatives rally against continued use of Section 5 reverse discriminatory Voting Rights Act current use

The images of vicious bombings that once littered the landscape of the civil rights movement in the 1950’s and 1960’s in America are now a distant memory. Cities like Birmingham, Alabama which were at the epicenter and caught the brunt force of the segregationist fury to deprive black voters of their voting rights have been replaced by a vast number of local and federal minority public officials throughout states and in congress. And of course we cannot forget the two times elected Barack Obama, as president!

So this week, Shelby County, Alabama made the case before the U.S. Supreme Court that the federal Voting Rights Act has seen its day and that Section Five should be overturned. Conservatives have long held that in states and localities like Shelby County where voting rights suppression no longer exists, it makes little legal or moral sense to continue to list a community as being engaged in racist voting practices where none exist.

In reality this case has much deeper significance for the other communities across the country which are also similarly weighted down with this federal mandate. The purpose of the bill is well intended and was needed in its day to protect the rights of minority voters who were systematically deprived of their constitutional right to vote. Now, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, without the presence of racism this law seems to favor racial entitlement, reports Fox News

Yet, in the 21st century, where those same states which bore the mark of racism in their practices regarding minority voting rights, no longer practice those tactics. So should they continue to be marred with the title and legal penalty?

That is essentially what Shelby County has presented in its legal arguments before the justices of the Supreme Court. It is an argument which can be cross-tied with the similar Affirmative Action inequality which has burdened America more recently with imbalanced racial favoritism where racism may no longer exist.

There are many detractors on the left and in civil rights communities who have made a living off of crying falsely crying racism. Their behavior can be likened to the famous fictional Chicken Little character, who claimed, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling!” Well if you remember the rest of the story, Chicken Little finally meets Foxey Loxey, who welcomes Chicken Little and Henny Penny into his den, and, “They never, never come out again.”

Well, this is what is happening to America with this law as well as with continued use of Affirmative Action application and enforcement. Much like Chicken Little, there are those liberal leaders like Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson and President Obama and even the NAACP who insists the sky is still falling. Unfortunately they still continue to lead America into the fox den, where justice and equality under the law for all Americans will never emerge again.

A central question that the court must answer, is when does justice arrive for all Americans if institutional injustice does not exist any longer? If racism in voting practices no longer exists, then what is being monitored?

Some civil rights officials on the left have attempted to use poverty, lack of jobs and even illegal immigration attitudes as an indication of why voting rights for minorities must continue to be monitored. This is a red herring that has no legal connection to the purpose and intent of Section Five of the Voting Rights Act.

The case in Shelby County, Alabama does bear witness to the fact that voting injustice, once wide ranging, is no longer present. Therefore, this law must not continue to be used as a hammer to pound local officials into submission for legal infractions that no longer exist. Is it truly a racial entitlement to voting protection that is now punitively used against cities, counties and states?

If Shelby County and other communities across the nation have moved beyond any measurable discriminatory practices against minority voters then, the U.S. Justice Department has no alternative but to remove them from the list. The U.S. Supreme Court must instruct the justice department to do so.

In conclusion, the U.S. Supreme Court must move with all deliberate speed to put an end to this continued imbalance of equal justice for all Americans. Equal justice under the law does not mean more justice for some and less for others. The court must remove this law as a useful tool for liberals who seek office and want to drum up the ghosts of past injustices long buried.

Racism in America is not the issue of the 21st century. A united country where race is color neutral and justice and equality does not play favorites is what the bottom line must be for the nation.

There is no place for reverse racism in America. This is the conclusion that the U.S. Supreme Court must arrive at in reaching a decision to overturn the irrelevant section of the law.

( Click -Let me know what you think )

Mr. Holder, Regarding Voter Rights, Please Be Specific




On May 30, 2012, at a meeting of the Conference of National Black Churches convened by the
Congressional Black Caucus in Washington D.C. to discuss voting laws, Attorney General Eric Holder said, “… across the country, both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common and have not yet been relegated to the pages of history.” Citing Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), Holder said that voting rights are, "under attack… [by] a eliberate and systematic attempt to prevent millions of elderly voters, young voters, students, [and] minority and low-income voters from exercising their constitutional right to engage in the democratic process."


Holder told the meeting that state laws requiring photograph identification are intended to prevent African Americans from voting because nearly one in four black people lack one.


Holder was addressing voter identification laws that several states have passed to try to update voter rolls that have been compromised by the ease with which non-citizens can register to vote, and by efforts to register ineligible voters by groups like ACORN, as well as to reduce voter fraud.


He said those things while reaffirmed the Justice Department’s commitment to the section of the Voting Rights Act which prohibits certain states from making changes to their election laws without first getting federal approval. Holder says that lawsuits brought by as many as nine states in the last two years to challenge parts of the Voting Rights Act are proof of an aggressive and determined attempt to disenfranchise millions of voters.

Here is the full
text
of Holder’s speech.

The problem with his remarks cited above, as well in his entire speech, is that it never provides SPECIFIC examples of "overt and subtle forms of discrimination." His entirespeech is filled with generalities.


The closest he comes to being specific is his referencing of fifteen Justice Department (DOJ) initiated lawsuits against states that "…fails to meet its burden of proving that a proposed voting change would not have a racially discriminatory effect…." If, as Holder suggests, any voter discrimination and/or injustice has occurred that "remain all too common, Conservative Daily News readers would lead the fight to alleviate the situation.


What has actually happened? In 2005, Indiana passed its voter ID law. AG Eric Holder warned that the law was designed to and would prevent minorities from voting. But minority voting increased. Georgia passed a similar law in 2005, and it was reinstated in 2007. Georgia experienced similar minority voting increases. So much for Holder’s credibility.


But not one word from Holder about voter fraud.


Florida has been instructed by the DOJ to stop updating its voter rolls. A letter from the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ was delivered to Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner, ordering Florida to stop its review of some 182,000 registered voters. The review encompassed all 67Florida counties. But because five of the counties are subject to restrictions under the Voting Rights Act, and must get DOJ pre-clearance, the entire state must stop. Florida’s elimination of non-U.S. citizens from its voter rolls is necessary to prevent voter fraud.


The Brennan Center For Justice says, quot;Every voter should demonstrate that they are who they say they are before voting. That form of proof should not include restrictive documentation requirements like overly burdensome photo ID or redundant proof of citizenship requirements that serve to block millions of eligible American citizens from voting." This is the same Brennan Center
For Justice that says voter
fraud
is both extremely rare and that raising the unsubstantiated specter of mass voter fraud suits a particular policy agenda.


Do I detect inconsistency here? If voter fraud is so rare, so unsubstantiated, then why should every voter demonstrate, as the Center suggests, who he/she is before voting? Again, no specifics, just a citation of an unsubstantiated specter of mass voter fraud.


The Center, in October, 2011, said that over 5
million people
could be denied the right to vote under new laws adopted in twelve states. The Center report said that new laws regarding photo identification requirements for voting, eliminating same day voter registration, requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, changing requirements for voter registration drives, and reducing early voting days will make voting harder for 5 million people in the 2012 election.


The Center further comments that studies show that as many as 11 percent of eligible voters do not have
government-issued photo ID. That percentage is even higher for seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students.


By the way, this site has an up-to-date voter requirement list, what is requested/required to vote, and what non-compliance options are available.


But then, as in the South Carolina case, a photograph identification requirement in order to vote would increase the difficulty of Holder retaining his job.


So we are getting confirmation of what we already knew: that Attorney General Eric Holder is all talk!


But that’s just my opinion.