Leaders move forward on VRA vote despite some GOP unease

[Rose Siding]

Republican leaders will hold a vote on the Voting Rights Act this week, even though they face serious hurdles to renewing the landmark civil-rights legislation.

Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said GOP leaders decided to move forward with a vote on the bill after a two-hour meeting yesterday, which was convened to decide whether to cancel the vote for the second time....

“There are still major lingering questions,” House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters yesterday during his regular media briefing.

Civil-rights groups have been pushing hard for Congress to renew the landmark bill. The NAACP is holding its annual conference in Washington next week and has made renewal of the bill a major priority this year.

House Democrats had already asked for floor time to lament GOP leaders’ decision to cancel a vote on the legislation for the second time this year. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) was organizing floor time for members who experienced discrimination before the landmark 1965 bill was signed into law to tell their tales of racial intolerance.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/071206/vra.html

[brooklynite]

1. AP: Chances of Voting Rights Act renewal dim

WASHINGTON - A conservative backlash to the massive street demonstrations over immigration is aggravating Republican leaders' carefully orchestrated plans to renew the landmark Voting Rights Act before the fall elections.

After Latinos came out in greater force than they have in decades to protest a House-passed immigration bill, conservatives persuaded Republican leaders not to force a vote last month to extend for 25 years the law that requires bilingual ballots in precincts with large non-English-speaking populations.

They joined with a group of Southern Republicans who object to extending the law's requirement that nine states have federal oversight decades after they quit hindering blacks' access to voting booths through Jim Crow laws.

Now back from their July 4 recess, House leaders want to try again to extend the 1965 law that outlawed anti-black voting practices and, through later amendments, practices that also discriminated against other minority groups. They were considering a vote on Thursday, but prospects of it occurring were dim.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060712/ap_on_go_co/immigration_voting_rights_2

[msongs]

4. will the dems have the guts to say the r epubs are racist or will they

acquiesce, cave, and supplicate?

which dem will DEMAND fair treatment and passage of the renewal?? Any?

the repubs have declared war on african americans yet the democrats ignore this important issue. why?
because the repubs control the language and the agenda and go on the attack, while dems are always defending
themselves against false charges and phony accusations?

local and state officials still impose jim crow standards in fact even though they are now illegal in law.

Who will be the new Patrick Henry, demanding removal of the tyrants?

who will be the voice in the wilderness crying out for honesty in government.

[maxrandb]

16. Democrats suffer from

The "soft bigotry of low expectations"...to quote a not so bright pretzledent.

Dems: "we can't stop the Orin Hatch approved Federalist Society wing-nut judges, so we'll hold our noses and vote for them, in the hopes that they won't be too bad"

We better hope the VRA never has to be decided by the Roberts court.

Can I start a sub-thread to thank Joe?

[annabanana]

2. This had damn well better PASS!

I can't believe there is still a problem with this most basic American right.

[redqueen]

5. It comes as no surprise at all to me. n/t

[annabanana]

3. Anyone with a Repub rep who is not completely beholden

to loonies and bigots ought to be reminded that they have other constituents!

-give 'em a call-

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml

[Moderator]

6. k

[maxrandb]

7. Chances of Voting Rights Act renewal dim

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060712/ap_on_go_co/immigration_voting_rights

WASHINGTON - A conservative backlash to the massive street demonstrations over immigration is aggravating Republican leaders' carefully orchestrated plans to renew the landmark Voting Rights Act before the fall elections.

After Latinos came out in greater force than they have in decades to protest a House-passed immigration bill, conservatives persuaded Republican leaders not to force a vote last month to extend for 25 years the law that requires bilingual ballots in precincts with large non-English-speaking populations.

They joined with a group of Southern Republicans who object to extending the law's requirement that nine states have federal oversight decades after they quit hindering blacks' access to voting booths through Jim Crow laws.

[maxrandb]

8. Here's a little more from the AP Article

Civil rights activists see a recurring pattern. The post-Civil War era of Reconstruction brought for newly freed blacks a chance to vote, own land, get an education and participate in the political process. But many states passed Jim Crow laws segregating public places and denying ballots to blacks through literacy tests and poll taxes until passage of the 1965 law.

What followed its enactment were new efforts to weaken or dilute the effect of minority voters through redistricting and new voter registration rules, said the NAACP legal defense fund's Adegbile. "This is well-trodden ground," he said.

[bluestateguy]

9. "Votin's for the white folks"*

*Actual quote a white southerner said to me in 1994.

[KansDem]

15. I once heard someone say that only people who owned property...

...should be allowed to vote.

And he was serious, too!

[underpants]

10. That doesn't even make any sense

That has to be the lamest excuse I have ever heard.

Geesh they aren't even trying anymore and the comments about how this couldn't possibly be racist seals the conclusion that it is, to me anyway.

[degreesofgray]

11. if it weren't sad it would be funny

"They joined with a group of Southern Republicans who object to extending the law's requirement that nine states have federal oversight decades after they quit hindering blacks' access to voting booths through Jim Crow laws."

What, like Florida?

[KamaAina]

14. Actually only four Fla. counties have oversight

none are among those infamous for hanging chads and the like -- although many of those counties (Dade, Duval) should be included!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act#Jurisdictions_that_must_be_precleared

States
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia, except for Fairfax City, Virginia, Frederick County, and Shenandoah County.
Counties
California: Kings, Merced, Monterey, Yuba
Florida: Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough (Collier = Naples area, Hardee and Hendry are rural interior counties, Hillsborough = Tampa and vic.)
New York: Bronx, Kings, New York (Kings Co. = Brooklyn, N.Y. Co. = Manhattan)
North Carolina: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Camden, Caswell, Chowan, Cleveland, Craven, Cumberland, Edgecombe, Franklin, Gaston, Gates, Granville, Greene, Guilford, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Jackson, Lee, Lenoir, Martin, Nash, Northhampton, Onslow, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Person, Pitt, Robeson, Rockingham, Scotland, Union, Vance, Washington, Wayne, Wilson (that's 40 of N.C.'s 100 counties)
South Dakota: Shannon, Todd. (they comprise the Pine Ridge Reservation)
Towns
Michigan: Clyde Township (Allegan County), Buena Vista Township
New Hampshire: Rindge, Millsfield, Pinkham's Grant, Stewartstown, Stratford, Grafton County, Benton, Antrim, Boscawen, Newington, Unity

What's with all those dinky towns in N.H.?

If any of these jurisdictions wants out, the way to do it is NOT to scuttle the Voting Rights Act :grr: but to use its "bail out" provision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act#Bail_Out

The term "bail out" refers to the process by which covered jurisdictions may seek exemption from Section 5 coverage. In order to bail out, a covered jurisdiction needs to obtain a declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia.

Before August 1984, this process required covered jurisdictions to demonstrate that the voting test that they used immediately before coverage was not used in a discriminatory fashion. The 1982 amendment included two significant changes. First, Congress provided that where a state is covered in its entirety, individual counties in that state may separately bail out. Second, Congress completely redesigned the bailout standard. The post-1984 bailout standard requires that a covered jurisdiction demonstrate nondiscriminatory behavior during the 10 years prior to filing and while the action is pending and that it has taken affirmative steps to improve minority voting opportunities..

So, bigots, quit whining and shape up your electoral process!

[antiblazer]

12. This is an outrage!!!!

Without the act, those southern states will revert back to their old ways. Why aren't more people getting outraged over this?????

[abluelady]

13. What Will Come Next

Are women going to lose their right to vote, too?

[maxrandb]

17. Makes me think that the North

didn't really win the war.