Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Members of Congress Introduce a New Fix for the Voting Rights Act

Posted 10 years ago on Jan. 17, 2014, 5:03 p.m. EST by LeoYo (5909)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Members of Congress Introduce a New Fix for the Voting Rights Act

Friday, 17 January 2014 11:56 By Ari Berman, The Nation | Report

http://truth-out.org/news/item/21289-members-of-congress-introduce-a-new-fix-for-the-voting-rights-act

Yesterday Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and John Conyers (D-MI) and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced legislation to strengthen the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision last June invalidating a critical section of the VRA. The legislation, known as “The Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014,” represents the first attempt by a bipartisan group in Congress to reinstate the vital protections of the VRA that the Supreme Court took away.

In the Shelby County v. Holder ruling on June 25, 2013, the Court’s conservative majority struck down Section 4 of the VRA, the formula that compelled specific states with a well-documented history of voting discrimination to clear their voting changes with the federal government under Section 5 of the VRA. The two provisions were always meant to work together; without Section 4, Section 5 became a zombie, applying to zero states.

Section 4 covered nine states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia) and parts of six others (in California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota) based on evidence of voting discrimination against blacks and other minority groups dating back to the 1960s and 1970s. Since the Shelby decision, eight states previously covered under Section 4 have passed or implemented new voting restrictions. This includes onerous new laws in states like North Carolina and Texas, which the Justice Department objected to under other provisions of the VRA (Sections 2 and 3).

The Sensenbrenner-Conyers-Leahy bill strengthens the VRA in five distinct ways:

1: The legislation draws a new coverage formula for Section 4, thereby resurrecting Section 5. States with five violations of federal law to their voting changes over the past fifteen years will have to submit future election changes for federal approval. This new formula would currently apply to Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Local jurisdictions would be covered if they commit three or more violations or have one violation and “persistent, extremely low minority turnout” over the past fifteen years.

The formula is based on a rolling calendar, updated with a current fifteen-year time period to exempt states who are no longer discriminating or add new ones who are, creating a deterrent against future voting rights violations. It’s based on empirical conditions and current data, not geography or a fixed time period—which voting rights advocates hope will satisfy Chief Justice John Roberts should the new legislation be enacted and reach the Supreme Court.

The new Section 4 proposal is far from perfect. It does not apply to states with an extensive record of voting discrimination, like Alabama (where civil rights protests in Selma gave birth to the VRA), Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia, which were previously subject to Section 5. Nor does it apply to states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that have enacted new voting restrictions in the past few years.

Moreover, rulings against voter ID laws—like in Texas in 2012—will not count as a new violation. Voter ID laws can still be blocked by the Department of Justice or federal courts in the new states covered under Section 4, but that will not be included as one of the five violations needed to keep the state covered. This exemption for voter ID laws was written to win the support of House majority leader Eric Cantor and other Republicans.

2: The legislation strengthens Section 3 of the VRA, which has been described as the Act’s “secret weapon.” Under Section 3, jurisdictions not covered by Section 4 could be “bailed-in” to federal supervision, but plaintiffs had to show evidence of intentional voting discrimination, which is very difficult to do in court. Under the new Section 3 proposal, any violation of the VRA or federal voting rights law—whether intentional or not—can be grounds for a bail-in, which will make it far easier to cover new states. (One major caveat, again, is that court objections to voter ID laws that are not found to be intentionally discriminatory cannot be used as grounds for “bail-in” under Section 3.)

3: The legislation mandates that jurisdictions in all fifty states have to provide notice in the local media and online of any election procedures related to redistricting changes within 180 days of a federal election and the moving of a polling place. This will make it easier for citizens to identify potentially harmful voting changes in the forty-six states not subject to Sections 4 and 5.

4: The legislation makes it easier to seek a preliminary injunction against a potentially discriminatory voting law. Plaintiffs will now only have to show that the hardship to them outweighs the hardship to the state if a law is blocked in court pending a full trial. There will be a preliminary injunction hearing on North Carolina’s voting law in July 2014, before the full trial takes place July 2015.

5: The legislation reaffirms that the attorney general can send federal observers to monitor elections in states subject to Section 4 and expands the AG’s authority to send observers to jurisdictions with a history of discriminating against language minority groups, which includes parts of twenty-five states.

The bill is certain to have its critics, including on the left. Voting rights supporters will argue, justifiably, that the new Section 4 formula does not apply to enough states and wrongly treats voter ID laws differently than other discriminatory voting changes. Despite these flaws, the legislation represents a significant improvement over the disastrous post-Shelby status quo, which has seen states like North Carolina and Texas rush to pass blatantly discriminatory voting restrictions after being freed from federal oversight. The legislation strengthens voting rights protections in a number of tangible ways and gives the federal government and voting rights advocates new tools to combat voting discrimination.

The sponsors of the bill have a lot of credibility on this issue. Sensenbrenner, as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, shepherded through the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA—which passed 390-33 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate. Conyers first entered Congress in 1965, the year of the VRA’s passage, and has served on the House Judiciary Committee ever since. Leahy is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and has recently worked with Sensenbrenner on reforming the NSA.

The problem of contemporary voting discrimination ultimately requires a solution that only Congress can provide. It was Congress, after all, that passed the VRA in 1965 in response to the failure of litigation to stop the mass disenfranchisement of black voters in the South. Yes, yes, I realize that a Congress that can scarcely do more than name a Post Office nowadays is not likely to resurrect the VRA any time soon—especially when so much of the GOP is devoted to erecting new barriers to the ballot box. But now that there’s legislation on the table, members of Congress face a choice: Do you want to make it easier or harder for people to vote? The question, and answer, is really that simple.

This story originally appeared in The Nation.

Copyright © 2014 The Nation – distributed by Agence Global.

1 Comments

1 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 10 years ago

Net Neutrality Ruling Will Disempower Communities of Color

Friday, 17 January 2014 12:40 By Jaisal Noor, The Real News Network | Video Interview

http://truth-out.org/news/item/21298-net-neutrality-ruling-will-disempower-communities-of-color

TRANSCRIPT:

JAISAL NOOR, TRNN PRODUCER: This is The Real News Network, and I'm Jaisal Noor in Baltimore.

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel handed down a ruling against the Federal Communications Commission that could have serious ramifications for the future of internet freedom. The decision struck down FCC guidelines adopted in 2010 that preserved net neutrality to guarantee internet service providers can't slow down or block access to any online content.

In response, former FCC commissioner Michael Copps released a statement saying the ruling, quote, "is poised to end the free, open, and uncensored Internet that we have come to rely on." "People depend on the Open Internet to connect and communicate with each other. . . . Without prompt corrective action by the Commission to reclassify broadband, this awful ruling will serve as a sorry memorial to the corporate abrogation of free speech".

Now joining us to discuss this is Jessica Gonzalez. She's the executive vice president of the National Hispanic Media Coalition. She leads their legal and policy work and executes its priorities before the federal agencies and in Congress.

Thank you so much for joining us, Jessica.

JESSICA GONZALEZ, EXECUTIVE VP, NATIONAL HISPANIC MEDIA COALITION: Thank you for having me, Jaisal.

NOOR: So, Jessica, I wanted to start off by getting your response to what former FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell said about this ruling. He said--and this was published online. He said, quote, "nothing needs fixing. The Internet has remained open and accessible without FCC micromanagement since it entered public life in the 1990s. And more regulation could produce harmful results, such as reduced infrastructure investment, stunted innovation, slower speeds and higher prices for consumers." What's your response?

GONZALEZ: We hear this one all the time. The truth is that network neutrality is important in ensuring what the Court even recognized was a virtuous cycle of innovation that happens online, edge providers creating opportunities not just for people to tell their stories, but also economic opportunities at the edge.

The very notion that we don't need that neutrality regulations is quite wrong. Verizon, in its oral arguments before the court in this very case, actually admitted that without net neutrality regulations, they would be exploring commercial agreements where they would prioritize certain edge providers, certain content and applications based on those edge providers' ability to pay more.

And that's exactly why the net neutrality rules are so important. They ensure equality and fairness on the internet, and they are a catalyst for economic growth.

NOOR: And, Jessica, why is net neutrality so important for low-income communities, and especially communities of color? Communities of color especially like the equal access to the internet that other communities have. And this is due to issues around affordability, which this decision could affect. And also talk about the importance of content, of communities of color being able to reach media which present news and other information in a perspective that emphasizes their voices.

GONZALEZ: Latinos and other people of color have long faced discrimination at the hands of mainstream media. What is exciting for us about the internet is that we are able to share our own stories fairly and accurately, to push back against discrimination, to organize our community for positive change, and even in many cases to earn a living. So this is vitally important for communities of color.

And it's also vitally important for anyone who does not have broadband today. Nearly a million Americans, mostly black and brown people, have no broadband access at home. This is an opportunity to divide. It's a digital divide that is creating further barriers for some of our most disenfranchised communities to get equal access to education, to job applications, to healthcare, to civic engagement opportunities, and to get informed and communicate with their family and friends.

And so it's vitally important that the FCC go back to the drawing board, reclassify broadband providers as common carriers, and get the ball rolling to not only ensure equality and network neutrality on the internet, but also expand federal policies that help make broadband more affordable. It has an authority problem right now that is related to this case. And if it asserts Title II authority and treats broadband providers as common carriers, there are a variety of options that they can pursue to help make broadband more affordable so that our communities start getting more and more connected.

Latinos, the Latino community is one of the least connected communities. Just over 50 percent of Latinos in the U.S. have broadband internet access at home. That number drops to 38 percent for Spanish speakers. And so we really need to close the divide.

And one way to do it would be for the FCC to assert its authority over broadband and ensure that it's actually affordable, because it's not today. We have some of the most expensive and least of--and slowest (excuse me) internet of many of our allies in the international community. And so we need to change that.

NOOR: And, Jessica, last question. We're almost out of time for this segment. Who does this ruling benefit, just so we're clear about that? And what are you calling on concerned citizens to do today?

GONZALEZ: At the outset, the immediate outset, it benefits wealthy internet service providers that are already charging us an arm and a leg to get online. And now they are going to be allowed to make special deals with big corporations that can pay more to have their content go faster. And so they are the immediate beneficiaries.

This could easily be undone. The rights of the people, the rights of communities of color, but the rights of all consumers really can be put before the rights of big cable and telephone companies that are earning astronomical profits every year. All that has to happen is the FCC chairman, Wheeler, must reclassify broadband providers as Title II service providers under the Communications Act.

And I'm calling on everyone who's concerned about continuous access to affordable internet connections and to be able to give their news and information from a diversity of sources, I'm calling on them to join NHMC and our partners as we push for the FCC chairman to do what he needs to do. And you can go to our website at NHMC.org for more information.

NOOR: Jessica, thank you so much for joining us.

GONZALEZ: Thank you.

NOOR: Follow us at The Real News on Twitter, Tweet me questions and comments. Thank you so much for joining us.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license.