According to BlackAmericaweb.com:
Black leaders say because congressional lawmakers have delayed voting on the re-authorization of the Voting Rights Act, many black Americans could find their right to vote in jeopardy.
"We are urging Congress to take action now," Melanie Campbell, executive director of the National Coalition of Black Civic Participation, told BlackAmericaWeb.com. "We need to push our [congressional] leadership to vote on this issue
Then the article also says...
"We can see the progress that minorities have made during the social, economic and political transformation over the last 30 years," Steele said in a statement. "But the conservative political climate is threatening to turn back the clock, end the progress and create a new wave of resentment and hatred towards minorities."
Stalling the reenactment of the Voting Rights Act is the latest example of attempts to turn back the clock on progress, Steele said, calling it "disingenuous" for Georgia Republican congressmen Lynn Westmoreland and Charlie Norwood to offer amendments that, on the surface, would appear to expand voting rights but actually could lead to the legislation being declared unconstitutional.
"They don't seem to understand that messing with someone's right to vote is serious business," Steele said. "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and many others died so African-Americans could vote. It is a fundamental right in our society. If efforts succeed that disenfranchise blacks, it will send the wrong message and further erode the belief that America can be a place where everyone is treated equal."
Questions for Debate:
1. Are law-makers really delaying the vote on the Voting rights act in order to attempt to "turn back the clock" as this article states?
2. Are Lynn Westmoreland and Charlie Norwood actually attempting to enact legislation that would lead to the voting rights act to be declared unconstitutional?
3. Are these protests and vigils necessary, or are people like Al Sharpton causing more racial divisiveness than necessary?
QUOTE
Black leaders say because congressional lawmakers have delayed voting on the re-authorization of the Voting Rights Act, many black Americans could find their right to vote in jeopardy.
"We are urging Congress to take action now," Melanie Campbell, executive director of the National Coalition of Black Civic Participation, told BlackAmericaWeb.com. "We need to push our [congressional] leadership to vote on this issue
Then the article also says...
QUOTE
"We can see the progress that minorities have made during the social, economic and political transformation over the last 30 years," Steele said in a statement. "But the conservative political climate is threatening to turn back the clock, end the progress and create a new wave of resentment and hatred towards minorities."
Stalling the reenactment of the Voting Rights Act is the latest example of attempts to turn back the clock on progress, Steele said, calling it "disingenuous" for Georgia Republican congressmen Lynn Westmoreland and Charlie Norwood to offer amendments that, on the surface, would appear to expand voting rights but actually could lead to the legislation being declared unconstitutional.
"They don't seem to understand that messing with someone's right to vote is serious business," Steele said. "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and many others died so African-Americans could vote. It is a fundamental right in our society. If efforts succeed that disenfranchise blacks, it will send the wrong message and further erode the belief that America can be a place where everyone is treated equal."
Questions for Debate:
1. Are law-makers really delaying the vote on the Voting rights act in order to attempt to "turn back the clock" as this article states?
2. Are Lynn Westmoreland and Charlie Norwood actually attempting to enact legislation that would lead to the voting rights act to be declared unconstitutional?
3. Are these protests and vigils necessary, or are people like Al Sharpton causing more racial divisiveness than necessary?
QUOTE
1. Are law-makers really delaying the vote on the Voting rights act in order to attempt to "turn back the clock" as this article states?
Yes, especially the Republicans who want to re-inslave black people, take away women's suffrage and rewind our society back to the mid 1600s. 
There have been some ridiculous protests/vigils in Washington D.C. before, but this one takes the cake. What exactly are the good people at BlackAmericaweb.com worried about? It would be unConstitutional for the government to strip African Americans' right to vote and as far as I can see, no one trying to do that, and let's be honest, in a society where a Senator was kicked out of his position after saying that we'd be better off had we elected a racist as President, do you really think that anyone would be successful in trying to strip all black people of their Constitutional rights?QUOTE
2. Are Lynn Westmoreland and Charlie Norwood actually attempting to enact legislation that would lead to the voting rights act to be declared unconstitutional?
Not as far as I can tell, and no evidence has been offered by anyone to suggest that they are.QUOTE
3. Are these protests and vigils necessary, or are people like Al Sharpton causing more racial divisiveness than necessary?
I'm not really sure what Al Sharpton has done to be brought into this...Not that I'm crazy about him, but he has nothing to do with this issue. Having said that, this is a completely unnecessary and divisive display and will do nothing to improve race relations in America.
CP
1. Are law-makers really delaying the vote on the Voting rights act in order to attempt to "turn back the clock" as this article states?
Let's get our facts straight before we go off on tangents with knee-jerk responses.
A small cadre of right-wingers in the House, mostly from the South, are trying to delay the extension of the Voting Rights Act because they don't like the provisions requiring nine states such as Mississippi and Alabama have to get approval from Washington before changing their electoral rules.
A little background about the VRA comes from columnist Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post: ...the landmark 1965 act that guaranteed voting rights for African Americans disenfranchised by Jim Crow law and custom in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and Virginia. In 1975 the act was expanded to cover Alaska, Texas and Arizona, where citizens with limited command of English -- Latinos, mostly -- were being treated as if they were black folks in the South.
Southern Republicans complained that their states were being singled out by the act, which was originally intended to do away with the poll taxes, literacy tests and other measures that were used to deprive black voters of their rights.
Robinson link
The Voting Rights Act does not expire until next year. As Speaker of the House Denny Hastert and Majority Leader John Boehner have pointed out what has happened is a delay in the passage of the Act, not necessarily a wholesale retreat. Still, this is an election year, and the House GOP leadership would like to be able to point to passage of the VRA as proof positive that they are still the Party of Lincoln regarding civil rights.
At least that was the plan before Westmoreland and Norwood threw a monkeywrench into the machinery.
2. Are Lynn Westmoreland and Charlie Norwood actually attempting to enact legislation that would lead to the voting rights act to be declared unconstitutional?
The constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act is not in question. These two geeks want to add amendments that would loosen or remove federal oversight of their states' electorial rule changes. The purpose isn't to kill the Voting Rights Act outright as that would be an obviously heavy-handed move, but to water it down and weaken it.
The South of 2006 is not the South of 1956. Nobody disputes this fact. However, the logical conclusion is NOT that racism no longer exists and voting rights for Blacks and Latinos no longer need to be protected.
The Boston Globe points out a recent Supreme Court ruling:
Just two weeks ago, the Supreme Court struck down a 2003 redrawing of a Texas congressional district by Republican designers who carved out 100,000 Hispanic voters and replaced them with 100,000 white voters to ensure the re-election of Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas.
The court said the move trampled on Hispanics' voting rights as they were becoming a political force in the district.
Boston Globe
Columnist Clarence Page illustrated the need for the VRA to be extended as he wrote, "Five years ago, for example, aldermen in Kilmichael, Miss., happened to cancel the town's local elections three weeks before Election Day, after it became apparent that a black man was going to win. This being Mississippi, the officals had to have the change approved by the Justice Department, which sensibly rejected it. Obviously we've come a long way since 1965, but as long as people continue to attempt these sorts of racially motivated 'electorial shenanigans' the Voting Rights Act has to remain on the books."
To which I say, Preach on, Brother Clarence!
3. Are these protests and vigils necessary, or are people like Al Sharpton causing more racial divisiveness than necessary?
Well, let's break this question down into two parts.
"Are these protests and vigils necessary?" Possibly not. Today, Speaker Hastert announced the House will vote tomorrow on extending the Voting Rights Act.
Rep. Deborah Pryce , a Republican from Ohio and a member of the House leadership, said House Majority Leader John Boehner, also from Ohio, had told fellow Republicans at the meeting that he wanted the bill passed without further delay. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060712/pl_nm/...ess_rights_dc_1
Props to Hastert, Pryce and Boehner.
"Are people like Al Sharpton causing more racial divisiveness than neccessary." That's a loaded question.
Who exactly are "people like Al Sharpton?" Seems to me ALL this racial division was sparked by people like Lynn Westmoreland and Charlie Norwood.
Republicans should be happy that the House leadership grew a spine and slapped the backbenchers into their proper place. Here in Ohio, Congresswoman Pryce is in a tough reelection fight and there were already commercials being aired faulting her for not taking a stand for the Voting Rights Act. The Democrats were going to use this issue to depict the GOP House as wrong on protecting voting and civil rights and allowing a small cabal of right-wing nuts to hijack a popular, bipartisan piece of legislation.
Now that issue will be taken off the table. Political considerations, as much as good government, was put into play here.
"People like" Al Sharpton recognize the fact that America is not yet a colorblind nation and racism has not been expunged from the body politic. There are places when minorities try to exercise political clout, efforts to limit that clout follow. As long as those places exist, the Voting Rights Act needs to be in effect.
Something than pinheads like Norwood and Westmoreland don't quite get.
Let's get our facts straight before we go off on tangents with knee-jerk responses.
A small cadre of right-wingers in the House, mostly from the South, are trying to delay the extension of the Voting Rights Act because they don't like the provisions requiring nine states such as Mississippi and Alabama have to get approval from Washington before changing their electoral rules.
A little background about the VRA comes from columnist Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post: ...the landmark 1965 act that guaranteed voting rights for African Americans disenfranchised by Jim Crow law and custom in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and Virginia. In 1975 the act was expanded to cover Alaska, Texas and Arizona, where citizens with limited command of English -- Latinos, mostly -- were being treated as if they were black folks in the South.
Southern Republicans complained that their states were being singled out by the act, which was originally intended to do away with the poll taxes, literacy tests and other measures that were used to deprive black voters of their rights.
Robinson link
The Voting Rights Act does not expire until next year. As Speaker of the House Denny Hastert and Majority Leader John Boehner have pointed out what has happened is a delay in the passage of the Act, not necessarily a wholesale retreat. Still, this is an election year, and the House GOP leadership would like to be able to point to passage of the VRA as proof positive that they are still the Party of Lincoln regarding civil rights.
At least that was the plan before Westmoreland and Norwood threw a monkeywrench into the machinery.
2. Are Lynn Westmoreland and Charlie Norwood actually attempting to enact legislation that would lead to the voting rights act to be declared unconstitutional?
The constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act is not in question. These two geeks want to add amendments that would loosen or remove federal oversight of their states' electorial rule changes. The purpose isn't to kill the Voting Rights Act outright as that would be an obviously heavy-handed move, but to water it down and weaken it.
The South of 2006 is not the South of 1956. Nobody disputes this fact. However, the logical conclusion is NOT that racism no longer exists and voting rights for Blacks and Latinos no longer need to be protected.
The Boston Globe points out a recent Supreme Court ruling:
Just two weeks ago, the Supreme Court struck down a 2003 redrawing of a Texas congressional district by Republican designers who carved out 100,000 Hispanic voters and replaced them with 100,000 white voters to ensure the re-election of Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas.
The court said the move trampled on Hispanics' voting rights as they were becoming a political force in the district.
Boston Globe
Columnist Clarence Page illustrated the need for the VRA to be extended as he wrote, "Five years ago, for example, aldermen in Kilmichael, Miss., happened to cancel the town's local elections three weeks before Election Day, after it became apparent that a black man was going to win. This being Mississippi, the officals had to have the change approved by the Justice Department, which sensibly rejected it. Obviously we've come a long way since 1965, but as long as people continue to attempt these sorts of racially motivated 'electorial shenanigans' the Voting Rights Act has to remain on the books."
To which I say, Preach on, Brother Clarence!
3. Are these protests and vigils necessary, or are people like Al Sharpton causing more racial divisiveness than necessary?
Well, let's break this question down into two parts.
"Are these protests and vigils necessary?" Possibly not. Today, Speaker Hastert announced the House will vote tomorrow on extending the Voting Rights Act.
Rep. Deborah Pryce , a Republican from Ohio and a member of the House leadership, said House Majority Leader John Boehner, also from Ohio, had told fellow Republicans at the meeting that he wanted the bill passed without further delay. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060712/pl_nm/...ess_rights_dc_1
Props to Hastert, Pryce and Boehner.
"Are people like Al Sharpton causing more racial divisiveness than neccessary." That's a loaded question.
Who exactly are "people like Al Sharpton?" Seems to me ALL this racial division was sparked by people like Lynn Westmoreland and Charlie Norwood.
Republicans should be happy that the House leadership grew a spine and slapped the backbenchers into their proper place. Here in Ohio, Congresswoman Pryce is in a tough reelection fight and there were already commercials being aired faulting her for not taking a stand for the Voting Rights Act. The Democrats were going to use this issue to depict the GOP House as wrong on protecting voting and civil rights and allowing a small cabal of right-wing nuts to hijack a popular, bipartisan piece of legislation.
Now that issue will be taken off the table. Political considerations, as much as good government, was put into play here.
"People like" Al Sharpton recognize the fact that America is not yet a colorblind nation and racism has not been expunged from the body politic. There are places when minorities try to exercise political clout, efforts to limit that clout follow. As long as those places exist, the Voting Rights Act needs to be in effect.
Something than pinheads like Norwood and Westmoreland don't quite get.
Nighttimer, I'm with you on this one...I really don't see what the real issue is to be honest with you though, hence my sarcastic response. I don't think that there are any people who think that the Act won't be renewed by next year when it is set to expire [and if it doesn't get renewed this year I'm sure the Democrat-held House will help renew it in 2007]. I'd like to think that 90% of our elected representatives understand that it is political suicide to oppose this Civil Rights legislation and they have to know that they will be labled as bigots if they do not vote for it. So again, I'm with you, but I really don't think this is much of an issue, the Act will be renewed and we'll all live happily ever after...No need for hunger strikes, vigils or sit-ins.
CP
CP
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jul 12 2006, 01:19 PM) 
Who exactly are "people like Al Sharpton?" Seems to me ALL this racial division was sparked by people like Lynn Westmoreland and Charlie Norwood.
QUOTE
"People like" Al Sharpton recognize the fact that America is not yet a colorblind nation and racism has not been expunged from the body politic. There are places when minorities try to exercise political clout, efforts to limit that clout follow. As long as those places exist, the Voting Rights Act needs to be in effect.
Something than pinheads like Norwood and Westmoreland don't quite get.
Wow... umm... lemme tell ya something interesting... and maybe factual?!?!?! Hmm... let's start with that.
I was listening to the Tom Joyner show this morning on the way to work, in which case they played a clip of Al Sharpton commenting on this very subject. His basic statement (paraphrased) was that he had to protect the voting rights of blacks in America as there were white and/or republican forces working against them. He was about to head to the protest in DC, as he had to protect his fellow black Americans...
The truth about Westmoreland's initiative is to help cities and counties with good records to side-step preclearance requirements in that the process as it stands is too expensive and cumbersome for small jurisdictions, while forcing the government to take a candid look at each state after each election as opposed to basing decisions on something that happened in 1964. The preclearance section was tailored to address a specific problem, and was intended to be temporary. This is nearly 7 decades later...
QUOTE
These two geeks want to add amendments that would loosen or remove federal oversight of their states' electorial rule changes. The purpose isn't to kill the Voting Rights Act outright as that would be an obviously heavy-handed move, but to water it down and weaken it.
The South of 2006 is not the South of 1956. Nobody disputes this fact. However, the logical conclusion is NOT that racism no longer exists and voting rights for Blacks and Latinos no longer need to be protected.
The South of 2006 is not the South of 1956. Nobody disputes this fact. However, the logical conclusion is NOT that racism no longer exists and voting rights for Blacks and Latinos no longer need to be protected.
Protected from WHO???
I believe that we need to begin to attempt to Protect Americans. Protect Americans from cultural apathy, protect Rural Americans and allow them the same rights and freedoms that one might get in a larger city, and most importantly begin to unveil the cloak of biggotry that has been bestowed upon the South. If it makes sense, we might want to listen... and if we're holding a state or large portion of the nation accountable for what happened in the early 60's, we might have to re-consider our motives.
As a country, we have to begin to move out of the stages of pandering and playing the race card.
As long as sites like BlackAmericaweb.com or people like Tom Joyner cover stories that include vigils, protests, and divisive language... then division is what we'll get.
QUOTE
The truth about Westmoreland's initiative is to help cities and counties with good records to side-step preclearance requirements in that the process as it stands is too expensive and cumbersome for small jurisdictions, while forcing the government to take a candid look at each state after each election as opposed to basing decisions on something that happened in 1964. The preclearance section was tailored to address a specific problem, and was intended to be temporary. This is nearly 7 decades later...
I believe that we need to begin to attempt to Protect Americans. Protect Americans from cultural apathy, protect Rural Americans and allow them the same rights and freedoms that one might get in a larger city, and most importantly begin to unveil the cloak of biggotry that has been bestowed upon the South. If it makes sense, we might want to listen... and if we're holding a state or large portion of the nation accountable for what happened in the early 60's, we might have to re-consider our motives.
As a country, we have to begin to move out of the stages of pandering and playing the race card.
As long as sites like BlackAmericaweb.com or people like Tom Joyner cover stories that include vigils, protests, and divisive language... then division is what we'll get.
I believe that we need to begin to attempt to Protect Americans. Protect Americans from cultural apathy, protect Rural Americans and allow them the same rights and freedoms that one might get in a larger city, and most importantly begin to unveil the cloak of biggotry that has been bestowed upon the South. If it makes sense, we might want to listen... and if we're holding a state or large portion of the nation accountable for what happened in the early 60's, we might have to re-consider our motives.
As a country, we have to begin to move out of the stages of pandering and playing the race card.
As long as sites like BlackAmericaweb.com or people like Tom Joyner cover stories that include vigils, protests, and divisive language... then division is what we'll get.
You can blame this on BlackAmericaweb.com or "people like" (there's that phrase again) Tom Joyner, all you like Aevans176. What you fail to see is Joyner and his website (he controls BlackAmericaweb.com) are alerting people what kind of crap is going on when sly politicians like Norwood try an end-run around the Voting Rights Act. Once upon a time people called each other on the phone or went to their churches to find out how they were about to get shafted by cheap political hacks like Norwood. Now they do it in cyberspace. The tribal drum continues to beat but with an DSL pulse.
If there is a cloak of bigotry upon the South, it was earned through hard and persistent resistance to civil rights and racial equality. Nobody had to "bestow" a darn thing.
Though I will give you credit for tuning into the hardest working man in radio. Maybe you'll eventually understand that Joyner does a helluva lot more to bring about racial reconciliation by accident than Charlie Norwood has ever done on purpose.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jul 12 2006, 02:18 PM)
You can blame this on BlackAmericaweb.com or "people like" (there's that phrase again) Tom Joyner, all you like Aevans176. What you fail to see is Joyner and his website (he controls BlackAmericaweb.com) are alerting people what kind of crap is going on when sly politicians like Norwood try an end-run around the Voting Rights Act. Once upon a time people called each other on the phone or went to their churches to find out how they were about to get shafted by cheap political hacks like Norwood. Now they do it in cyberspace. The tribal drum continues to beat but with an DSL pulse.
If there is a cloak of bigotry upon the South, it was earned through hard and persistent resistance to civil rights and racial equality. Nobody had to "bestow" a darn thing.
Though I will give you credit for tuning into the hardest working man in radio. Maybe you'll eventually understand that Joyner does a helluva lot more to bring about racial reconciliation by accident than Charlie Norwood has ever done on purpose.
As usual, you don't address the facts of what these people are saying. What I hear you saying is that the South should still be judged based upon its conditions in 1964, which is basically why people like Mrs. Westmoreland are attempting to help America understand the ramifications of said actions. "Cheap political hacks"???
Come on... address the facts here instead of calling names. We're far past the monkey bars.
What about how talking to statements of Mrs. Westmoreland? How does that relate to the nearly blatent race card playing of blackamericaweb.com?
Tom Joyner has a great radio show & I tune in most mornings on the way to work, but funny enough... I don't ever hear anything that would make me feel like he's bridging racial gaps. Possibly pointing out a lack there of in some cases, but I still hear some off-color remarks in reference to white people from time to time...
OH- and consider what you're saying about racist cloaks. Most of us on this board weren't even born in 1964, and our parents were children at the time. I feel as if you're saying we either are accountable for those that came before us or are a function of "trickle down racism"... either are ridiculous in my eyes.
QUOTE
What I hear you saying is that the South should still be judged based upon its conditions in 1964, which is basically why people like Mrs. Westmoreland are attempting to help America understand the ramifications of said actions.
I understand the outrage of the South in this instance Aveans...but let's look at this historically. The South just started to budge on it's racism a short 40 years ago, that after 200 years of treating black people as legal inferiors. If you were a black Southerner, wouldn't you be just a little bit weary of your State's government being allowed to change voting laws without Federal oversight, given what they had done the last time they had such power [again, only a mere 40 years ago]. Now, these Southern senators can complain all they want about the principal of the thing, but honestly, if they aren't planning on passing election laws that wouldn't be okayed by the Federal Government, what is there to complain about?
CP
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Jul 12 2006, 02:00 PM)
The truth about Westmoreland's initiative is to help cities and counties with good records to side-step preclearance requirements in that the process as it stands is too expensive and cumbersome for small jurisdictions, while forcing the government to take a candid look at each state after each election as opposed to basing decisions on something that happened in 1964. The preclearance section was tailored to address a specific problem, and was intended to be temporary. This is nearly 7 decades later...
Really? Nearly 7 decades? I thought this Act was passed in 1965. Seems to me that this is just barely over 4 decades later. And it is apparent that some of the States are still misbehaving. I understand that these 9 states want the black mark on their record removed and the ability to do as they please when it comes to voting laws. But, unfortunately, I think it's still a bit premature. Section 5 is still, to this day, preventing some of these states from changing their voting laws in order to be able to discriminate. Just because Section 5 has been successful for 4 decades, does not mean that it needs to be amended now. There is evidence to suggest that it is needed. And there is no evidence to suggest that it is needed in other states.
QUOTE
Protected from WHO???
I believe that we need to begin to attempt to Protect Americans. Protect Americans from cultural apathy, protect Rural Americans and allow them the same rights and freedoms that one might get in a larger city, and most importantly begin to unveil the cloak of biggotry that has been bestowed upon the South. If it makes sense, we might want to listen... and if we're holding a state or large portion of the nation accountable for what happened in the early 60's, we might have to re-consider our motives.
I believe that we need to begin to attempt to Protect Americans. Protect Americans from cultural apathy, protect Rural Americans and allow them the same rights and freedoms that one might get in a larger city, and most importantly begin to unveil the cloak of biggotry that has been bestowed upon the South. If it makes sense, we might want to listen... and if we're holding a state or large portion of the nation accountable for what happened in the early 60's, we might have to re-consider our motives.
Are you somehow implying that these states aren't accountable? It seems to me that the reason these states were singled out was because they were changing voting laws in order to discriminate. If they hadn't been, then they wouldn't have been on the list. And they certainly aren't denying that they are accountable. What they are saying is that we should no longer hold them accountable. But I don't think that we're there yet. If the Voting Rights Act is still coming up in court cases in the south then it is still needed.
QUOTE
As a country, we have to begin to move out of the stages of pandering and playing the race card.
As long as sites like BlackAmericaweb.com or people like Tom Joyner cover stories that include vigils, protests, and divisive language... then division is what we'll get.
As long as sites like BlackAmericaweb.com or people like Tom Joyner cover stories that include vigils, protests, and divisive language... then division is what we'll get.
No. As long as we have Republicans redistricting in order to cut out hispanics, as long as we have politicians cancelling elections simply because a black man may win... then division is what we have. In some areas of the discrimination issue we need to start moving on... this isn't one of them.
Maybe individual states on the list should have the ability to apply for removal from that list, but Section 5 does not need to apply to all states.
QUOTE
As usual, you don't address the facts of what these people are saying. What I hear you saying is that the South should still be judged based upon its conditions in 1964, which is basically why people like Mrs. Westmoreland are attempting to help America understand the ramifications of said actions. "Cheap political hacks"???
Come on... address the facts here instead of calling names. We're far past the monkey bars.
What about how talking to statements of Mrs. Westmoreland? How does that relate to the nearly blatent race card playing of blackamericaweb.com?
Come on... address the facts here instead of calling names. We're far past the monkey bars.
What about how talking to statements of Mrs. Westmoreland? How does that relate to the nearly blatent race card playing of blackamericaweb.com?
I believe I wrote something about getting the facts straight. Lynn Westmoreland? She is a he.
Now that we've got Westmoreland's gender clear let me point something out to you Aevans176 because this is a very familiar refrain in many of your posts where race is involved.
1964 was only 42 years ago. That's not even one generation since Jim Crow laws were struck down. You say you've never discriminated against Blacks or benefited from segregation. Bully for you. There are however quite a few people still drawing breath who did discriminate and benefited from segregation. Racist laws did not begin in the South and were not limited to The South, but the South perfected the practice of legally codified racial segregation.
And now The South is paying the price for their legacy of racism. Actions have consequences and I'm sorry if you feel unjustly burdened by it. Take it up with the bigots who created the practice. Just because you weren't alive when slavery and Jim Crow reigned supreme does not mean the effects of it have vanished with the changing of the calendar. What is the statue of limitations of legalized racism? I don't know, but 42 years of racial remedies doesn't seem like nearly enough time to undo the effect of the disease.
QUOTE
OH- and consider what you're saying about racist cloaks. Most of us on this board weren't even born in 1964, and our parents were children at the time. I feel as if you're saying we either are accountable for those that came before us or are a function of "trickle down racism"... either are ridiculous in my eyes.
We are all responsible for the historical acts of our ancestors. The sins of the father are visited upon the sons. Just ask the modern German how much of a debt he still owes the modern Jew. I personally don't feel any white man owes me anything, except the respect due me as a human being and a American citizen. But I don't believe the sins of The South have died with George Wallace, Lester Maddox, James Eastland, Bull Connor, Byron De la Beckwith and Ross Barnett.
As long as racism exists (as vividly illustrated by the example I cited from Clarence Page), in the voting practices of the nine states singled out by the Voting Rights Act, its renewal and enforcement is still needed.
Despite how you and Congressman Westmoreland feel otherwise.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jul 12 2006, 02:19 PM)
Columnist Clarence Page illustrated the need for the VRA to be extended as he wrote, "Five years ago, for example, aldermen in Kilmichael, Miss., happened to cancel the town's local elections three weeks before Election Day, after it became apparent that a black man was going to win. This being Mississippi, the officals had to have the change approved by the Justice Department, which sensibly rejected it. Obviously we've come a long way since 1965, but as long as people continue to attempt these sorts of racially motivated 'electorial shenanigans' the Voting Rights Act has to remain on the books."
And you and Page both assumed that this action was motivated by racism, instead of by any number of other possible things. If this had happened to a white candidate that the aldermen may not have happened to like, would it have even raised an eyebrow among anyone at J.D.?
That's the whole problem with legislation like this. It starts out with the assumption of racism, and it just becomes one big circular argument.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Jul 12 2006, 08:59 AM)
According to BlackAmericaweb.com:
QUOTE
Black leaders say because congressional lawmakers have delayed voting on the re-authorization of the Voting Rights Act, many black Americans could find their right to vote in jeopardy.
"We are urging Congress to take action now," Melanie Campbell, executive director of the National Coalition of Black Civic Participation, told BlackAmericaWeb.com. "We need to push our [congressional] leadership to vote on this issue
Then the article also says...
QUOTE
"We can see the progress that minorities have made during the social, economic and political transformation over the last 30 years," Steele said in a statement. "But the conservative political climate is threatening to turn back the clock, end the progress and create a new wave of resentment and hatred towards minorities."
Stalling the reenactment of the Voting Rights Act is the latest example of attempts to turn back the clock on progress, Steele said, calling it "disingenuous" for Georgia Republican congressmen Lynn Westmoreland and Charlie Norwood to offer amendments that, on the surface, would appear to expand voting rights but actually could lead to the legislation being declared unconstitutional.
"They don't seem to understand that messing with someone's right to vote is serious business," Steele said. "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and many others died so African-Americans could vote. It is a fundamental right in our society. If efforts succeed that disenfranchise blacks, it will send the wrong message and further erode the belief that America can be a place where everyone is treated equal."
Questions for Debate:
1. Are law-makers really delaying the vote on the Voting rights act in order to attempt to "turn back the clock" as this article states?
2. Are Lynn Westmoreland and Charlie Norwood actually attempting to enact legislation that would lead to the voting rights act to be declared unconstitutional?
3. Are these protests and vigils necessary, or are people like Al Sharpton causing more racial divisiveness than necessary?
aevans176
Would you kindly provide active, clickable links to the article you excerpted, so that we can read the whole thing?
1. Are law-makers really delaying the vote on the Voting rights act in order to attempt to "turn back the clock" as this article states?
They're politicians. From my experience with this animal, it very well could be. I'd give it odds.
2. Are Lynn Westmoreland and Charlie Norwood actually attempting to enact legislation that would lead to the voting rights act to be declared unconstitutional?
That I don't see. However, remove an obstacle, and things can take shape. Politics: the art of the possible.
3. Are these protests and vigils necessary, or are people like Al Sharpton causing more racial divisiveness than necessary?
Liberty requires constant vigilance. I think the organizations are making the point that they are no dummies when it comes to politics and politicians. I don't think this contributes to racial divisiveness. Denying the vote due to false claims does, as might rigged voting machines. The gerrymandering thing pushes the old buttons too.
But oh, wouldn't it be convenient if new laws could be made that take away votes?
Overall, we have to watch these people. They're into power primarily, and without vigilance, they will grab as much as they can. A demonstration now and again helps to remind them where the power comes from.
Also, a few more generations have to come and go before trusting the primary offending states. I know on the surface this isn't fair, but I also know why this had to be done. Trust takes more than forty years to be earned back (or earned period, actually). Some of the things that have happened in the South make me still untrusting of the politicians' intentions.
I think that is fair.
They're politicians. From my experience with this animal, it very well could be. I'd give it odds.
2. Are Lynn Westmoreland and Charlie Norwood actually attempting to enact legislation that would lead to the voting rights act to be declared unconstitutional?
That I don't see. However, remove an obstacle, and things can take shape. Politics: the art of the possible.
3. Are these protests and vigils necessary, or are people like Al Sharpton causing more racial divisiveness than necessary?
Liberty requires constant vigilance. I think the organizations are making the point that they are no dummies when it comes to politics and politicians. I don't think this contributes to racial divisiveness. Denying the vote due to false claims does, as might rigged voting machines. The gerrymandering thing pushes the old buttons too.
But oh, wouldn't it be convenient if new laws could be made that take away votes?
Overall, we have to watch these people. They're into power primarily, and without vigilance, they will grab as much as they can. A demonstration now and again helps to remind them where the power comes from.
Also, a few more generations have to come and go before trusting the primary offending states. I know on the surface this isn't fair, but I also know why this had to be done. Trust takes more than forty years to be earned back (or earned period, actually). Some of the things that have happened in the South make me still untrusting of the politicians' intentions.
I think that is fair.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jul 12 2006, 03:00 PM)
believe I wrote something about getting the facts straight. Lynn Westmoreland? She is a he.
Now that we've got Westmoreland's gender clear let me point something out to you Aevans176 because this is a very familiar refrain in many of your posts where race is involved.
1964 was only 42 years ago. That's not even one generation since Jim Crow laws were struck down. You say you've never discriminated against Blacks or benefited from segregation. Bully for you. There are however quite a few people still drawing breath who did discriminate and benefited from segregation. Racist laws did not begin in the South and were not limited to The South, but the South perfected the practice of legally codified racial segregation.
Good job arguing semantics. So I missed the gender. So be it, but it doesn't negate the fact that you still haven't addressed the merits of the debate or Westmoreland's agenda.
That's really the point isn't it?????
Basically, if you choose to live south of the Mason Dixon line, you're a gun-toting biggot, and fair practices will never be a part of our society until the day that some arbitrary equality exists. If you're not a biggot, you happen to live in a state, or region for that matter where biggots happened to have lived before. Wow. great way to live isn't it??? Let's solve discrimination with discrimination.
Fair is fair, and you have to come to understand that the majority of our leaders were in their late teens at the oldest in 1964. The folks pushing the biggotry are dead, and America is a different place. Holding a whole generation accountable for something that someone else did is just plain juvenile and rancorous. You're chosing to punish the MTV generation over something they've never experienced. Good job with the cynicism, but it's not good for America.
QUOTE
We are all responsible for the historical acts of our ancestors. The sins of the father are visited upon the sons.
This is nuts.... because I live in a part of the country where I like the weather, the food, and the music... we're supposed to live with the notions that racism 42 years ago is "visited upon us"???
QUOTE
I personally don't feel any white man owes me anything, except the respect due me as a human being and a American citizen. But I don't believe the sins of The South have died with George Wallace, Lester Maddox, James Eastland, Bull Connor, Byron De la Beckwith and Ross Barnett.
You act as if there is some underlying association with people that happen to live in Atlanta, Dallas, or New Orleans with those that lived here/there in 1964. Absurd. You act as if the people running businesses, buying homes, and starting familes (hence, the PEOPLE VOTING) are the people that should pay until you say stop????
This is exactly why Westmoreland has a point, and furthermore why the race card is rarely taken seriously anymore. What was the one about crying wolf??? ....
QUOTE
Basically, if you choose to live south of the Mason Dixon line, you're a gun-toting biggot, and fair practices will never be a part of our society until the day that some arbitrary equality exists. If you're not a biggot, you happen to live in a state, or region for that matter where biggots happened to have lived before. Wow. great way to live isn't it??? Let's solve discrimination with discrimination.
No one is calling all Southerners racists, we are however acknowledging an extremely racist past and a not to distant past at that. All this bill is doing is, for the next 25 years [not forever by any stretch], making Southern states check in with the Federal Government before they change election laws...What exactly is you problem with that Aevans? If it isn't "the principal of the thing" then what is your argument against the law specifically?
QUOTE
You act as if there is some underlying association with people that happen to live in Atlanta, Dallas, or New Orleans with those that lived here/there in 1964. Absurd. You act as if the people running businesses, buying homes, and starting familes (hence, the PEOPLE VOTING) are the people that should pay until you say stop????
The fact is that this renewal is mostly a symbolic one. If any Southern state attempts to pass an election law that does restrict African Americans, it will be ruled unConstitutional and be eliminated. However, I think that after 200 years of racism, the least the South could do for the next 25 is take their lumps with some maturity, after all, what's 25 years of checking in with the Federal government compared to 200 years of institutionalized inequality? Call it...probation.
CP
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Jul 12 2006, 05:49 PM)
The fact is that this renewal is mostly a symbolic one. If any Southern state attempts to pass an election law that does restrict African Americans, it will be ruled unConstitutional and be eliminated. However, I think that after 200 years of racism, the least the South could do for the next 25 is take their lumps with some maturity, after all, what's 25 years of checking in with the Federal government compared to 200 years of institutionalized inequality? Call it...probation.
CP
Well, I believe it would be like if your father had a drinking problem and he tended to beat up on your mother, then was thrown in the pokey for say, 42 years.
Ok- then you come along, and you have to serve probation and report to a parole officer? What?
Could you imagine what would happen if we said that all inner city black men should have to report to a gov't entity once a month, pee in a cup, and prove they had a job? ABSURD, isn't it? Well, I could say that more black men are convicted of criminal acts than any other demographic for the past __ (insert time period) and that makes it ok.... but of course it doesn't....
If the crux of your debate hangs upon "it used to happen in your town", or "your demographic did ____"... you've got a pretty soft argument. Show me where Minden, LA (or whatever other small town in the South) had a verifiable racist act by the gov't in recent history, and I'll concede (articles by columnists are just opinions...).
I'm out of this one... as I suppose that I have no time or money left, as I have to spend it all proving to the government that I'm NOT a biggot... HOW CRAZY...!!!!! Whatever happened to innocent until proven... ah.. whatever.
QUOTE
Well, I believe it would be like if your father had a drinking problem and he tended to beat up on your mother, then was thrown in the pokey for say, 42 years.
Ok- then you come along, and you have to serve probation and report to a parole officer? What?
Ok- then you come along, and you have to serve probation and report to a parole officer? What?
QUOTE
If the crux of your debate hangs upon "it used to happen in your town", or "your demographic did ____"... you've got a pretty soft argument. Show me where Minden, LA (or whatever other small town in the South) had a verifiable racist act by the gov't in recent history, and I'll concede (articles by columnists are just opinions...).
Aevans, your analogy doesn't work. Widespread racism and institutionalized inequality created by legislative action, supported by an entire court system and enforced by the police/government is not comparable to an individual crime committed by some guy. What happened in the south was a crime by society, and as such that society should be put on probation for some period of time. Southern society, as Nighttimer said, perfected institutionalized racism, and they should and will be punished, simply by having to check in with the Federal government for just 25 more years.
QUOTE
I'm out of this one... as I suppose that I have no time or money left, as I have to spend it all proving to the government that I'm NOT a biggot... HOW CRAZY...!!!!! Whatever happened to innocent until proven... ah.. whatever.
Throughout this thread, you've acted as though each individual Southerner is being punished by this act. They aren't, the state governments of the South are being forced to okay potential election law changes with the Feds, that's it. If not for this delay and the media attention thereof, most Southerners wouldn't even know that their state governments have to jump through one more hoop to pass an election law; this bill isn't a personal attack to Southerers, it is probation for their governments.
CP
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Jul 12 2006, 04:28 PM)
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jul 12 2006, 02:19 PM)
Columnist Clarence Page illustrated the need for the VRA to be extended as he wrote, "Five years ago, for example, aldermen in Kilmichael, Miss., happened to cancel the town's local elections three weeks before Election Day, after it became apparent that a black man was going to win. This being Mississippi, the officals had to have the change approved by the Justice Department, which sensibly rejected it. Obviously we've come a long way since 1965, but as long as people continue to attempt these sorts of racially motivated 'electorial shenanigans' the Voting Rights Act has to remain on the books."
And you and Page both assumed that this action was motivated by racism, instead of by any number of other possible things. If this had happened to a white candidate that the aldermen may not have happened to like, would it have even raised an eyebrow among anyone at J.D.?
Okay. That's. Just. Silly. Not funny. Silly.
Let's apply a little logic here, Blackstone. Your "white candidate" scenario/same situation is absurd. The Justice Department wouldn't have raised an eyebrow because The Voting Rights Act protects the voting rights of racial minorities. Hypothetical white candidates need not apply.
If you want to sugarcoat over overt acts of racism, feel free. Knowledge of prior acts of bad faith and just being able to tell if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it's probably a duck leads me (and more importantly the Justice Department) to conclude R-A-C-I-S-M was at play in Kilmichael, Miss.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jul 13 2006, 12:11 PM)
Let's apply a little logic here, Blackstone.
Thanks, that's what I've been trying to get you to do. Logic suggests that the same thing could happen to a white person and not be motivated by racism. And if something could happen to a white person and not be motivated by racism, it's more than possible that the same thing could happen to a black person and not be motivated by racism. Hence, the fact that this thing happened to a black person is not evidence that a racist act has occurred. You and Page are just assuming it has.
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Jul 13 2006, 12:58 PM)
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jul 13 2006, 12:11 PM)
Let's apply a little logic here, Blackstone.
Thanks, that's what I've been trying to get you to do. Logic suggests that the same thing could happen to a white person and not be motivated by racism. And if something could happen to a white person and not be motivated by racism, it's more than possible that the same thing could happen to a black person and not be motivated by racism. Hence, the fact that this thing happened to a black person is not evidence that a racist act has occurred. You and Page are just assuming it has.
No thanks. I think you're about the last person I'd ask for instruction in logic. But's let's play your game a little longer. Since Clarence Page and I are assuming that a racist act has occurred, let's leave us out of the equation.
What about the U.S. Justice Department? Are they assuming as well?
Yet, one need only peruse through some of the approximately 1,000 cases upon which the Justice Department has acted since the Voting Rights Act was last renewed in 1982 to find plenty that has kept the department's attorneys busy.
In 2001, for example, the all-white board of aldermen in Kilmichael, Miss., just happened to cancel the town's local elections only three weeks before Election Day, just as it was becoming apparent that the town's first black mayor and council members might be elected. The aldermen, elected at large, wanted the delay so they could re-map the town into districts, which would have protected some board seats held by whites. That wasn't a good enough reason for the Justice Department, which rejected the change.
Link
In Kilmichael, Miss., in 2001, for example, white officials canceled an election when a group of black candidates signed up to run. The Justice Department ruled the action a violation of the Voting Rights Act and required the election to go forward. It resulted in the town’s first black mayor and the integration of the Board of Aldermen.
Link
Take the example of Kilmichael, Miss. In 2001, the all-white town council decided abruptly to cancel municipal elections when it became clear that, for the first time in town history, a significant number of black candidates qualified for the election. After review, the Department of Justice concluded that canceling the election was an attempt to suppress black candidates and ruled that the election go on as planned.
Obstructionists of renewal often cite the very success of the Voting Rights Act -- the increased number of minority voters and legislators -- as a sign that the law is no longer needed and should be weakened or done away with. They forget the 200 years of discrimination and disenfranchisement that made the Voting Rights Act necessary and the progress that has been made in the last 40 years toward ending voting discrimination because of its existence. The fact that it has been so successful is one of the arguments in favor of its extension in 2007.
Far from dividing America, the Voting Rights Act assures that racial and ethnic minorities have an equal opportunity to elect candidates who reflect their views and values, ensuring the nation's continued progress toward a society where race ultimately will no longer matter.
Jack Kemp
....and finally from the Justice Department itself:
According to the 2000 Census, the Town of Kilmichael has a population of 830, of whom 52.4 percent are black. Since 1990, black residents have become a majority of the town's population and, recently, a majority of its registered voters.
The town is governed by a mayor and a five-member Board of Aldermen, all of whom are elected at the same time to four-year terms, under an at-large system with a plurality vote requirement. Currently, the mayor and all five board members are white. Only one black person has served on the board; in fact, since 1965, only four other black candidates have ever run for board positions. None of these four was successful. Until 2001, no black person had sought the office of mayor.
The stated purpose for the town's action was to develop a single-member ward system for electing town officials. However, our analysis of the information provided by the town, taken as a whole, has caused us to conclude that the town has not established that its decision was motivated by reasons other than an intent to cause retrogression in minority voting strength.
A significant factor in our analysis is the context in which the town reached its decision. First, the decision to cancel the election came only after black persons had become a majority of the registered voters and the release of census data indicated that black persons were now a majority of the population in the town. Second, the decision occurred only after the qualification period for the election had closed, and it became evident that there were several black candidates for office, and that under the existing at-large electoral method, the minority community had the very strong potential to win a majority of municipal offices, including mayor.
Justice Dept decision
Mine or Clarence Page's assumptions aside, The U.S. Justice Department says the attempt by the aldermen of Kilmichael, Miss., was not motivated by speculative "what if" scenarios. It was motivated by racism. Pure, unadulterated racism.
Which makes the case for the renewal and strong enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. Because logic dictates that stuff happens.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jul 13 2006, 01:39 PM)
No thanks. I think you're about the last person I'd ask for instruction in logic.
What was it you were complaining about on the other thread? Something about "personalizing the debate"? You wouldn't be holding yourself to a lower standard than you hold others to, would you?
QUOTE
What about the U.S. Justice Department? Are they assuming as well?
Given that, according to your citations, they apparently made no attempt to rule out ideological bias (and yes, there is a strong correlation between race and ideological voting patterns), then I'd have to answer yes, they are making an assumption.
I'm not defending ideological bias in districting (I think it's reprehensible), but that's hardly a problem confined to the South.
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Jul 13 2006, 11:58 AM)
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jul 13 2006, 12:11 PM)
Let's apply a little logic here, Blackstone.
Thanks, that's what I've been trying to get you to do. Logic suggests that the same thing could happen to a white person and not be motivated by racism. And if something could happen to a white person and not be motivated by racism, it's more than possible that the same thing could happen to a black person and not be motivated by racism. Hence, the fact that this thing happened to a black person is not evidence that a racist act has occurred. You and Page are just assuming it has.
Well, logically, they haven't assumed it, they are merely restating the DoJ's decision which was based on an analysis of the situation. Never before in the town's history had a black person run for the office of mayor. Only one black person has ever served on the Board of Alderman. Since 1965, only four black people had ever even run for a board position. The town is governed by the mayor and a five member board of aldermen. Now, in 2001, the mayor and all of the Alderman were white. 52% of registered voters in the town were black - a figure that had been rising steadily as blacks became the majority of the population in the town. So, the majority of voters are black. Three people are running for mayor, one is black... Ten people running for the five Board positions, four were black... with blacks being the majority of voters. Now, as soon as the candidate qualifications closed and these facts became a certainty, the current aldermen and the city decided to cancel the election.
Hmmm... Blacks are 52% of registered voters, A black man running for mayor, 4 blacks running for positions on a 5 member board and the elections are cancelled. On the surface that sounds like discrimination, but the DoJ went farther and explored the reasons the town gave for the cancellation. According to the Department of Justice, the town failed to prove that they didn't have a discriminatory purpose in cancelling the election.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Jul 13 2006, 02:05 PM)
According to the Department of Justice, the town failed to prove that they didn't have a discriminatory purpose in cancelling the election.
And if one is to argue, as Page has done, that this episode proves the need for a renewal of the VRA, than a little more is required than to show that officials failed to prove that they didn't have a racially discriminatory purpose. It's necessary to show that they did. Like I said above, there are other reasons for doing this (not all of them ones that I would defend, but that doesn't make it racist).
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Jul 13 2006, 03:47 PM)
And if one is to argue, as Page has done, that this episode proves the need for a renewal of the VRA, than a little more is required than to show that officials failed to prove that they didn't have a racially discriminatory purpose. It's necessary to show that they did. Like I said above, there are other reasons for doing this (not all of them ones that I would defend, but that doesn't make it racist).
Here, Blackstone.
Here is the DoJ's determination in this particular case. In it you can read all about the "other reasons" presented by town officials for the cancellation.
Kilmichael, MS, Dec. 11, 2001
In that you can read about the change to an election method that, before it looked like a blacks would win the office of mayor and four of the five alderman seats, seemed fairly unimportant. You'll read about how, after it became apparent that they would likely win, it suddenly became so important that it was necessary to cancel the election.
You can read about the litigation that had very little to do with the town and certainly did not make it necessary to cancel the election.
Those were the reasons given by town officials. Now, perhaps, there are more "other reasons"... we could probably come up with an infinite amount of "other reasons." But these were the ones they gave and they didn't seem to make sense as anything other than racism.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Jul 13 2006, 06:22 PM)
Those were the reasons given by town officials.
I'm curious what would have happened if the town had simply come out and said it did it to prevent a different political party from getting elected. While that's certainly not a very good reason to make the change, the salient fact remains that such a thing is perfectly legal everywhere else in the country - indeed, standard operating procedure in most places. So while I'm far from defending the practice, it still isn't the same as racism.
Now if we were talking about a proposal to eliminate political gerrymandering nationwide, regardless of the racial complexion of those affected, I could get on board with that. But I'm not about to assume that racism is the motivation everytime it happens to a racial group, because like I pointed out, in many locations there's a pretty strong correlation between race and ideological voting patterns.
Whether or not someone chooses to ignore overt acts of racism is frankly irrelevant. The judgment of history is not subject to conversational parlor games. The vast majority of Americans---Black and White---reject racism and its apologists.
Oh, and by the way...
WASHINGTON - The House voted Thursday to renew the 1965 Voting Rights Act, rejecting efforts by Southern conservatives to relax federal oversight of their states in a debate haunted by the ghosts of the civil rights movement.
The 390-33 vote sent to the Senate a bill that represented a Republican appeal to minority voters who doubt the GOP's "big-tent" image. Ten representatives did not vote. Southern conservatives had complained that the act punishes their states for racist voting histories they say they've overcome.
One Down, One to Go
Which means the Voting Rights Act once passed by the Senate and signed by the President will remain in effect for another 25 years. Sucks to be Lynn Westmoreland and 32 other losers tonight. It's been a bad day for racial obstructionists.
Maybe if anyone wants to pick up the debate in 2031 we can argue then about how The South has become squeaky clean regarding voting rights.
Hopefully, by then the quality of the debate by opponents of the Voting Rights Act will step up a notch or two from the weak-as-water arguments made by them this go-round.
Oh, and by the way...
WASHINGTON - The House voted Thursday to renew the 1965 Voting Rights Act, rejecting efforts by Southern conservatives to relax federal oversight of their states in a debate haunted by the ghosts of the civil rights movement.
The 390-33 vote sent to the Senate a bill that represented a Republican appeal to minority voters who doubt the GOP's "big-tent" image. Ten representatives did not vote. Southern conservatives had complained that the act punishes their states for racist voting histories they say they've overcome.
One Down, One to Go
Which means the Voting Rights Act once passed by the Senate and signed by the President will remain in effect for another 25 years. Sucks to be Lynn Westmoreland and 32 other losers tonight. It's been a bad day for racial obstructionists.
Maybe if anyone wants to pick up the debate in 2031 we can argue then about how The South has become squeaky clean regarding voting rights.
Hopefully, by then the quality of the debate by opponents of the Voting Rights Act will step up a notch or two from the weak-as-water arguments made by them this go-round.
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Jul 13 2006, 06:44 PM)
QUOTE(entspeak @ Jul 13 2006, 06:22 PM)
Those were the reasons given by town officials.
I'm curious what would have happened if the town had simply come out and said it did it to prevent a different political party from getting elected. While that's certainly not a very good reason to make the change, the salient fact remains that such a thing is perfectly legal everywhere else in the country - indeed, standard operating procedure in most places. So while I'm far from defending the practice, it still isn't the same as racism.
So, you're curious what would've happened if the town simply came up with a better excuse? Hmmm... no, we don't need the VRA at all.
.These were their reasons. Those reasons were obviously suspect. Just because they didn't come up with a better excuse to mask their racism doesn't make it any less rascist.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Jul 14 2006, 09:30 AM)
So, you're curious what would've happened if the town simply came up with a better excuse?
Most people would not consider ideologically-motivated gerrymandering to be a "better excuse", which is exactly my point. In other words I'm not denying that the aldermen most likely had an ulterior motive to prevent these people from getting elected. What I am denying is that a case has been made that this was motivated by racism, rather than some other unsavory motive. And given that political gerrymandering is endemic throughout the country (the South doesn't even come close to having a monopoly on it), then it can't be dismissed as just some minor possibility in this case.
On thing I'm also curious about: If this truly was a case of racially motivated gerrymandering, then it would have been subject to a judicial challenge under Gomillion v Lightfoot (1960), with or without the VRA. So what does the VRA add that isn't already there, except an opportunity for federal agents with an axe to grind, to harass state and local governments?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.