02-19-2017  6:11 pm      •     

By the end of June, the Supreme Court will decide one of the most important voting rights cases in a generation. Argued April 29, the case, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, threatens to strike down Section 5, known as the heart of the Voting Rights Act, the single most effective provision of any civil rights law in our Nation's history.
First enacted in 1965 and most recently reauthorized by Congress in 2006, Section 5 serves as our democracy's checkpoint in protecting minority voters from persisting and clever discrimination. It requires jurisdictions with some of the worst histories of voting discrimination to submit all proposed voting changes to the Department of Justice or a federal court for approval before the changes can take effect. 
During the oral argument, Chief Justice John Roberts, expressing great doubt about whether Section 5 remains necessary today, compared the effect of Section 5 to an "elephant whistle...You know, I have this whistle to keep away the elephants," Roberts said rhetorically. "That's silly… there are no elephants, so it must work." 
Of course, Congress was not looking for elephants but for discrimination, and they found plenty of it even more than forty years after brave citizens marched, sat in and shed bled to give meaning to the un-kept promise of equality under our constitution.
In 2006 Congress amassed overwhelming evidence that Section 5 is still necessary, and indeed, vital, to protect minority voters from discrimination.  
After holding 21 hearings over 10 months, receiving testimony from over 90 witnesses, and compiling a record spanning more than 16,000 pages, Congress found that that while significant progress has been made because of Section 5, 40 years was insufficient to eliminate the discrimination that followed nearly 100 years of outright disregard for the Fifteenth Amendment's protection of the right to vote for Blacks and other minorities.    
Taking a different view than Justice Roberts during the argument, Justice David Souter, speaking to the lawyer who brought the case on behalf of a small Texas water district said, "I don't understand, with a record like that, how you can maintain as a basis for this suit that things have radically changed. They may be better.  But to say that they have radically changed … [is] to deny the empirical reality."
Reality, of course, makes clear that without Section 5, minority voters would continue to face fierce discrimination. Congress found hundreds of examples of Section 5's role in blocking more than 700 proposed discriminatory changes, an incredible 60 percent of which were based on purposeful discrimination, and deterring many more. 
The claim that Texas, and the jurisdictions within it, no longer pose a risk of voting discrimination is not supported by the evidence. Repetitive violations remain common.  Section 5, for example, blocked the discriminatory implementation of every redistricting plan for the State's House of Representatives following each census since the 1970's. 
Of course Texas is not alone. The pattern is that discriminatory voting changes are adopted precisely when minority communities are on the verge of exercising political power. 
In Kilmichael, Mississippi, Section 5 blocked a proposed cancellation of elections by white officials after the 2000 Census indicated that Blacks could be elected during the 2001 election for the first time in place where voting patterns were polarized along racial lines. 
Congress heard all of this evidence, and more, and concluded that Section 5 remains essential in protecting our right to vote, the one right that is preservative of all others.  Justice Souter has it right — without Section 5, discriminatory voting changes would have gone into effect.
As Congress recognized in 2006, Section 5 is not about yesterday's problems — it is as necessary today as it was when it was first enacted more than 45 years ago. 
Activism of brave citizens gave us this critical checkpoint and now only activism of a majority of the Supreme Court could deem it unconstitutional. As we await the Supreme Court's ruling in this critical case, all who have actually considered the life on the ground know that Section 5 must stand for another 25 years. The protection that has given the right to vote its meaning, and the integrity of our democracy depends on it. 

John Payton is president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which argued the case in support of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act before the United States Supreme Court in April.

Recently Published by The Skanner News

  • Default
  • Title
  • Date
  • Random
  • WASHINGTON (AP) — One month after the inauguration, the stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of Donald Trump's White House still is a hard-hat zone. Skeletal remains of the inaugural reviewing stands poke skyward. Random piles of plywood and cables are heaped on the ground inside crooked lines of metal fencing. The disarray outside the president's front door, though not his fault, serves as a metaphor for the tumult still unfolding inside. Four weeks in, the man who says he inherited "a mess" at home and abroad is presiding over a White House that is widely described as itself being a mess. At a stunning pace, Trump has riled world leaders and frustrated allies. He was dealt a bruising legal blow on one of his signature policies. He lost his national security adviser and his pick for labor secretary to scandal. He's seen forces within his government push back against his policies and leak confidential information. All of this has played out amid a steady drip of revelations about an FBI investigation into his campaign's contacts with Russian intelligence officials. Trump says his administration is running like a "fine-tuned machine." He points to the rising stock market and the devotion of his still-loyal supporters as evidence that all is well, although his job approval rating is much lower than that for prior presidents in their first weeks in office. Stung by the unrelenting criticism coming his way, Trump dismisses much of it as "fake news" delivered by "the enemy of the people" — aka the press. Daily denunciations of the media are just one of the new White House fixtures Americans are adjusting to. Most days start (and end) with presidential tweets riffing off of whatever's on TV talk shows or teasing coming events or hurling insults at the media. At some point in the day, count on Trump to cast back to the marvels of his upset of Democrat Hillary Clinton in the November election and quite possibly overstate his margins of support. Expect more denunciations of the "dishonest" press and its "fake news." From there, things can veer in unexpected directions as Trump offers up policy pronouncements or offhand remarks that leave even White House aides struggling to interpret them. The long-standing U.S. policy of seeking a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Trump this past week offered this cryptic pronouncement: "I'm looking at two-state and one-state, and I like the one that both parties like. I can live with either one." His U.N. ambassador, Nikki Haley, the next day insisted, "We absolutely support a two-state solution." Trump's days are busy. Outside groups troop in for "listening sessions." Foreign leaders call or come to visit. (Or, in the case of Mexico's president, cancel out in pique over Trump's talk about the planned border wall.) After the president signed two dozen executive actions, the White House was awaiting a rush order of more of the gold-plated Cross pens that Trump prefers to the chrome-plated ones used by his predecessor. Trump hands them out as souvenirs at the signing ceremonies that he points to as evidence of his ambitious pace. "This last month has represented an unprecedented degree of action on behalf of the great citizens of our country," Trump said at a Thursday news conference. "Again, I say it. There has never been a presidency that's done so much in such a short period of time." That's all music to the ears of his followers, who sent him to Washington to upend the established order and play the role of disrupter. "I can't believe there's actually a politician doing what he says he would do," says an approving Scott Hiltgen, a 66-year-old office furniture sales broker from River Falls, Wisconsin. "That never happens." Disrupt Trump has. But there may be more sound and fury than substance to many of his early actions. Trump did select Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, a nomination that has drawn strong reviews from conservatives. But the president is regrouping on immigration after federal judges blocked his order to suspend the United States' refugee program and ban visitors from seven Muslim-majority countries, which had caused chaos for travelers around the globe. Some other orders on issues such as the U.S.-Mexico border wall and former President Barack Obama's health care law are of limited effect. Trump says his early actions show he means to deliver on the promises he made during the campaign. "A lot of people say, 'Oh, oh, Trump was only kidding with the wall,'" the president told a group of police chiefs recently. "I wasn't kidding. I don't kid." But the Republican-led Congress is still waiting to see specifics on how Trump wants to proceed legislatively on top initiatives such as replacing the health care law, enacting tax cuts and revising trade deals. The messy rollout of the travel ban and tumult over the ouster of national security adviser Michael Flynn for misrepresenting his contacts with Russia are part of a broader state of disarray as different figures in Trump's White House jockey for power and leaks reveal internal discord in the machinations of the presidency. "I thought by now you'd at least hear the outlines of domestic legislation like tax cuts," says Princeton historian Julian Zelizer. "But a lot of that has slowed. Trump shouldn't mistake the fact that some of his supporters like his style with the fact that a lot of Republicans just want the policies he promised them. He has to deliver that." Put Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in the camp of those more interested in substance than style. "I'm not a great fan of daily tweets," McConnell said Friday, referring to the "extra discussion" that Trump likes to engage in. But McConnell was quick to add: "What I am a fan of is what he's been actually doing." He credits Trump with assembling a conservative Cabinet and taking steps to reduce government regulation, and promised: "We like his positions and we're going to pursue them as vigorously as we can." The challenge may be to tease out exactly what Trump wants in the way of a health care plan, tax changes and trade policy. At his long and defiant news conference on Thursday, Trump tried to dispel the impression of a White House in crisis, squarely blaming the press for keeping him from moving forward more decisively on his agenda. Pointing to his chief of staff, Reince Priebus, Trump said, "You take a look at Reince, he's working so hard just putting out fires that are fake fires. I mean, they're fake. They're not true. And isn't that a shame because he'd rather be working on health care, he'd rather be working on tax reform." For all the frustrations of his early days as president, Trump still seems tickled by the trappings of his office. When New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie visited the White House last week to discuss the national opioid epidemic over lunch, the governor said Trump informed him: "Chris, you and I are going to have the meatloaf.'" Trump added: "I'm telling you, the meatloaf is fabulous." ___Follow Nancy Benac on Twitter at http://twitter.com/nbenac
    Read More
  • FDR executive order sent 120,000 Japanese immigrants and citizens into camps
    Read More
  • Pruitt's nomination was strongly opposed by environmental groups and hundreds of former EPA employees
    Read More
load morehold SHIFT key to load allload all
Carpentry Professionals


Reed College Jobs
His Eye is on the Sparrow