COMMENTS:
* Who does Voter ID disenfranchise? Anyone who is either too infirm, or too poor, to go and get one! EXACTLY the groups of people that the Voter ID Laws are INTENDED to disenfranchise! :-) A more honest question would have asked what the need was for a Voter ID, when Voter Fraud is not an issue in our Country :-) Indeed, why would a movement that purports to be "Fiscally Conservative" and "against Government Intrusion" be so FOR an unneeded Law that will cost us unnecessary MILLIONS of dollars AND allow the Government to intrude more fully into our lives? What an "odd" inconsistency, huh? :-) :-) :-)
* That is is the best political thing I have heard in a long time. Because it is so sensible, I doubt the Republicans will let it happen, but if they don't, their candidates will have to explain whay they tried to keep disenfranching certain voters.
* I've noticed the Koch bots responding to Anne's post are zeroing in on the photo id requirements. Not a word about closing or moving polling places, restricting early voting days, or gerrymandering.
* Are these id's free? This is more of an impact on the elderly than the younger people. Buck I would like to see your sources for rampant voter fraud. So by making voters having an id, they are placing a polling tax which is illegal. It was used in the past to keep the poor from voting. Since everything I have read points to voter fraud as a non-issue. The GOP in Florida did they best they could to deter voters in our last elections even though the Election supervisors of the state said voter fraud is not an issue. You miss the point, its not discrimination, its about voter suppression and violates the law. The GOP wants those that usually vote democrat from voting so they can turn this country into a one party system, which is on your way to communism or Fascism, take your pick.
...................................................................................................................................................................Congress Moves to Restore Cuts Supreme Court Made to Voting Rights Act
By Gabrielle Levy, June 24, 2015
Nearly two years have passed since the Supreme Court struck down a portion of the Voting Rights Act, setting off a wave of new attempts to tighten access to voting that the law would have previously prevented.
Now, a group of Congressional leaders is making the attempt to not only replace the portion of the law struck down but improve upon it so that it applies to all states and more disenfranchised groups.
"If it was not clear in 2014, I think it is clear today that we have come a great distance in this country toward healing the divisions and problems among us, but we are not there yet," said Voting Rights Advancement Act co-sponsor Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., in a statement read during a press conference Wednesday by the bill's Senate sponsor, Pat Leahy, D-Vt.
The new bill would apply the federal pre-approval requirements for election rules to California, Texas, New York, North Carolina, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginia. All states would need to seek federal approval before enacting new barriers to voting or voter registration, the number or location of polling places, or changing how districts are drawn or whether congressional seats are elected at-large.
It would also add language-based discrimination to the list of investigable actions, a reflection of the growing number of Asian-American voters, many of whom whose first language is not English.
"The Asian-American and Pacific Islander community is particularly vulnerable, as the fastest-growing racial group in the country, APIs are poised to serve as the margin of victory in upcoming elections," said Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., the chairwoman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. "We are easy prey to voter ID and other restrictive laws."
In addition to Chu, Leahy, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Lewis, whose lifelong contributions to the civil rights movement are unmatched in Congress, the bill's primary sponsors include chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Linda Sanchez, D-Calif.; Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala., the first black woman elected to Congress in her state's history; and Sens. Chris Coons, D-Del., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.
Before the court's June 25, 2013 decision, states that had a history of using discrimination to prevent certain groups of people from voting were required to to seek pre-approval if they wished to make changes to voting times or poll locations, district boundaries, registration dates or identification requirements. The court ruled, 5-4, that the standards that determined which states and localities were subject to those restrictions were out of date and unfair, and thus unconstitutional.
The court's decision was immediately met with criticism from civil rights groups and some lawmakers as those states rushed to eliminate early voting and registration days, redrew congressional maps to cordon off minority voters and implemented voter identification laws that advocates say address a problem that doesn't exist -- in-person voter fraud -- and instead make it difficult for minority, the poor, students and the elderly to vote.
But the initial bipartisan attempt to replace the portions of the Voting Rights Act that were struck down by the court was met with resistance, largely from Republicans who maintained that a different portion of the original 1965 law, which permits the Justice Department to investigate alleged attempts to restrict voting, was adequate to prevent discrimination.
The new bill's sponsors acknowledged that by expanding on the 2014 legislation, they had pushed away some Republican supporters, including that bill's House sponsor, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.
Sewell, who grew up in Selma, Ala., says that while the sponsors hoped to be able to convince Republicans to reconsider, the success of legislation was more dependent on a public movement, much like the one that led Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act in the first place.
"I would be willing to compromise, that's how you do laws," she says. "Our hope is that this bill will galvanize the conscience of America: that's the only way we're going to get it passed."
...................................................................................................................................................................
By Gabrielle Levy, June 24, 2015
Nearly two years have passed since the Supreme Court struck down a portion of the Voting Rights Act, setting off a wave of new attempts to tighten access to voting that the law would have previously prevented.
Now, a group of Congressional leaders is making the attempt to not only replace the portion of the law struck down but improve upon it so that it applies to all states and more disenfranchised groups.
"If it was not clear in 2014, I think it is clear today that we have come a great distance in this country toward healing the divisions and problems among us, but we are not there yet," said Voting Rights Advancement Act co-sponsor Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., in a statement read during a press conference Wednesday by the bill's Senate sponsor, Pat Leahy, D-Vt.
The new bill would apply the federal pre-approval requirements for election rules to California, Texas, New York, North Carolina, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginia. All states would need to seek federal approval before enacting new barriers to voting or voter registration, the number or location of polling places, or changing how districts are drawn or whether congressional seats are elected at-large.
It would also add language-based discrimination to the list of investigable actions, a reflection of the growing number of Asian-American voters, many of whom whose first language is not English.
"The Asian-American and Pacific Islander community is particularly vulnerable, as the fastest-growing racial group in the country, APIs are poised to serve as the margin of victory in upcoming elections," said Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., the chairwoman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. "We are easy prey to voter ID and other restrictive laws."
In addition to Chu, Leahy, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Lewis, whose lifelong contributions to the civil rights movement are unmatched in Congress, the bill's primary sponsors include chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Linda Sanchez, D-Calif.; Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala., the first black woman elected to Congress in her state's history; and Sens. Chris Coons, D-Del., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.
Before the court's June 25, 2013 decision, states that had a history of using discrimination to prevent certain groups of people from voting were required to to seek pre-approval if they wished to make changes to voting times or poll locations, district boundaries, registration dates or identification requirements. The court ruled, 5-4, that the standards that determined which states and localities were subject to those restrictions were out of date and unfair, and thus unconstitutional.
The court's decision was immediately met with criticism from civil rights groups and some lawmakers as those states rushed to eliminate early voting and registration days, redrew congressional maps to cordon off minority voters and implemented voter identification laws that advocates say address a problem that doesn't exist -- in-person voter fraud -- and instead make it difficult for minority, the poor, students and the elderly to vote.
But the initial bipartisan attempt to replace the portions of the Voting Rights Act that were struck down by the court was met with resistance, largely from Republicans who maintained that a different portion of the original 1965 law, which permits the Justice Department to investigate alleged attempts to restrict voting, was adequate to prevent discrimination.
The new bill's sponsors acknowledged that by expanding on the 2014 legislation, they had pushed away some Republican supporters, including that bill's House sponsor, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.
Sewell, who grew up in Selma, Ala., says that while the sponsors hoped to be able to convince Republicans to reconsider, the success of legislation was more dependent on a public movement, much like the one that led Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act in the first place.
"I would be willing to compromise, that's how you do laws," she says. "Our hope is that this bill will galvanize the conscience of America: that's the only way we're going to get it passed."
...................................................................................................................................................................
No comments:
Post a Comment