WHY REPUBLICANS RIP THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, BlackNews.com Columnist


In 1980 Ronald Reagan told biographer Laurence Barrett that the 1965 Voting Rights Act was "humiliating to the South." The carefully handpicked, emotionally charged words from then GOP Republican presidential candidate Reagan aimed to tap into the fury of white Southerners over civil rights, and, of course, garner their votes. Two years later, then assistant attorney general John Roberts (now Supreme Court justice) sent a tidal wave of memos imploring President Reagan to reject a twenty-five year extension of the Act. A hesitant Reagan approved the extension anyway. But that didn't mean that Reagan thought the Act was any less humiliating to the South. Reagan did not want to buck Democrats and civil rights leaders who still had clout in Congress and favorable public sentiment. The last thing Reagan wanted was to be tagged a bigot and an enemy of voting rights. But candidate Reagan's soothing words to the South, and Robert's stern opposition, were huge warning signs that many Republicans were at best ambivalent, and at worst, openly hostile to the Act.

That hasn't changed. President Bush has twice said that he would sign legislation that extends the 1965 Voting Rights Act when it expires in 2007, and nearly every Republican Senator and House representative publicly swore they'd back extension. Yet, all it took to derail House approval was a loud complaint from a handful of Republican representatives that bilingual ballots should be dumped and that the Act unfairly punishes Southern states for voter discrimination. That may also be enough to derail a vote in the Senate on the Act. Before the Republicans objected the Senate Judiciary Committee had scheduled a vote on extension of the Act the last week of June. Voting rights supporters considered the vote a slam-dunk, but not now.

The delay was probably inevitable, not because Bush, and Republicans want to kill voting rights as many civil rights leaders, and black Democrats claim, but because it's smart, partisan politics to stall. The clumsy effort to tie renewal to English only sentiment was a cover. The real aim of Republicans is to appease conservative white voters in the South just as candidate Reagan did.

Republicans took their cue from the old Southern Dixiecrats. For decades, they screamed that the act was unlawful federal intrusion and violated states rights. But racist Democrats weren't the biggest obstacle to the Act's initial passage. House Republicans were. Then Republican minority leader, Gerald Ford proposed four outrageous provisions to gut the bill. The provisions did not outlaw the poll tax and literacy tests, and authorized the attorney general to bring suit only after receiving a set number of complaints of voting violations.

An even more preposterous Republican gambit would have eliminated a provision requiring the federal courts to approve all voting rights laws passed by Southern states. With President Lyndon Johnson pounding away, and the stench of tear gas still in the nation's nostrils from the 1965 attack by Alabama state police on civil rights marchers at Selma, Republican House leaders relented and scrapped the watered down provisions. But that didn't end the fight to protect voting rig hts. Republican Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. carefully crafted and fine-tuned the Republican's Southern strategy. The goal was to win elections by doing and saying as little as possible about civil rights while openly and subtly pandering to Southern white fears of black political domination.

It meant then, and now, electing more Democrats to state and local offices, governorships and the Senate. That can't happen without the black vote. The loss of one or more states to the Democrats in the 2006 mid term election and 2008 presidential election would spell political disaster for the GOP. The key, as Reagan and every Republican president since Nixon has known, is to maintain near solid backing from white Southern males.

They have been the staunchest Republican loyalists. Bush grabbed more than sixty percent of the white male vote nationally in 2004. In the South, he got more than seventy percent of their vote. Without the South's unyielding backing in 2000, Democratic Presidential contender Al Gore would have easily won the White House, and the Florida vote debacle would have been a meaningless sideshow. In 2004, Bush swept Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in every one of the states of the Old Confederacy and three out of four of the Border states. That insured another Bush White House.

Bush, top Republicans and even the GOP obstructionists that temporarily derail the Act's extension don't want to roll back the clock to the Jim Crow days when the South concocted a vast array of literacy tests, poll taxes, informal voting codes, and whites only primaries to boot blacks en masse out of the voting booths. But more than a few Republicans do want to send the message that they'll fight any threat to Republican rule in the South even if that means ripping the Voting Rights Act.

 

If only 30 to 50 percent of the voting population ever votes, then dont think there needs to be a voting rights act, no one is stopping folks from voting they just wont

 

It doesn't matter how many vote. This is a democracy and they still should have the right to if they want.

 

sure they do, use it or lose it

 

Use it or lose it should never be an option. Unless this is a dictatorship. If its a real democracy. Then people should always have a choice to vote or not. There should be no laws restricting it.

 

that is true, so they dont need a renewal of the act.

 

That was the point of the voting rights act. Its suppose to prevent discrimination when voting. I know you're partisan. But is there anything you wouldn't defend your party from?

 

i dont know, i guess I would ask you that question mate. You seem to attack only the Republicans, so it makes both of us pretty partisan.

there are many things I criticize this administration and party on, this of course is not one of them.

See, i can see through the VRA push. Everyone talks about discrimination when their party loses, but they never seem to argue discrimination when their party wins. Voting irregularities went on during , 100 years of Democratic rule, esp in the South, where the Democrats ruled until 1980. Blacks were disenfranchised mainly by the Democrats there but no one is crying about that. So, no I dont think there is any discrimination of any real numbers and thus the voting rights act is not needed, since we have the constitution and bill of rights.

 

The only reason I talk more about republicans then democrats. Is because they are the ones in power. People accused me of being republican when i talked about the Clinton administration when they were in power. I don't defend either party but the people in power need criticism to keep them in check whenever possible.

The democrats did do the same things in the past. But you don't excuse bad behavior with other bad behavior. Plenty of so called black leaders and blacks have talked about the democrats. But when it comes down to it.Alot of blacks see both of these parties as a bunch of rich white man that don't care about them. But vote democrat because they seem like the lesser evil. We had the constitution and bill of rights when blacks were being lynched and enslaved also.

Are you trying to say that since Democrats did it, Republicans should be excused for doing the same thing?

 

yes, just as the democrats, are saying lets impeach Bush because Republicans impeached Clinton.

whether the Republicans are in power or not, doesnt mean that they are the point of attack. but thats not the issue really.

my issue is that people vote for the so called lesser of two evils but the lesser of two evils havent done anything for the black people except take them for granted, even the black leaders have said so.

i am against the Voting Rights Act as long as it has a bilingual piece in it. take that out and let it stand as it has. illegal immigrants, felons, shouldnt have the right to vote that others have fought and died for.

 

I agree the less of two evils isn't a good strategy. And whoever is in power will reap the benefits and that includes criticism. I remember the last election. Democrats were saying we should vote for Kerry the lesser evil. And Republicans were talking about voting for bush the lesser evil. Personally I believe they both are evil. Neither party represents the ideas of America. The founding fathers are probably turning in their grave.

I agree illegal immigrants shouldn't be allowed to vote. But felons who are rehabilitated should. Especially the ones who are convicted of drug crimes. I remember reading this one article about an ex-felon that is now a gourmet chef. The pathetic failure that is the war on drugs has devastated the black community. A lot of them should be rehabilitated especially when people are arrested for possession of marijuana. And when suburban neighborhoods do the same thing its not even close to the punshiment blacks receive.

 

i am for them working at jobs and that felon like many i have assisted through my job, have dont a wonderful working job, but they lose some of their citizenship privileges.

 

What do you think we should do with illegal immigrants? It would cost to much for deportation. Also the government couldn't round them up if they wanted because they are ineffective. Neither one of the parties want to lost the Hispanic vote. So they might end up being given citizenship.

 

i believe, though you called me a partisan, that both parties and other parties are good for this country. Democrats arent all evil, but the liberals in their midst are. just as facist would be on the right.

lesser of two evils is sad, becuase Kerry didnt even have ONE black person in his campaign staff--he doesnt see black people. if Kayne West actually read, he would know that Kerry Hates black people a wee bit more than Bush does. If the Dems are the lesser of two evils, why did they make a black person(plenty found in the Democratic party) for Secretary of State or even running mate? why did a Republican in a white male conservative party have to do it first, when less than 10% of Blacks voted for Him in 2000 and 11% voted for Him in 2004? It makes no sense that they would be more evil than the group that only sees blacks as a voting block, to win. But that is our black folk for ya, we will cut off our noses to spite our faces.

i love your statement aobut religion and politics, especially since MLK Jr, was a Minister who used the pulpit to push the voting rights act, desegregation, integration, civil rights. so without that religious base, we wouldnt have had this voting rights act, so i guess, i am with you on seperation of church and state on that one.

 

I didn't say I see them as the lesser of two evils. The democrats got most of the black vote after the civil rights act. And MLK jr. did use religion but never forced religious views on anyone or implemented them into politics/laws. I believe you can follow whatever you want. But forcing these views on others is dangerous and has never had positive consequences.

 

mlk jr forced his views on integration on many americans, hence the original article. no other group has forced their religious views on America, like the Civil Rights movement, and the Abolitionist movement. Also, the Civil Rights Act of 64 and the Voting Rights Act of 65 are a matter of policy, and law forced on America by a movement started largely by churches. Also The 14th Amendment was in direct action of the Abolitionist movement forcing its views about slavery on the American public, making it law.

to me, both of these religious movements were needed and have made society better not worse, so i dont think they have negative consequences any more than fighting for the unborn, the american family, against poverty, free speech and religious tolerance.

 

That makes no sense. Those aren't religions. Integration,abolition of slavery those would be considered ideas. The founding fathers saw the significance of separation of church and state. If president Bush wants to have a religion then thats okay. Now if anyone tried to force these religious views into laws. Then that would be rather dangerous. Christianity, Catholicism supported slavery until centuries later when they jumped on the bandwagon. The Quakers were the ones who actually help start the abolitionist movement and they were against Christianity.

 

abolitionist where Quakers, a Religion and Baptists, a religion.

I dont know what you are talking about then sir, since you brought up the religion in government. there is no group bringing religion in government, but like the religion of Quakerism--black religious people used the pulpit to push political and social ideas, just as today the Christian right and left try and push their IDEAS in the political realm--but no one, is pushing their religion. they are pushing their religious values, whether it is to end poverty from the black church, or end the killing in Darfur, the Jewish religious groups in the US, or to end abortion, the Catholics, or to fight for traditional marriage, evangelicals in the US. It is all about their ideas and values not about trying to push religion on anyone.

 

You're talking about pushing religious ideas. I'm talking about pushing ideas of freedom. So called traditional marriage,abortion,etc are infringing on other people's rights. People did use religion to push ideas of freedom but it didn't come from religious views.

 

both abolitionism and Civil Rights came from religious views. Quakers are a religious organization and their motivation was purely religious. the civil rights movement came out of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the black churches and it was out of religious reasons, both of which i support, as i do freedom for the unborn and traditional marriage, which do not infringe on others rights, as marriage is an institution between one man and one woman.