It is rather ironic, given that the anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was just a little over a week ago (July 2nd), and I wrote a piece in recognition to this even more recently, that something that was largely seen as a follow up should be in the news once again, and which has provoked me to write an entry on this general issue again.
The very next year after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the equally monumental Voting Rights Act was passed, with bipartisan support. It was designed to end the unfair practices that had been utilized, predominately in the Jim Crow southern states, to prevent blacks and other minorities from voting, in effect. It was a follow up of the Civil Rights Act, and another piece in the puzzle to build a fairer, more just, more free society.
It has been challenged at times since then, but it seems to be increasingly challenged over the last couple of years. I wonder if anyone seems to want to say out loud what I assume most people are thinking: that most of the strongest challenges to the law have occurred in former Jim Crow states.
There is a redistricting case in Alabama that has been sufficiently controversial (it should be noted, as well, that Alabama passed an illegal immigrant bill that goes farther than Arizona's controversial measures). Florida , the same state that had all of those controversies with past elections (most famously the 2000 presidential elections) is in the news again for purging voter lists. There have been measures to eliminate convicts and ex-convicts, anyone with a record. Now, there is a case that is growing and, pending on the appeals which seem likely to follow, whatever the outcome, seems destined to end up in the Supreme Court.
That is a case in Texas, similar to another one in Georgia, which would make photo identification a requirement for voting. It sounds like it makes sense, at least on the surface. It is aimed (or at least the stated aim is) to cut down on voter fraud. There is a similar law already in place in Indiana, as well. What makes these measures controversial is the timing of them, as they were largely put in place after Barack Obama took office as the nation's first black President. You will also notice that these measures, ultimately, also have the design of limiting, rather than expanding, voting. Anytime you do that, you are playing with fire, and that is what has allowed these cases to make waves enough now to gain national attention.
One particular clause in the Voting Rights Act, Section 5, specifically aims to block changes in voter rules in Southern states in particular, since there is such a history of racial prejudice there. While Indiana was technically not a Southern state (although it borders one, and also had a strong history of racism, including the last ever lynching), the rest of the states are all in the South, in former legal segregation states. That is what has caused much of the division and controversy.
The arguments on both sides are, in fact, not radically different than those made by proponents and opponents of the Civil Rights legislation sweep in the 1960's. Those who are in favor of such measures, largely now Republicans, and many former white Dixiecrats (term for Southern Democrats, who were the driving force in the maintenance of Jim Crow legal segregation) switched to the Republican Party following the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, argue that the federal government would be overreaching, and imposing on states' rights. Those who are opposed to such measures, and want the federal government to enforce the Civil Rights Act to block these proposed changes in voting rules, are Democrats, and they argue that these measures are targeting minorities, specifically.
It will be an interesting case, anyway, come what may. It also seems to be indicative of the increased divide between Americans. Whether you want to classify it as a racial divide, or a socio-economic divide, or perhaps a partisan political, Democratic blue state versus Republican red state divide, it is indicative of just how divided and polarized the nation seems at the moment.
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-test-1965-voting-rights-law-court-014642325.html
No comments:
Post a Comment