Reviews

It’s Good to Know the Country Has Changed for Voting Rights

6/27/2013

That's John Lewis in the raincoat. Now they use lawyers.

John Roberts, he of the supercilious drug-store cowboy smirk, has reassured Americans that this is a different country from the United States of 1965.

In those bad old days we had George Wallace and Ross Barnett and Bull Connor standing in front of universities and bridges and other public places to represent their side.

Now we have Mitch McConnell blinking in the glare and doing that lisping thing he does when he is being evasive and using the new mantra of the latter-day Wallaces: The country is different now. Count on hearing that a lot.

To quote another worthy, Clarence Thomas, now it’s done high-tech.

Now it’s done state-by-state by demanding more identification from the marginal and the mobile. Show us your papers, please. Watching the lines at the last election, gee, always in the poorer neighborhoods, was a throwback to the back of the bus. Now the Supreme Court has voiced its approval, with the chief justice saying “Our country has changed.”

In some ways, yes, it has. There were the two victories for gay rights on Wednesday. And when I turn on the television, I find prophetic voices like Melissa Harris-Perry and Joy Reid on MSNBC and two of the finest members of the House, Elijah Cummings of Maryland and John Lewis of Georgia.

Lewis said the Tuesday decision was a “dagger” in the heart of a movement. He has the right to speak of violence, after being beaten nearly to death on March 7, 1965, on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama. The struggle has been like a flame, leaving John Lewis strong and pure, a living testimony to better selves. He looked stricken the other night. The police beat him in 1965. Now in this different country, it’s done by lawyers and election officials, state by state.

Ed martin

6/27/2013 04:44:56 am

George, so on target there is little else to say. Some memories, in Bush/Gore election theft there were an estimated 14,000 black voters in north Florida unable to vote having been challenged. In the last election voters in south Florida waited eight hours to vote including one 90+ woman.

[email protected] link

6/28/2013 11:53:16 pm

George

The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". It was ratified on February 3, 1870, as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments

In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson clearly stated that the primary purpose of government is to secure our rights:

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all Men were created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that are among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

For many of us, the phrase "states' rights" has been viewed as code for the right of a state's majority to tyrannize its minorities. During the heyday of the African-American civil rights movement, it was used as a code word by defenders of segregation.

The recent Supreme Court decision that ignored prior civil rights precedent begs the question, what has happened to our democracy? Where are the checks and balances central to our government?

Supreme Court decisions often are intended to force congress to revisit and improve laws. If this was the intention of the court majority, it was highly cynical considering the makeup of the House.

The right of every American citizen to vote should not be held hostage by party politics. Although there are no easy solutions to the current (actually long-standing) mess, I suggest the following:

• Publicly financed campaigns.
• Fair and independent redistricting.
• Public disclosure of all political contributions.

Our we becoming a democracy in name only?

Brian Savin

6/29/2013 01:52:30 am

It seems like we have been so distracted congratulating ourselves on our progress through the Twentieth Century that we've let the Nineteenth slip in through the back door.

Gene Palumbo

6/29/2013 04:35:47 am

From the "Comments" section of a post on Commonweal Magazine's blog:

Chief Justice Taney, in his Dred Scott opinion, at least had the excuse (justification? reason?) that his decision was based on the plainly racist character of the relevant sections of the Constitution. Roberts and his colleagues have taken the plainly anti-racist intent (and utterly clear language) of the 15th amendment and twisted it beyond recognition.

Luke, thanks for the reassurance that I can't find the consitutional basis for Roberts's decision because it isn't there. I had just about given up on that and was looking for the part where section 2 of the 15th Amendment, giving Congress the power to enforce voting rights, required the advice and consent of the Supreme Court. Strict interpretatation, judicial restraint, stare decisis, indeed.

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/sin-racism-and-supreme-courts-catholic-majority

Alan Rubin link

6/29/2013 06:12:26 am

Gene

After Chief Justice John Marshall's court, all the following ones were racist until about the 1920's.

George Vecsey

6/30/2013 09:18:10 am

Thank you all for your comments. I find myself getting more infuriated as the days go on. This is the Supreme Court blatantly saying it does not care about what was so important to Congress and the country in 1965. I saw a photo -- with Sen. Everett Dirksen, a Republican major sponsor of the bill, standing with LBJ. He'd be run out of the current Republican party for beliefs like that. GV

Ed Martin

6/30/2013 07:24:42 am

Your comment on Dirksen is so on target. LBJ could not have passed the 1965 Act with Demo support only, because many were from the segregated states. This bill changed Dems to Repubs, and race is still an focus of the party, however, disguised. See Willie Horton, Welfare Queens, etc.

In the late 60s and 70's, I worked with moderate, moderate liberal, and moderate conservative Republicans to bring about education for children with disabilities. Among the states which had such Senators were: Maine, 2; Vermont, 2. Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, PA, 2, Delaware, 2, etc.
RIP.

George Vecsey

6/30/2013 08:53:42 am

Where have you gone, Charles Goodell?
(Edward Brooke, etc.)

essayontime link

8/22/2013 04:37:13 am

America is unique right now. Depend on experiencing that many.

www.landscan.co.uk link

3/3/2014 07:20:16 pm

Nice to see great write up on your site yet again! Thank you for any other informative web site.We love the site and will come back to see your new posts.

Comments are closed.

It’s Good to Know the Country Has Changed for Voting Rights

Categories

Buy the Book