Why Not Make a Federal Case Out of It? Or How the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is Still relevant Today.
I posted a comment a few days ago about the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I have seen little discussion about this law both, yet it needs to be addressed by this community and this country NOW, rather than later.
We must take an aggressive and proactive stance on this issue because it is the right thing to do. We can also make it relevant to a broad spectrum of Americans by connecting the dots and relating it to the serious problems that have been and are still being documented the 2004 and 2000 presidential and state elections.
And maybe we can even file a Federal Suit under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to bring the light of day on the these continuing attempts by Republicans to suppress voters.
Is the Voting Rights Act Really About to Expire?
Clarification is needed on what exactly is expiring in 2007. According to the Department of Justice website, while some sections of the Voting Rights Act need to be renewed to remain in effect, the main portion of the Act is permanent law and prohibits discrimination in voting as well as affirms the rights of individuals to vote under the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments.
However, it seems when Congress amended the Voting Rights Act in 1982, it extended for 25 more years--until 2007--specific sections - Section 5, Section 6 and Section 8. The sections include the preclearance requirement (Section 5), the authority to use federal examiners and observers, (Section 8 -observing elections and vote counting procedures, organized by the Office of Personnel Management) and some of the statute's language minority requirements. So, for those sections to extend past 2007, Congress will have to take action.
Therefore, discussion and action on the Voting Rights Act is relevant today. We as a party should mobilize around this law and this issue renew or strengthen or permanently pass this special provisions under the law, or else African Americans across this nation will rightfully feel that we as a party are not concerned about securing their rights under our Constitution otherwise.
2004 Election
This law is relevant today, as we wait for recounts, because it could provide a means for arguing that the voter disenfranchisement of large numbers of voters reported in this country should be raised to the level of a federal case.
I am NOT a lawyer.
And I don't know the case history on these issues - perhaps someone who reads this may know better and could comment whether these problems qualify for action. But it seems to me that it would not hurt, and it could possibly help if we examine the possibility that the long lines in minority precincts versus the short lines in non-minority precincts could be in violation of Section Two of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
This section states, according to the U.S. Department of Justice website, that it is "illegal for any state or local government to use election processes or procedures that give voters who are members of racial or ethnic minority groups less opportunity than other voters to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice to public office.
Suits can be brought under Section 2 by either the Justice Department OR AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN (emphasis is mine). (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/misc/voterev.htm)
What we would need I think is an analysis of the precincts in Ohio and Florida at the very least, and breakdown the ratio of machines used in particular precincts by registered voters, to see if there is a consistent pattern of providing less opportunity to African Americans than other voters to participate in the political process. Was there a mechanism or procedure for poll workers to call for additional machines, was this procedure used uniformly and what was the response in terms of getting additional machines? Not ordering/assigning enough machines, which results in lines of upwards of 10 hours long could be argued is the result of on procedures/processes that systematically give less of an opportunity to minority voters to vote. What else should also be looked into?
At Dailykos we have read anectdotal stories/eyewitness accounts of long lines in urban/high minority communities, fewer voting machines in these precincts than in either the 2000 election or primaries earlier this year - despite increased voter registration and intense interest in the elections and the focus on Ohio early on as a key battleground state, and changing of voting locations (which also falls under the Voting Rights Act). These and other problems can form the basis of a federal case.
If it is true that the precincts, wards and counties where these long lines were found were mostly in communities with high minority populations, then according to the law, a private citizen is entitled to bring a suit under Section 2 (since we can deduce that the Justice Department isn't going to be doing its job).
The same scrutiny should also be taken when looking at the disenfranchisement of minority voters due to spoilage of votes cast by machine, absentee ballot and provisional balloting. According to Gary, upwards of 2 million votes were discounted in this election, and possibly 1 million were cast by minority voters. That is surely enough votes to have changed the popular vote substantially and possibly swing the Electoral Vote to Kerry in this election.
We must strike while the interest and uncertainty continues to surround this issue - so that the momentum can be built and voting reforms and security remains a major issue. We should be able to identify some individuals and lawyers who would be willing to pursue this. I am not clear on the next steps involved in creating this process.
I am trying to research and post online as I find out more information. Anyone who has additional or more specific information, please chime in. Any ideas or takers? Be my guest.
This is my first diary here, so if I break any rules or do not follow protocol, please give a friendly heads up rather than a trouncing!