We begin today's roundup with
The New York Times and its take on tomorrow's 50th anniversary of The Voting Rights Act:
Today there are no poll taxes or literacy tests. Instead there are strict and unnecessary voter-identification requirements, or cutbacks to early voting and same-day registration — all of which are known to disproportionately burden black voters.
The relative subtlety of the newer measures does not make them any less insidious. But it does make them more resistant to charges of illegality. A federal trial that ended last week in North Carolina provided the clearest example of the challenges faced by those who want to protect democracy’s most fundamental right. [...] State officials complain that it is not fair to keep punishing them for the sins of the past. But as the plaintiffs’ lawyer argued during the North Carolina trial, “the fight for equal voting rights is not ancient history.” Rather it “has been an arduous, slow effort to overcome one barrier placed in the path of African Americans after another.”
Jordian Fabian at The Hill previews President Obama's action on voting rights:
President Obama will call for the restoration of the Voting Rights Act on its 50th anniversary Thursday, the White House said. [...]
The event will allow Obama to draw a sharp contrast with Republicans, many of whom argue some provisions of the 1965 law went too far. It will take place on the same day as the first GOP presidential primary debate. Asked about the timing of the event, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that “one person’s irony is another person’s serendipity.”
More on the day's top stories below the fold.
Jamal Greene, professor of law at Columbia Law School and former clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens, argues for expansion of the law:
We badly need a new Voting Rights Act, but one that not only focuses on racial discrimination, but on flagrant and persistent practices of vote suppression and self-dealing that should never be tolerated in a democracy.
The place to start would be elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate. Congress has broad power over federal election administration. Political will in Congress is the only obstacle to a federal law mandating early voting, same-day registration, an end to onerous voter ID requirements, and creating independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions in every state for congressional elections. [...]
A Voting Rights Act for the 21st century would recognize that racial discrimination may be our original sin, but it is not our only one.
Katrina vanden Heuvel previews tomorrow's Republican debate and offers up a list of topics and questions:
Nervous Republican officials can take some solace that the debate is moderated by three Fox News stalwarts. They are unlikely to dwell on the irresistible questions raised by the absurdities that Republican candidates have offered up in the last months. Fox News anchors will no doubt try to get candidates to vent their venom on Hillary Clinton and President Obama rather than on each other. Candidates will have one minute to answer questions, time only for expressing an attitude, not a policy. [...]
What’s the matter with Kansas?: Republicans have argued for decades that lower taxes, less government spending and less regulation would boost the economy. In Kansas, Republican Gov. Sam Brownback championed that program, promising that zeroing out taxes on most businesses, cutting top rates and slashing spending would generate growth, jobs and revenue. The result has been deficits as far as the eye can see, with Republicans in the state legislature now scrambling for ways to raise taxes. The candidates should be asked what’s the matter with Kansas — and how that has informed their agenda.
Kerry Kennedy at The Sacramento Bee:
Throughout his career in public life, my father, Robert F. Kennedy, was a vocal proponent of voting rights. As attorney general, his Justice Department brought 57 voting rights lawsuits against Southern municipalities; the previous administration had managed only six. He was instrumental in the drafting and passage of the Civil Rights Act, and he vigorously supported the Voting Rights Act as a senator from New York. He recognized the limits of voting legislation, but he didn’t think those limits invalidated the effort.
In 1962, he said: “The right to vote is basic to our system of government, and the history of the United States demonstrates that as minority groups have achieved the vote their lot has improved. Intolerance and prejudice have not disappeared, but when a minority has made itself felt at the ballot box, there has been greater opportunity for advancement, and discrimination has disappeared gradually.”
Switching topics to tomorrow's GOP debate,
Paul Waldman takes the GOP field to task for not having any immigration policies:
One recent poll showed 65 percent of Republican voters saying they had confidence in Trump to handle the issue. Since he got in the race talking about how Mexican immigrants are racists and drug dealers, he's gone nowhere but up.
What are the other candidates saying? For some time now, Republicans have said some version of the following on the issue: "First, we have to secure the border. Then after the border is secure, we can talk about some kind of path to legalization for the people who are here now." What they almost never do is give any detail on what it means to "secure the border." That may be a way to avoid dealing with the undocumented forever, since you can always say that the border isn't quite secure just yet. Or it may be that they really have no idea what we should do that we're not already doing.
Keep in mind that in recent years, the border has become much more secure by any standard.
Jay Bookman at The Atlanta Journal Constitution writes about the consequences of Trump's ascendancy:
There are a lot of theories, but personally, I think it’s because he shows such total disdain for complexity. In the Trumpian worldview, the solution to every problem has just two components: First, you choose the outcome that you prefer — usually of the “I win, you lose” variety” — then you apply the will needed to create that outcome. That’s it, period, next problem please. And while every politician is guilty of that to a degree, none approaches the shamelessness of Trump.
That’s how he will make America great again. That’s how he will solve the Middle East. That’s how he will halt illegal immigration AND get a majority of the Hispanic vote in the process. Watch him in interviews, and he steadfastly refuses to be drawn into discussion of details and consequences, because details and consequences are where things get complicated. Talk of details and consequences is for losers. He talks results, not process. (See Gordian knot, Alexander).
For many voters, that worldview is highly appealing. [...] But here’s the irony of it all: Republicans supporting Trump as a protest against the do-nothing GOP establishment are playing into the establishment’s hands and making it more likely that the establishment’s favored candidate, Jeb Bush, will be the party’s nominee.
On a final note, AFL-CIO president
Richard Trumka calls for transparency over CEO pay:
[W]hen the landmark Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 was passed to rein in Wall Street greed, it included a provision mandating that the Securities and Exchange Commission require corporations to disclose their CEO-to-worker pay ratio.
Unfortunately, Wall Street is much better at doling out lavish compensation packages than disclosing them. The business community is claiming it would cost more than $185,000 and almost 1,000 hours of staff time per company to calculate the CEO-to-worker pay figure.
This is nonsense, plain and simple. Employers should already have this information on the books. Dodd-Frank asks companies to do some simple calculations, not put a man on Mars.