Democrats Need To Update The Formula
The Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision today, striking down part of the Voting Rights Act. In essence, the court told Congress to come up with a better formula to determine which jurisdictions will have to pre-clear changes to their voting laws (because the old formula is outdated). This has caused much consternation and outcry, but what was notable was that the court did not throw out the concept of preclearance itself.
As a practical matter, though, no state or county will have to be precleared as of now. Until Congress updates the formula, voting laws can change anywhere in the country without the approval of the Justice Department.
Fans of the Voting Rights Act -- the ones decrying today's decision -- should now be concentrating on pressuring Congress to act. A better law is needed, and Congress can indeed be forced by public opinion to pass a new formula.
The original Voting Rights Act used voting data from the 1964 election to determine which states would be subject to preclearance. This was updated twice, using the 1968 and, later, 1972 election data. Critics of the Act have a point, however, when they point out that states are being punished for actions they committed over four decades ago. While the Voting Rights Act has been renewed by Congress since 1972 (most recently in 2006), the formula has never been updated in the intervening time -- it is still based on data from 1972, with minor revisions.
So, part of the problem is the formula is incredibly outdated. But the Act has changed over the years, including allowing jurisdictions (even down to the county level) to either be released from the preclearance requirement or to be covered by the preclearance requirement even though they weren't in the original formula. If a state or county can show that for the past decade it has cleaned up its act, then they can get out from under the preclearance requirement.
Congress should update the formula to make this part of the process smoother. Any jurisdiction which shows prejudice towards its constituent voters should be immediately added to the preclearance list, and the procedure should be uniform across the entire country. But after proving for a solid decade that they've solved the problem, jurisdictions should also be allowed to get taken off the list as well.
Voter suppression is a problem not only in the South. If you look at a map of what jurisdictions were on the preclearance list, you'll see that while most of the states which seceded in the Civil War are entirely covered, others are not. Not a single county in Tennessee is on the list, for instance. A handful of counties in the states of California, South Dakota, Michigan, New York, and New Hampshire are on the list, as are the entire states of Arizona and Alaska.
The Supreme Court, in its decision today, did exactly what conservatives denounce on a regular basis -- they legislated from the bench, as activist judges. Congress, after all, passed a 25-year renewal of this law only seven years ago, and they fully debated the portion that the court just struck down, after amassing thousands of pages of evidence. But I am not going to hold my breath waiting for conservatives to denounce such judicial activism, if you know what I mean.
But by keeping the preclearance section intact and only striking down the section which dealt with who is on the list, the court has kicked the issue back to Congress. Democrats should take the opportunity to create a new list, or even create a new Voting Rights law. When the original law was passed, voter suppression was nakedly obvious, using things such as "literacy tests" to deny minorities the right to vote. These days, voter suppression is much more subtle, and a new law should reflect this reality.
Getting a new law through Congress is going to be tough. But it shouldn't be seen as impossible, or too hard to even attempt. It may not be possible to pass a new law with the current makeup of Congress. Because of this, the Supreme Court decision today will almost surely impact the 2014 election cycle, and perhaps the 2016 elections as well. Republicans have been passing all sorts of laws with the intent of suppressing Democratic votes on the state level, and with today's decision this will likely even accelerate.
Two things make me more optimistic than most, though. The first is the backlash against such laws which happened in 2012. Because Republicans were attacking the right to vote, people actually got a lot more determined about jumping through all the hoops. When you try to erode rights, people notice. And they react. When they do, you can bet your bottom dollar they'll remember who it was that tried to water down their rights in the first place. We may actually see more of this happening in 2014 and 2016, in reaction to new Republican laws.
The second thing that makes me a little optimistic, at least in the long run, is that Democrats have been handed a tailor-made issue to use as a wedge against Republicans -- if they press the issue for all it is worth. That last bit is an open question, of course, but if Democrats in Congress pushed hard for a revision of the Voting Rights Act to address the section the Supreme Court just overturned, then it could pay off for them politically until it passes. Even if it takes years to do so. Think this is wishful idealism? Look at what is happening on immigration right now. While there are no guarantees an immigration law will pass this year, the issue has indeed split the Republican Party wide open. This didn't happen overnight, either. There are some in Congress who have been pushing to get this done for decades. The reason it might happen now is that some Republicans have woken up and realized the damage that is being done to their party by scapegoating and demonizing a large group of minorities. They are ready to do something about it in an effort to save their party's political skin. And that's exactly the route a new Voting Rights Act could take as well. Latino Americans don't just care about immigration, after all -- they also care about their right to vote. This is one of those issues which the harder Republicans fight against it, the more damage they'll wind up doing to themselves. But only if Democrats fight hard for it, of course.
Today's Supreme Court decision has changed the political landscape. It may change the landscape even more drastically in the next few years. Democrats should not shrink from the challenge, though. It is now up to Congress to act. The Senate Democrats should champion the effort, and press the fight as hard as possible. It may take a while to fix the problem, but the effort will be well worth it in the end, in more ways than one.
[Program Note: There's a good article by Spencer Overton in the Huffington Post today which goes into the mechanics of how the Voting Rights Act should be fixed, which I didn't really address in the article above.]
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
The formula is indeed out of date. Since Barack Obama's election, 38 states have tried to place new restrictions on voting.
If anything, we should be expanding the scope of the Voting Rights Act.
-David
p.s. Perhaps John Roberts is a "stealth liberal" :)
got to love the supreme court and its reasoning. the lock on my door has worked for fifty years. therefore it is no longer needed, and the door must remain wide open until the management installs a new lock. yeah, that makes perfect sense.
Republicans have been passing all sorts of laws with the intent of suppressing Democratic votes on the state level
Or, Republicans have been passing all sorts of laws with the intent of ensuring the integrity of the vote..
See!?? I can spin too!! :D
The real facts are probably somewhere in the middle.. :D
If anything, we should be expanding the scope of the Voting Rights Act.
Yea.. Gotta make sure that Democrats get all the advantages they can. VOTE EARLY AND VOTE OFTEN and stuff like that!! :D
the lock on my door has worked for fifty years. therefore it is no longer needed, and the door must remain wide open until the management installs a new lock. yeah, that makes perfect sense.
Apples and Orangutans...
A better analogy would be that your car has been running perfectly for 6000 miles, why bother changing the oil??
You change the oil because what was new and proper 6000 miles ago may not do the job it was intended to properly in the here and now...
Michale....
It's funny how Democrats attack racism...
Democratic lawmaker hits justice as ‘Uncle Thomas’
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/25/democratic-lawmaker-hits-justice-uncle-thomas/#ixzz2XJYvWBuU
.... right up until they adopt racism... :^/
Any denouncing of this blatantly racist attack on a black SCOTUS Justice from the Left???
None... Zero.... Zilch.... Nada.....
Michale
A better analogy would be that your car has been running perfectly for 6000 miles, why bother changing the oil??
even if one were to use that analogy, old oil is still better than no oil at all. unless the supremes subsequently rule that the old law will be held temporarily valid until the new law is ready, the right of citizens to vote is in jeopardy.
~joshua
even if one were to use that analogy, old oil is still better than no oil at all.
Good point.. So the analogy ain't perfect... :D
unless the supremes subsequently rule that the old law will be held temporarily valid until the new law is ready, the right of citizens to vote is in jeopardy.
There is no evidence of this.. There is only supposition and spin..
One could easily argue that, by leaving the law in place, the rights of the states are in jeopardy...
Michale...
There is no evidence of this.. There is only supposition and spin..
to the contrary, there is quite a bit of evidence of attempts at voter suppression and tampering. have you ever seen the documentary "hacking democracy?" even if the racial component of it has changed, there's plenty of evidence of parties interested in tampering with who gets to vote. i'm not even saying it's all republican, mind you. but there is a mountain of evidence to support the conclusion that votes are in jeopardy.
"and any attempt to prove otherwise is futile 'cause it just ain't true."
wow, i'm developing a penchant for quoting your favorite movies ;)
~joshua
there's plenty of evidence of parties interested in tampering with who gets to vote. i'm not even saying it's all republican, mind you.
I agree...
I even recall that several Democrats have gone to jail over voter fraud and all..
So, maybe, if Democrats had been a little more understanding about this whole Voter ID issue and not gone with the totally bogus claim that there is NO voter fraud, then this ruling would not have been necessary...
Democrats must now reap what they have sown...
I have no sympathy for them...
Michale
"and any attempt to prove otherwise is futile 'cause it just ain't true."
wow, i'm developing a penchant for quoting your favorite movies ;)
It's fun, ain't it! :D
Michale
With regards to this commentary..
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/06/20/from-the-archives-immigration-reforms-chances/#comment-39438
You raise some good points regarding Immigration Enforcement. But, since it's so far flung into the distant past (an entire week!! :D) I am going to "keep my powder dry" until such time as a contemporary commentary comes up about immigration... I am sure there will be one forthcoming soon... :D
But I just had to send out props for the Big Bang Theory quote.. :D That cracked me up!!
It looks like I might have to add BBT to our viewing repertoire... It's my understanding that no self-respecting Trek geek would be caught dead NOT watching that show.
And THAT comes from my kids!! :D
Michale
So, maybe, if Democrats had been a little more understanding about this whole Voter ID issue and not gone with the totally bogus claim that there is NO voter fraud
of course there is not ZERO voter fraud. there are two types of voter fraud, registration fraud and fraudulent voting. only the latter actually impacts the outcome of elections, and the number of alleged cases is 633. in the whole country. in the last decade.
on the other hand, upwards of 97,000 african-americans had their votes not counted in the 2000 election in florida alone. the number of voters disenfranchised by electioneering shenanigans (both parties mind you, but yes, republicans more widely and more effectively) is much, much, much higher. furthermore, voter ID laws in some states skirt the 24th amendment because they are a de-facto poll tax. even were we to assume that they are an honest overreaction rather than a cynical electioneering scheme... y'know the song about the old woman who swallowed a fly? voter ID laws are essentially swallowing godzilla to catch the fly. that's the difference in scope.
"That's a horse of a different color!"
~The Wizard of Oz
CW (RE: comment-39438),
Imagine how you'd feel if you went to the DMV to renew your driver's license and they told you that you'd get your new license in three years.
we're practically there already. i renewed last year, and they required something like five additional forms of ID and proof of residence. it was NUTS. i had to get my landlady to write me a letter attached to a utility bill and have it notarized. my friend mike who is an ex-marine and lives most of the year with his wife in colombia wasn't able to renew his license at all. combine a draconian process for obtaining an ID with a law that prevents people from voting without one, and bingo! it's instant disenfranchisement for thousands!
Quoting James Tiberius Kirk to Michale is the ultimate petard-hoisting, in my opinion. Well done!
you mean like this?
http://wytrab8.deviantart.com/art/Hoisted-By-His-Own-Picard-359217475
on the other hand, upwards of 97,000 african-americans had their votes not counted in the 2000 election in florida alone. the number of voters disenfranchised by electioneering shenanigans (both parties mind you, but yes, republicans more widely and more effectively) is much, much, much higher. furthermore, voter ID laws in some states skirt the 24th amendment because they are a de-facto poll tax. even were we to assume that they are an honest overreaction rather than a cynical electioneering scheme... y'know the song about the old woman who swallowed a fly? voter ID laws are essentially swallowing godzilla to catch the fly. that's the difference in scope.
And, of course, the argument from the OTHER side of the aisle is ALSO logical..
That Democrats only want loose ID laws so Democrats can vote early and vote often..
There were several verified reports that Democrats voted several times for Obama in the last election.
Was it enough to sway the election?
Probably not..
Was it enough to affect the INTEGRITY of the vote??
Assuredly..
Like I said, there are logical arguments on BOTH sides of the issue..
Like with MANY things, if Right and Left had worked together and come up with an agreeable compromise, it's likely that the SCOTUS decision would never have happened..
But, because of intransigence on BOTH sides, the courts stepped in and imposed a solution..
It just so happens that, in THIS case, the Democrats didn't like the solution.
As I indicated above.. I have little sympathy for them..
Michale
you mean like this?
http://wytrab8.deviantart.com/art/Hoisted-By-His-Own-Picard-359217475
You need to warn me before you do something like that!! I have to clean my LCD and replace my keyboard because it's DC-drenched now!! :D
THAT was hilarious!!!
Michale
Not really a huge shock. The Republican Supreme Court knows that the only way Republicans would have a shot at the White House in 2016 is if:
(1) They change their policies
(2) They stop people voting
The party has clearly decided that (1) is out of the question and (2) is the avenue they want to pursue. For those who believe in Democracy the battle against them starts now.
Not really a huge shock. The Republican Supreme Court knows that the only way Republicans would have a shot at the White House in 2016 is if:
If it were truly a "Republican Supreme Court" would we have had the rulings we had yesterday?? :D
(1) They change their policies
(2) They stop people voting
(3) Insure only those who are legally allowed to vote, do so..
For those who believe in Democracy the battle against them starts now.
I would change that a little to make it more accurate..
For those who believe in the Democratic Party the battle against them starts now.
That's more accurate... :D
Michale
In other words, voter fraud is as much of a threat, if not a BIGGER threat, than Democrat Voter disenfranchisement...
I know you won't agree... But there it is..
Michale
Put even a different way...
Disenfranchisement benefits Republicans and penalizes Democrats..
Voter Fraud benefits Democrats and penalizes Republicans..
So, naturally Democrats are all for Voter Fraud and all against disenfranchisement..
Conversely, Republicans are all for disenfranchisement and all against Voter Fraud..
That's why it's so difficult for me to get all passionate/hysterical about either..
Because neither Party really gives a flying frak about the American voter..
The Partys are simply for whatever benefits their Party most and against whatever hurts their Party most, the American people be damned...
And we are...
Michale
Like I said, there are logical arguments on BOTH sides of the issue..
logic is a mathematical system of reasoning. logic yields conclusions based on its axioms, but as a system it doesn't have anything to say about the validity of those axioms. if we reverse the reasoning on the conclusion, we get the axioms, and we can judge their validity for ourselves:
your conclusion as i read it (feel free to correct this if i'm misquoting): Voter ID laws provide balance, because the integrity of the system is equally compromised by adding illegal voters as it is by removing legal voters.
in order to reach that conclusion, one must at some point assume that any difference between the number of people adding illegal votes and subtracting legal votes cannot be relevant. i don't think that's valid as an axiom. the brennan center for justice at NYU estimates at least 5 million citizens whose legal voting rights are restricted by ID laws.
i'm sorry michale, but i don't buy any reasoning that axiomatically treats less than seven hundred allegedly illegal voters as the same level threat as five million legal voters limited from exercising their constitutional duties. justice is symbolized by a set of scales, and to me those numbers just don't balance. that's godzilla vs. a fly. that's mothra vs. a household moth. not equivalent. if the axiom is wrong, the conclusion must also be wrong, no matter how logically said conclusion was reached.
~joshua
the brennan center for justice at NYU estimates at least 5 million citizens whose legal voting rights are restricted by ID laws.
And I am certain that I can find documentation from the Right that says there were millions and millions of votes cast that were fraudulent or fraudulent denied..
That's my point..
There is "evidence" on both sides of the issue..
Basically, both the Right and Left are saying they are protecting the integrity of the vote..
But the Left wants to protect it in their favor and the Right wants to protect it in theirs..
The Left screams VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT!!!!
The Right screams VOTER FRAUD!!!
And I simply shake my head sadly and say, "yea, right, whatever.. blaa blaaa blaaa blaaa"
"nyaaa nyaa nyaa nyaa nyaaaa.... nyaa nyaa nya nya nyaaaa"
-The Onlies, STAR TREK TOS, Miri
Michale
And I am certain that I can find documentation from the Right that says there were millions and millions of votes cast that were fraudulent or fraudulent denied..
regardless of which side of the aisle the claims come from, fraudulent and fraudulently denied are two different things. divorce this issue from the partisan paradigm for a minute. if claims of millions of illegal voters were factually substantiated, you'd have read about them by now. the number that's substantiated is 663. over the past decade, at least hundreds of thousands, probably millions of attempted votes not cast or not counted have been documented.
i agree that no party has any semblance of moral high ground on the issue, but factually speaking there's no reasonable equivalency between even the most cautious disenfranchisement estimate and six hundred sixty-three.
I am not saying you are wrong, Joshua...
You may be right that the issue of voter disenfranchisement is bigger than the issue of voter fraud..
Irregardless of that, the simple fact that Democrats only care about the Vote Integrity that benefits them and ignores the Vote Integrity that benefits the Right means that Democrats are ceding the moral/ethical high ground...
If one cares about Vote Integrity, then one needs to care about it IN FULL..
Not just the parts that benefit them.
Michale
i agree that no party has any semblance of moral high ground on the issue, but factually speaking there's no reasonable equivalency between even the most cautious disenfranchisement estimate and six hundred sixty-three.
I dunno..
The Left seems to be making that EXACT argument when it comes to the IRS Targeting Scandal.. :D
My only point is Democrats had the chance to forestall the SCOTUS ruling by working with the Right over Vote Integrity en masse...
Democrats wanted to play politics and this is the result..
Mommy and Daddy have made the rules and now the Dem kiddies will have to live with them..
Michale..
Democrats are ceding the moral/ethical high ground...
i never said democrats were particularly bright about the way they stake out political positions. that's why CW's friday column exists in the first place.
for the sake of argument, let's say it's purely coincidental that the democratic position on the issue happens to be a thousandfold less harmful than the that of the republicans. so what? just because they're lousy lying hypocrites, just like the other lousy lying hypocrites, does that subtract from the hundreds of thousands of ordinary, not-necessarily-partisan people who deserve to vote and can't?
~JL
does that subtract from the hundreds of thousands of ordinary, not-necessarily-partisan people who deserve to vote and can't?
If they exist, I feel for them..
But maybe they should have talked to their political representatives and said, in NO uncertain terms, "Ya know, we really don't appreciate ya'all playing fast and loose with OUR rights to vote.. Work it out with the other side or maybe someone will step in and IMPOSE a solution that screws us over.."
IF those disenfranchise voters exist, they do have my sympathies..
But it's their Democrat representatives that shoulder the blame, not I...
Maybe next time, those alleged disenfranchised voters should choose better representatives..
Having said all that, the fact still remains that NO voter can be disenfranchised against their will...
If they TRULY want to vote, they will find a way..
If they don't?? Well, then they don't...
Michale
i never said democrats were particularly bright about the way they stake out political positions. that's why CW's friday column exists in the first place.
And, after 7+ years of CW.com, Democrat politicians are STILL morons...
Doesn't bode well for the future...
Michale
In other words, voter fraud is as much of a threat, if not a BIGGER threat, than Democrat Voter disenfranchisement...
Hahahahahhahahahahahahhahahaha. Amazing. Studies have shown Voter fraud affects about 0.00000000001% of votes (I'm not even exaggerating). That is about 23 people in the entire US. Requiring voter ID affects around 11% that is 23 MILLION people in the US.
Comparing them is like comparing the number of people killed by gun violence to the number of people who die slipping on a bar of soap... in a shower... at 12.37pm on July 29th.
Disenfranchisement benefits Republicans and penalizes Democrats..
Voter Fraud benefits Democrats and penalizes Republicans..
So, naturally Democrats are all for Voter Fraud and all against disenfranchisement..
Lol so much fail here.
(1) It doesn't matter who disenfranchisement 'benefits'. In a DEMOCRACY (which the US is barely one) DELIBERATELY disenfranchising your voters for political gain is as low as it gets.
(2) Voter fraud is going to occur but the object is to get it as low as possible. There is absolutely zero - nada - none - zilch evidence that the current system is failing. Voter fraud levels are around 0.000000001%. The current system is used in EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY AROUND THE WORLD where voter fraud is around the same level.
(3) Comparing disenfranchising 23 MILLION people to stopping the voter fraud of 23 people is like... Well I already covered that.
Because neither Party really gives a flying frak about the American voter..
The Partys are simply for whatever benefits their Party most and against whatever hurts their Party most, the American people be damned...
Not really. One party literally wants to stop people voting because IF EVERYBODY IN AMERICA WAS FORCED TO VOTE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WOULD LOSE EVERY FEDERAL ELECTION. This is an absolute fact. This is why come election time Democrats have 10 point leads in polls of 'registered voters' which come down to 4-5 point leads when you switch to 'likely voters'.
Republicans knows this but rather than change it's policies they would rather stop people voting. So they pick 'voter fraud' as their scapegoat for doing this - even though there is basically no voter fraud anywhere (0.0000001%) and the systems in place in America are IDENTICAL to the systems used in every other democracy in the world.
The fact you can't see this is because you read Drudge, Fox (etc) and are told about 'voter fraud' being a big problem.
(1) It doesn't matter who disenfranchisement 'benefits'. In a DEMOCRACY (which the US is barely one) DELIBERATELY disenfranchising your voters for political gain is as low as it gets.
About the same low as fraudulently voting many times and voting when you are not legally allowed to vote..
Of course, a Lefty wouldn't agree... :D
The fact you can't see this is because you read Drudge, Fox (etc) and are told about 'voter fraud' being a big problem.
As anyone here can attest to, I read a multitude of different news sources...
Your accusations of political bigotry are useless against my. My NPA bona fides are well established..
The only political "bigotry" I am guilty of is that I hate ALL politicians...
Michale
Michale
Lol the fact that you read Drudge is probably where you get most of your political bigotry from. Probably one of the worst/dumbest/hate filled sites I've seen (up there with Limbaugh blog).
Fwiw I think voter fraud is a bad thing but I don't think it's a problem - those are 2 entirely different concepts.
Disenfranchising around 23 MILLION people to solve a problem that affects 23 people or 0.000001% of votes is like chopping off your legs to solve the problem of your right toe nail being 0.00001 millimeters longer than it should be.
Of course 'voter fraud' is not the real reason for these laws. Try 'the fact Republicans have such awful policies that if every American voted we'd lose every single election' or 'the higher the turnout the more likely Republicans lose the election, so let's limit turnout/gerrymander the shit out of the country instead of changing our awful, unpopular policies'.
Lol the fact that you read Drudge is probably where you get most of your political bigotry from.
I have no political bigotry, unless you mean bigoted against politicians...
My extra hatred of Democrats come from the fact that they were willing to throw this country to the terrorist wolves rather than support Bush the way they support Obama...
If you want to call that bigotry, I'll have no problem with that..
"The cause was sufficient"
-Surak
Michale
My extra hatred of Democrats come from the fact that they were willing to throw this country to the terrorist wolves rather than support Bush the way they support Obama...
Right Democrats love the terrorists and want the terrorists to win. Can't imagine what sort of site you'd hear this nonsense (cough every single day on Drudge).
Never a truer statement was made, you're definitely not politically bigoted ;)
Right Democrats love the terrorists and want the terrorists to win.
No, they wanted Bush to lose..
And, if that meant that terrorists win?? Well, apparently they were perfectly fine with that..
And that doesn't come from Drudge..
That comes from a PERSONAL assessment of the facts..
If you have another explanation for why Dems fought Bush over the EXACT same policies that they support Obama..... Now's the time...
"If you have a better idea, now's the time.."
-Admiral Kirk, STAR TREK IV, The Voyage Home
Michale