Chicago Tribune Editorial - The Voting Rights Act, Why Wait?
Chicago Tribune Editorial - The Voting Rights Act, why wait?
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Published June 30, 2006
The Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress in the hot and heady summer of 1965, shortly after television viewers were horrified by the sight of Alabama police brutally pummeling protesters in Selma who had the temerity to demand a voice in this democratic nation.
These are calmer times, and for a while it appeared that the reauthorization of the act would be a calm affair. Some provisions of the law expire next year.
Leaders of both parties in the House and Senate gathered on the Capitol steps on May 2 to express confidence that the act would be renewed. But Congress still has the ability to surprise. A revolt in House Republican ranks last week derailed what appeared to be an easy trip for reauthorization. House leaders withdrew the bill from consideration a week before a Senate committee was scheduled to hold hearings on a similar measure.
The revolt was staged by Southern lawmakers who have said for years that the law unfairly singles out their states for federal oversight. They are riled over the section of the law that requires Justice Department approval for any changes in the voting laws or procedures in eight states--Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas--and parts of eight other states. The opponents argue that the federal oversight is based on discriminatory practices from long ago and should be revised to reflect new realities.
There's no question times have changed--hundreds of black mayors, congressmen and other officeholders have been elected in the South since the Voting Rights Act was passed. But there have also been some 1,000 cases of alleged irregularities in voting and ballot access since 1982 that have prompted the Justice Department to intervene.
Political leaders who bristle at the idea that their communities are still targeted by the Voting Rights Act have a course of action they can take. States and municipalities that can demonstrate an improved record on voting rights can apply to be removed from the scrutiny of the law.
Some lawmakers also don't like the law's requirements that bilingual ballots and voter assistance be provided in polling places where many voters are not fluent in English. But we are talking about U.S. citizens exercising their rights. It is in the nation's interest to reduce barriers to voting, not erect them.
Yes, there is time to debate all this. The provisions of the law that are in question don't expire until 2007. But it's a disappointment that Congress has pulled back, just when it seemed ready to show bipartisan support for a law that has served the nation well. The Voting Rights Act should be renewed, without delay.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Published June 30, 2006
The Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress in the hot and heady summer of 1965, shortly after television viewers were horrified by the sight of Alabama police brutally pummeling protesters in Selma who had the temerity to demand a voice in this democratic nation.
These are calmer times, and for a while it appeared that the reauthorization of the act would be a calm affair. Some provisions of the law expire next year.
Leaders of both parties in the House and Senate gathered on the Capitol steps on May 2 to express confidence that the act would be renewed. But Congress still has the ability to surprise. A revolt in House Republican ranks last week derailed what appeared to be an easy trip for reauthorization. House leaders withdrew the bill from consideration a week before a Senate committee was scheduled to hold hearings on a similar measure.
The revolt was staged by Southern lawmakers who have said for years that the law unfairly singles out their states for federal oversight. They are riled over the section of the law that requires Justice Department approval for any changes in the voting laws or procedures in eight states--Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas--and parts of eight other states. The opponents argue that the federal oversight is based on discriminatory practices from long ago and should be revised to reflect new realities.
There's no question times have changed--hundreds of black mayors, congressmen and other officeholders have been elected in the South since the Voting Rights Act was passed. But there have also been some 1,000 cases of alleged irregularities in voting and ballot access since 1982 that have prompted the Justice Department to intervene.
Political leaders who bristle at the idea that their communities are still targeted by the Voting Rights Act have a course of action they can take. States and municipalities that can demonstrate an improved record on voting rights can apply to be removed from the scrutiny of the law.
Some lawmakers also don't like the law's requirements that bilingual ballots and voter assistance be provided in polling places where many voters are not fluent in English. But we are talking about U.S. citizens exercising their rights. It is in the nation's interest to reduce barriers to voting, not erect them.
Yes, there is time to debate all this. The provisions of the law that are in question don't expire until 2007. But it's a disappointment that Congress has pulled back, just when it seemed ready to show bipartisan support for a law that has served the nation well. The Voting Rights Act should be renewed, without delay.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 9:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home