civil rights » ADL Blogs
Posts Tagged ‘civil rights’
August 5, 2015 0

On the 50th Anniversary of Voting Rights Act, Congress Must Legislate

By Jonathan Green­blatt
National Direc­tor of the Anti-Defamation League

This arti­cle orig­i­nally appeared on The Huff­in­g­ton Post Blog

Fifty years ago, as Pres­i­dent Lyn­don B. John­son signed into law the Vot­ing Rights Act, he said, “Today is a tri­umph for free­dom as huge as any vic­tory that has ever been won on any battlefield.”

The anal­ogy was apt. Peo­ple had indeed given their blood – and in some cases even their lives – fight­ing for the right to vote.

It was also accu­rate. The Vot­ing Rights Act (VRA) secured and safe­guarded the right to vote for mil­lions of Amer­i­cans, mak­ing it among the most impor­tant mile­stones of the civil rights move­ment and per­haps its most effec­tive leg­isla­tive achievement.

For decades before the enact­ment of the VRA, states had used laws – includ­ing lit­er­acy tests, grand­fa­ther clauses, and poll taxes­ – to pre­vent African Amer­i­cans from vot­ing. Although, when chal­lenged, the courts almost always struck down the laws as uncon­sti­tu­tional, it some­times took years for the cases to make their way through the court sys­tem.  By the time the courts struck down one law, leg­is­la­tors had passed another dis­crim­i­na­tory law to take its place.

The VRA changed the equa­tion.  By not only out­law­ing dis­crim­i­na­tion in vot­ing around the coun­try, but also requir­ing the his­tor­i­cally worst offend­ers – both states and local juris­dic­tions – to “pre­clear” their pro­posed changes to vot­ing prac­tices with the fed­eral gov­ern­ment before going into place, the VRA opened the door for those pre­vi­ously silenced by dis­crim­i­na­tion to make their voices heard.

And the VRA’s suc­cess was clear almost imme­di­ately. After 1965, African Amer­i­can voter reg­is­tra­tion rates sky­rock­eted. The num­ber of African Amer­i­cans elected to pub­lic office increased five­fold within five years of the VRA’s pas­sage. By the early 2000s, there were more than 9,000 African Amer­i­can elected offi­cials in the United States – includ­ing the first African Amer­i­can president—and most were from areas required to pre­clear their laws with the fed­eral government.

In 2013, how­ever, in a case called Shelby County v. Holder, a deeply divided U.S. Supreme Court struck down a crit­i­cal part of the VRA, essen­tially gut­ting the heart of the leg­is­la­tion. Although the court affirmed that the idea of pre­clear­ance was con­sti­tu­tional, it struck down the for­mula used to deter­mine which states and local­i­ties would have to pre­clear their laws, effec­tively end­ing the prac­tice of preclearance.

In a pow­er­ful dis­sent, Jus­tice Ruth Bader Gins­burg wrote, “Throw­ing out pre­clear­ance when it has worked and is con­tin­u­ing to work to stop dis­crim­i­na­tory changes is like throw­ing away an umbrella in a rain­storm because you’re not get­ting wet.”

As Jus­tice Gins­burg and the other dis­senters had fore­seen, the storms rolled in imme­di­ately. Within hours of the Supreme Court’s deci­sion, Texas, North Car­olina, and other states put into effect dis­crim­i­na­tory vot­ing laws that had been pre­vi­ously blocked by fed­eral courts review­ing the poli­cies as part of the pre­clear­ance procedure.

Texas, for exam­ple, imme­di­ately revived a redis­trict­ing plan that a fed­eral court had refused to pre­clear before Shelby County, find­ing “more evi­dence of dis­crim­i­na­tory intent than we have space or need to address here,” and put into effect a voter ID law that another fed­eral court had blocked, con­clud­ing that “sim­ply put, many His­pan­ics and African Amer­i­cans who voted in the last elec­tions will, because of the bur­dens imposed by SB 14, likely be unable to vote.”

Since then, states and local­i­ties around the county have passed dozens of laws that threaten to dis­en­fran­chise hun­dreds of thou­sands of vot­ers, dis­pro­por­tion­ately impact­ing com­mu­ni­ties of color, the elderly, peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ties, stu­dents, and poor people.

When the Supreme Court struck down the for­mula used to deter­mine which states would have to pre­clear their laws, it expressly left open the door for Con­gress to cre­ate a new formula.

Recently, Con­gress has answered that call. A new bill has been intro­duced in both the House and the Sen­ate – the Vot­ing Rights Advance­ment Act – which would revive the cru­cial vot­ing rights pro­tec­tions of the VRA by cre­at­ing a new for­mula for pre­clear­ance, putting in place addi­tional safe­guards for vot­ing, and once more help­ing to ensure that all Amer­i­cans can have their say in our democracy.

In 2006, the last year in which Con­gress voted on reau­tho­riza­tion of the VRA, sup­port for con­tin­u­ing the law’s crit­i­cal safe­guards was bipar­ti­san and nearly unan­i­mous. The vote was 390 to 33 in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives (includ­ing over 150 cur­rent Rep­re­sen­ta­tives) and 98 to 0 in the Sen­ate (includ­ing over 30 cur­rent Senators).

That same bipar­ti­san sup­port for the VRA is more impor­tant today than ever before. In this moment when our coun­try seems polar­ized on so many issues and ten­sions are uncom­fort­ably high, an endorse­ment from both sides of the aisle for the VRA would be a pow­er­ful sign of demo­c­ra­tic renewal and national civil­ity at a time when such behav­iors are in short supply.

As we gear up for the 2016 elec­tion – the first pres­i­den­tial elec­tion since the Supreme Court crip­pled the VRA’s pro­tec­tions – we need, as Pres­i­dent John­son said, a new tri­umph for free­dom to match any won on a battlefield.

On the 50th anniver­sary of the Vot­ing Rights Act, it is time to leg­is­late, not just commemorate.

Tags: , , , , ,

July 15, 2015 1

The Voting Rights Advancement Act: Necessary to Ensure Voting Rights for All

Almost fifty years ago, on August 6, 1965, Pres­i­dent Lyn­don B. John­son signed the his­toric Vot­ing Rights Act (VRA), one of the most impor­tant and effec­tive pieces of civil rights leg­is­la­tion ever passed.   In the almost half cen­tury since its pas­sage, the VRA has secured and safe­guarded the right to vote for mil­lions of Amer­i­cans. Its suc­cess in elim­i­nat­ing dis­crim­i­na­tory bar­ri­ers to full civic par­tic­i­pa­tion and in advanc­ing equal polit­i­cal par­tic­i­pa­tion at all lev­els of gov­ern­ment is unde­ni­able. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has sup­ported pas­sage of the VRA and every reau­tho­riza­tion since 1965, filed ami­cus briefs urg­ing the Supreme Court to uphold the law, pro­moted aware­ness about the impor­tance of the VRA, and encour­aged the Depart­ment of Jus­tice to use the VRA to pro­tect vot­ing rights for all.

VRA interns for web

The last time Con­gress extended the VRA, it did so after an exhaus­tive exam­i­na­tion of vot­ing dis­crim­i­na­tion and the impact of the VRA – days of hear­ings and thou­sands of pages of doc­u­men­ta­tion. The leg­is­la­tion passed over­whelm­ing: 390 to 33 in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives and 98–0 in the Senate.

Notwith­stand­ing this over­whelm­ing sup­port and exhaustively-documented leg­isla­tive his­tory – and the unde­ni­ably extra­or­di­nary impact of the VRA–a bit­terly divided 5–4 major­ity of the U.S. Supreme Court struck down §4(b) of the VRA (the for­mula to deter­mine which states and polit­i­cal sub­di­vi­sions would have to pre­clear all vot­ing changes) in Shelby County v. Holder , essen­tially gut­ting the heart of the legislation.

Almost imme­di­ately after the deci­sion, states that had been sub­ject to pre­clear­ance over­sight for vot­ing changes began enact­ing laws that threaten to dis­pro­por­tion­ately dis­en­fran­chise minor­ity, young, poor, and elderly vot­ers. Texas, for exam­ple, enacted a strict plan that fed­eral courts had pre­vi­ously rejected, find­ing that there was “more evi­dence of dis­crim­i­na­tory intent than we have space, or need, to address here….Simply put, many His­pan­ics and African Amer­i­cans who voted in the last elec­tions will, because of the bur­dens imposed by SB 14 , likely be unable to vote.”

Texas was not alone in quickly mov­ing to enact unwar­ranted voter ID laws and restric­tions on voter reg­is­tra­tion and early vot­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties. In fact, the efforts over the last few years to restrict vot­ing rights around the coun­try are unprece­dented in mod­ern Amer­ica. The United States has not seen such a major leg­isla­tive push to limit vot­ing rights since right after Reconstruction

In Shelby County, the Court invited Con­gress to craft a new for­mula based on its guid­ance. This leg­is­la­tion, the Vot­ing Rights Advance­ment Act, has now been intro­duced in both the House and the Sen­ate. The mea­sure would update the cov­er­age for­mula, put in place addi­tional safe­guards for vot­ing, and help ensure that all Amer­i­cans can have their say in our democracy.

As we cel­e­brate the anniver­sary of the VRA, it’s time to leg­is­late, not just commemorate.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 3, 2015 2

Yes, Justice Thomas, the Government Can Deprive People of Dignity

The word “dig­nity” appears 30 times in last week’s Supreme Court mar­riage equal­ity case, Oberge­fell v. Hodges. Describ­ing the same-sex cou­ples who aspired to marry, Jus­tice Anthony Kennedy, writ­ing for the 5–4 major­ity, stated:

Their hope is not to be con­demned to live in lone­li­ness, excluded from one of civilization’s old­est insti­tu­tions. They ask for equal dig­nity in the eyes of the law. The Con­sti­tu­tion grants them that right. supreme-court-civil-rights

 

 

 

In a bit­ter dis­sent, Jus­tice Clarence Thomas demurred, stat­ing that “the Con­sti­tu­tion con­tains no ‘dig­nity’ Clause.” He argued that the gov­ern­ment is “inca­pable of bestow­ing dig­nity,” stat­ing flatly that” human dig­nity can­not be taken away by the government.”

Aston­ish­ingly, Jus­tice Thomas then attempted to prove his dubi­ous propo­si­tion by cit­ing two extreme and rep­re­hen­si­ble gov­ern­ment actions that were actu­ally designed to deprive vic­tims of “equal dig­nity under the law” – slav­ery and the incar­cer­a­tion of Amer­i­cans of Japan­ese descent dur­ing World War II:

Slaves did not lose their dig­nity … because the gov­ern­ment allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in intern­ment camps did not lose their dig­nity because the gov­ern­ment con­fined them.

But the gov­ern­ment did not “allow” blacks to be enslaved – the laws of the time facil­i­tated and empow­ered slave own­ers and enforced slavery.

And the Japan­ese Amer­i­can Cit­i­zens League was rightly “appalled” by Jus­tice Thomas’ blind­ness to the impact of the government’s shame­ful and unwar­ranted forcible relo­ca­tion and incar­cer­a­tion of 120,000 Amer­i­cans of Japan­ese descent, the vast major­ity of whom were citizens.

In 1942, just 10 weeks after the sur­prise attack on Pearl Har­bor, Pres­i­dent Franklin D. Roo­sevelt issued his Exe­cu­tion Order 9066, pro­vid­ing the legal author­ity for this depri­va­tion of lib­erty and dig­nity. Roosevelt’s exec­u­tive action was issued against the back­drop of wide­spread, base­less fears that Amer­i­cans of Japan­ese ances­try might pose a threat to the U.S – anx­i­ety that was cer­tainly fed by a long his­tory of prej­u­dice and xeno­pho­bia direct against Japan­ese Americans.

Those incar­cer­ated in the camps were uprooted from their com­mu­ni­ties, sep­a­rated from their fam­i­lies, their homes, and their pos­ses­sions, and lost their per­sonal lib­er­ties and free­doms until the end of the war.

Trag­i­cally, the president’s exec­u­tive order was bol­stered by addi­tional con­gres­sional enact­ments. And when the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of these actions was chal­lenged in two main cases before the U.S. Supreme Court – Hirabayashi v. U.S. andKore­matsu v. United States – the Court held that these clearly dis­crim­i­na­tory actions by the gov­ern­ment were, in fact, jus­ti­fied and constitutional.

Now, 73 years later, the Anti-Defamation League uses the cruel and unwar­ranted wartime treat­ment of Amer­i­cans of Japan­ese descent as a teach­able moment for our nation on the dan­gers of stereo­typ­ing, prej­u­dice, and racial pro­fil­ing. While we can honor and admire indi­vid­u­als that can retain their per­sonal dig­nity under the most adverse con­di­tions, there should be no doubt, Jus­tice Thomas, that the gov­ern­ment can deprive peo­ple of their “equal dignity.”

For­tu­nately, a Supreme Court major­ity has now held that the Con­sti­tu­tion man­dates that same-sex cou­ples are enti­tled to equal treat­ment – and mar­riage equality.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,