Talk:Voting Rights Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

70.122.199.143 19:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)== General VRA discussion ==

I don't think this Act was such a great idea. If someone can't read, how can they be expected to make an informed decision when they choose a candidate? Andy5 11:33, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

In 1996, the VRA was effectively nullified by the U.S. Supreme Court, by its refusal to overturn a lower court decision in LaRouche vs. Fowler. The Democratic National Committee had refused to recognize delegates won by candidate Lyndon LaRouche in state primary elections during the 1992 Presidential campaign, once again using the "private club" argument to assert that the party would not recognize LaRouche's candidacy. LaRouche and elected Democrats from around the U.S. filed suit against Democratic National Committee head Donald Fowler, charging that the D.N.C. acts were in violation of the VRA. A lower court accepted the "private club" argument, and the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, allowed the decision to stand.
I know that in principle it seems like a nifty thing to make sure people are educated when they vote. But who decides who is educated and by what standards? Tales of blacks being accused of not being "literate" if they could not take a test in latin to vote are not false; I've personally met some of the victims of this "literary test" and other eyewitnesses (both black and white) and it has been documented to have occured in the South. That is why have that law.

Are there any third parties that argeee the VRA was "effectively nullified"? Can you point to any law books that speak of "LaRouche vs Fowler" as a significant turning point in the history of the VRA? AndyL

You can examine the transcript of the oral arguments, which was an external link to the article last time I checked. Also, here are excerpts from the Amicus Curiae brief, submitted by a long list of Democrats, led by former U.S. Congressman James Mann of Greenville, S.C. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:23, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Because Andy persists in deleting the link to the oral arguments, I will include it here:

That is not what I asked for. Can you point to any legal texts, articles in law journals etc that point to the LaRouche case as at all significant in the history of the VRA? That the ruling was at all considered a *legal precendent*? You argue that the ruling in LaRouche made the VRA essentially null. Well then there should be some legal experts who agree with that assessement. Who are they? Can you find anyting that's NOT on a LaRouche run website, ie anything from an independent source, that holds that this case is of *any* importance? AndyL

Au contraire, Andy, that is what you asked for: third parties that agree that the VRA was "effectively nullified." Most, if not all of them, are attorneys, and what makes it all the more interesting, many of them were involved in the original struggle to pass the VRA (see Amelia Boynton Robinson, if you haven't deleted that article yet).

"Among the 39 state legislators, are the leadership of black caucuses in nine states, the president of Alabama's New South Coalition, and the vice-president of the Alabama Democratic Coalition. National and state leaders of the nation's two major civil rights organizations--the NAACP and the SCLC--have signed on, as have prominent members of the African-American Lawyers Association, and the National Black Women's Caucus. In sum, the leadership of black Democrats in the United States is well represented."

As far as legal texts of articles in law journals, I don't know -- but the link I provided to the transcript of the oral arguments makes clear, that the parties arguing the case had no illusions about what was going on.--Herschelkrustofsky 20:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

An additional reference: commentary by John Gilliam-Price, national spokesperson for the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, based in Baltimore, Maryland.--Herschelkrustofsky 06:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

An amicus curiae brief is one thing, it's an immediate intervention into a case and will make claims about the case's importance whether valid or not. A better test of a case's importance is its subsequent impact and commentary in law journals and law books afterwards, particularly the use of the case as a legal precedent. Indeed, whether the case is considered a legal precedent *after the fact* is the litmus test for its importance. So can you please give me some evidence that the LaRouche case has been considered a precedent by judges or legal scholars in the period since the ruling?AndyL 15:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It was not the law schools nor the academic community that fought to pass the VRA; it was the Civil Rights Activists and Democrats of conscience, and I find their views on this matter most relevant. Also, as I said, the transcript of the oral arguments speaks for itself.--Herschelkrustofsky 01:13, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In a stunning revalation, President Bush told congressional black caucus he ‘didn’t know anything about’ Voting Rights Act renewal, and that he would deal with it when it came up.

RawStory story not quite what it appears. Please see my post today on BOPnews for clarification, per Rep. Charles Rangel's office.--Ellen Dana Nagler

BTW, anyone have some history on this act? I'm curious who sponsored it and more details about who resisted it. Would be nice to have a brief summary about that. KarlHallowell 17:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] needs info on dates passed

this article needs the dates it was passed in the House and in the Senate, and who introduced it. Revolución 01:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Senate Voting Statistics

The article indicated that the Senate voted 77-19 with the Democrats voting 49-17 and the Republicans voting 30-2. There is an error somewhere in those figures. What was the correct vote?WallyK 00:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What languages are covered?

I'm unclear on exactly what languages have to be accomodated. Looking at this page from the DOJ leads me to believe that (roughly) the following languages are covered (in certain jurisdictions): most Native American languages, certain Asian languages (Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Vietnamese), Spanish and some French (in LA where Cajun). What I wonder is how do people claim that they have to provide for other languages such as Laotian, etc. (which is an Asian language but is not listed by the DOJ in its covered languages.)

[edit] First paragraph

and it provided for federal registration of voters in areas that had less than 50% of eligible voters registered. The act also provided for DOJ oversight to registration, and the Department's approval for any change in voting law in districts whose populations were at least 5% African-American

Not being from America I can't understand what this part of the first paragraph is saying. How does this act provide for registration of voters? Perhaps somebody with more knowledge on the subject could rewrite the opening paragraph as I feel it is the most important part of an article. MxAesir 09:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll clarify. -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 18:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How parties voted on Act removed

Someone has gone in and removed the breakdown of how the parties voted on > the Voting Rights Act...presumably because it showed 80%+ of Republicans voted > for it back in 1965, but only 60%+ of Democrats. That was great info to > have, and should not have been deleted. The vote breakdowns were similar to > the Civil Rights Act, which so far has not been tampered with.

Jon in Portland, OR

Add it back. (you can sign your comments on talk pages with 4 tildes (~~~~)). -- Joebeone (Talk) 00:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I was actually a little bit baffled by the number of Democrats voting against the Act. My personal guess would be that they wanted something more radical and not that they disagreed with the proposed Act. Of course, I am most likely completely off here. Any ideas? Cangelis 07:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The Democratic Party of 1965 was a much different party than that of 2006. Remember, up until the 1980s the Democrats still ruled the South, and for obvious reasons, Southern Senators did not approve of some key aspects of this Act. Those conservative Democrats are no longer Democrats--almost all call the GOP home nowadays. -Clark, Austin 13 June 2006

[edit] No Federal right to vote?

The section at the bottom makes the claim that "there is no such federal right," and that "United States Supreme Court jurisprudence" has established that "there is a 'fundamental right' in the franchise." Perhaps some citations and/or quotations would be in order here? I've always read the 15th Amendment as extending Federal protection to voting rights, thus guaranteeing a "federal right" to vote, even if the Feds let the states deal with the actual mechanics of who gets to vote for the most part. --Eric 01:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll add a cite or two... you might want to as well. -- Joebeone (Talk) 18:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright, but the case you cite doesn't make it clear that the Court considers the right to vote to be strictly a state matter. --Eric 19:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added legacy section.

I put an article as a source but the article will die soon. How can I prevent my link from dying? Thanks!

Jerry Jones 20:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We could use much more detail about section 2

That's the permenant portion, covers the whole US, and is where court challenges to district plans on the basis of racial gerrymanders are made. Indeed the primary way counties and towns got added to the covered area that previously was the southern states was gross violations of section 2 after enactment. Jon 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a stub to help this process along. Jon 17:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding some more info. --Klmarcus 16:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting Rights Act of 2006

Currently, both the Senate and House have identical lanquage (see US House of Representives Thomas site). Section 5 of this bill (approarively enough also dealing with section 5 of the original VRA) greatly expands the wording. Basically it copies language from section 2 with the intention (see the house report on Thomas) of reversing O'Connor's interpreation that section 5 is merely a non-retrogression test and making the requirement to meet section 5 the same as to pass section 2. (Which have diverged in judisprictice since 1982.) Jon 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Connection to women? Also, "minorities" unclear.

I get the feeling this Act was largely spurred by the Civil Rights movement going on, but I'm still curious on its relation to gender. In addition, I bet there were too many people affected by this for it just to be an issue of black and white. What about the Hispanics and Latinos? What about all the children of Chinese railroad workers and gold diggers? I'm thinking the impacts of the Act need to be put into clear examples, too. This was happening to people, not numbers. I'll move the expansion stub to the main page and do a little adding to this at some point in the future. Kennard2 08:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in the act pertains to gender nor to those under 18. It's only intended to protect racial minorites. Many of the counties listed as being covered by section 5 in California, New York, and Florida got on the list for gross section 2 violations against Hispanics. The two counties in SD covered by section 5 got on the list for gross section 2 violations against the local native american tribe. Jon 16:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Voting Rights Act is another one of those deceptive political moves using tax dollars to satisfy an icon's selfish whim. IF you are a citizen you have the right to vote. No wordy legislation is needed. It doesn't matter if you can read or write, as long as you are born in American or naturalized (which requires the ability to read and write in English). The first Voting Rights Act & Civil Rights Acts (which are the same) were mandated in the 1860s.

The question of the right of former slaves and their decendents to vote. The supreme court, during the Dred Scott decision ruled anyone with slave blood could never be a citizen of the United States. The 13th Amendment made these people part of the human race -- no longer merchandise -- but it did not make them citizens.

The Fourteenth Amendment was approved giving citizens protection, etc. and without writting but in ver bal exchange give the Black residents the right to vote. Another deceptive political move. The same as women have an amendment giving them the right to vote,and confirming their citizenship (19th Amendment) the Black residents also need an amendment to confirm their place in the U.S.A.

The Voter's Right Act is nothing more than a covering of deceit. And maybe since you guys have peeped the hold you can stop talking about the corruption of our political icons who are suppose to be representative of the people, and curtail their corruption bringing the deteroriation (sp) of our country to remission.

There is no need for a Voter's Right or a Civil Rights Act. Acts are just that, a play on the imagination of others. A citizen is one born or naturalized in this country. All this waste of time & money identifying who can vote and who has rights is just that an ACT on the intelligence of the citizens. Is it just me or do anyone else see our children in this country, our future Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, green, yellow, or blue are suffering in education (wisdom and knowledge) while power hungry politicans play these ACTS eating up our time and money (selfishly glowing in their time here on earth no consideration of the future, others!)