Texas GOP Lawmakers Halt Voting Rights Act

'Murican English (0.00 / 0)

The GOP wants to include tests on being able to read and write English to be able to vote.

Do they not realize how much of their base in the South will be taken off the voter rolls if they do that? That just wipes out Alabama and Mississippi right there!

---

by: John McClelland @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 21:28:38 PM UTC

TDP and minority legislators were on this yesterday (0.00 / 0)

GOT THIS EMAIL ALERT and PR 24 HOURS AGO

Tell Texas Republicans to STOP the Assault on Voting Rights!

TDP Chair Boyd Richie is asking Texans to call Texas Republicans and tell them that ALL citizens deserve the right to vote and that we won't stand for their cynical attempts to play politics with one of our most fundamental right.

Yesterday, Texas Republicans led the effort that prevented the U.S. House from voting on renewing the Voting Rights Act, which was one of the key laws of the civil rights movement and guarantees that EVERY citizen has the right to make their voice heard and vote for the candidates they support.

This is just the latest assault by the Texas Republicans and another example of the legacy of Tom DeLay.  In 2003, Texas Republicans passed a redistricting scheme that violated the rights of millions of Texans simply because they supported Democrats.  Today, Texas Republicans are trying to impose literacy standards on voters and deny the right to vote to citizens who speak Spanish or other languages. 

When asked by the Houston Chronicle to explain his stance on voting rights, here's what Texas Republican John Carter (TX-31) said  " I simply believe you should be able to read, write and speak English to be a voter in the United States.  I don't think we have racial bias in Texas anymore."

Your help is needed TODAY to help stop this outrageous assault on our voting rights.  Don't let Texas Republicans think that Texans support their efforts to disenfranchise voters.

For more information, below is a statement from TDP Chair Boyd Richie, Rep. Garnet Coleman and Rep. Richard Raymond and a letter from Senator Rodney Ellis about why the Voting Rights Act is so needed in Texas today

Call the Texas Republican Members of Congress TODAY and tell them to support ALL citizens' right to vote!

Joe Barton (TX-6)
Washington , DC - (202) 225-2002, Arlington - (817) 543-1000, Ennis - (817) 543-1000

Henry Bonilla (TX-23)
Washington, DC - (202) 225-4511, San Antonio - (210) 697-9055, Laredo -(956) 726-4682, Alpine - (915) 837-1313, Del Rio - (830) 774-6547

Kevin Brady (TX-8)
Washington , DC - (202) 225-4901, Conroe - (936) 441-5700

Michael Burgess (TX-26)
Washington , DC - (202) 225-7772, Lewisville - (972) 434-9700

John Carter (TX-31)
Washington , DC  - (202) 225-3864, Round Rock - (512) 246-1600, Belton -(254) 933-1392

Mike Conaway (TX-11)
Washington , DC - (202) 225-3605, Midland - (432) 687-2390, San Angelo - (325) 659-4010

John Culberson (TX-7)
Washington , DC - (202) 225-2571, Houston - (713) 682-8828

Louie Gohmert (TX-1)
Washington , DC - (202) 225-3035, Tyler - (903) 561-6349, Longview - (903) 236-8597

Kay Granger (TX-12)
Washington , DC - (202) 225-5071, Ft. Worth - (817) 338-0909

Ralph Hall (TX-4)
Washington , DC -(202) 225-6673, Rockwall - (972) 771-9118, Sherman - (903) 892-1112

Jeb Hensarling (TX-5)
Washington , DC - (202) 225-3484, Dallas - (214) 349-9966, Athens - (903) 675-8288

Sam Johnson (TX-3)
Washington , DC - (202) 225-4201, Richardson - (972) 470-0892

Kenny Marchant (TX-24)
Washington , DC - (202) 225-6605, Irving - (972) 556-0162

Michael McCaul (TX-10)
Washington , DC - (202) 225-2401, Austin -(512) 473-2357, Tomball - (281) 733-0999

Randy Neugebauer (TX-19)
Washington , DC - (202) 225-4005, Lubbock - (806) 763-1611, Abilene - (325) 675-9779, Big Spring - (432) 264-7592

Ron Paul (TX-14)
Washington , DC - (202) 225-2831, Victoria - (361) 576-1231, Freeport - (979) 230-0000

Ted Poe (TX-2)
Washington, DC - (202) 225-6565, Humble - (281) 446-0242, Beaumont - (409) 212-1997

Pete Sessions (TX-32)
Washington , DC - (202) 225-2231, Dallas - (972) 392-0505

Lamar Smith (TX-21)
Washington , DC - (202) 225-4236, San Antonio - (210) 821-5024, Austin - (512) 402-9743

Mac Thornberry (TX-13)
Washington , DC - (202) 225-3706, Amarillo - (806) 371-8844, Wichita Falls - (940) 692-1700

Democrats Call on Republicans to End Their Attack on the Voting Rights Act

TDP Chair Joins African American and Hispanic Leaders to Call for Immediate VRA Renewal

In their desperate and cynical attempt to preserve a partisan Republican majority in Washington and Austin, Texas Republican Members of Congress are once again using their most recent wedge issue - immigration - to hold up and gut the extension of the Voting Rights Act.  According to reports in today's Dallas Morning News, "a unified Texas Republican delegation" is working to stall renewal of the Voting Rights Act.

"Yesterday's action by Texas Republicans makes it clear that nothing is sacred in their thirst for power, including the most precious right in our democracy - the right to vote," said Texas Democratic Party Chair Boyd Richie.

In today's Houston Chronicle (6-22-06) , Congressman John Carter (R-Round Rock), said:

"I simply believe you should be able to read, write and speak English to be a voter in the United States," Carter said.  "I don't think we have racial bias in Texas anymore."

"In 2006, a majority of Texans are people of color who pay taxes and raise families in every Texas community, yet when a Member of Congress makes a comment that sounds like a call for a literacy test, one has to wonder if the days of Jim Crow and the segregated South are really over," said State Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston).

The Democratic leaders noted that many Texas voters require assistance to read voting instructions and understand and new voting systems, adding that their Voting Rights protections should not be held hostage to an extreme immigration agenda that has nothing to do with the right of citizens to vote.

"Spanish is the first language for thousands of Texas veterans who fought for and served our country as valiantly as any Republican congressman,"  observed State Rep. Richard Raymond (D-Laredo). "These Spanish speaking Texans have worked hard, raised families and paid taxes all their lives, and we will not allow Congressman John Carter, who never fought for our country, to threaten the right of any citizen to vote."

"We understand the Republicans' desire to distract attention from their record of corruption and failure, but it is disgraceful to see a political party use the politics of fear and hatred to advance an agenda that would deny any citizen's right to vote," Richie said. "We call on the Republican leadership to renew the Voting Rights Act, with full protections, immediately."

June 16, 2006

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert 
The Honorable John Boehner

Speaker  Majority Leader

U.S. House of Representatives 

H-232 Capitol  H-107 Capitol

Washington, DC 20515 
Dear Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner:

I write to express my strong support of H.R. 9, The Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 and to urge that this legislation be brought to the House floor for a vote expeditiously without harmful amendments.

The Voting Rights Act (VRA) is considered by many to be our nation's most effective civil rights law.  In the 41 years since its initial passage, the VRA has enfranchised millions of racial, ethnic and language minority citizens by breaking down barriers to their political participation.  Undoubtedly, our nation has come a long way since the Act's original enactment in 1965 and since its most recent major reauthorization in 1982. However, the evidence is clear that covered jurisdictions continue to attempt to implement discriminatory electoral procedures on matters such as methods of election, annexations, and polling place changes.

One recent example illustrating the continuing need for the VRA comes from Waller County, Texas.  In 2004, the criminal district attorney threatened the predominantly African American Prairie View A&M student body with felony prosecution for illegal voting if students voted in the upcoming election.  Almost five weeks before election day, the university chapter of the NAACP and five students sued the district attorney for violating the VRA.  The district attorney shortly thereafter backed down.

However, the issue did not end there.  Less than one week after the lawsuit was filed, and a month before the election, the Waller County Commissioner's Court voted to reduce the availability of early voting at the polling place closest to campus, from 17 hours over two days to six hours in one day.  This was particularly significant because the students would be on spring break on the day of the primary election.  A VRA Section 5 enforcement action was filed by the student NAACP chapter to prevent Waller County from implementing this change without Section 5 preclearance.  Subsequently, county officials abandoned the change and restored the additional eleven hours of early voting. 

In August 2003, weeks before a September election, Bexar County, Texas, attempted to eliminate five early polling places that serve predominantly Latino neighborhoods. Without the VRA, this act would have left many Latino voters without convenient access to the polls. 

Prairie View and Bexar County are not isolated examples.  A recent study by the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act reports that exclusionary tactics continue to be employed with the same frequency as they were before 1982.  In fact, the Department of Justice has interposed more objections to voting changes since 1982 (606) than it did in the years between 1965 and 1982 (475).

Despite the ongoing discrimination minority voters face, some members of Congress want to weaken or get rid of the VRA's most important provisions, making it easier to silence the voices of minority voters.  This unfair assault on the right of citizens to vote is both undemocratic and un-American.  We must not let the voices of indifference turn back the clock on the progress we have made. 

Congress must renew all of the expiring sections of the VRA and restore the law's original intent without making changes that would weaken or compromise the effectiveness of the Act.  This is the only way to ensure that all Americans are able to have their voices heard and their votes counted. Again, I urge you to use your leadership positions to bring H.R. 9 to the House floor as soon as possible and to ensure that H.R. 9 passes without amendment.

Sincerely,

Rodney Ellis

---

by: getreal @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 22:21:02 PM UTC

Good for them! (0.00 / 0)

I'm glad to see progressive elected officials calling out these troglodytes on their anti-voter, anti-minority bullsh*t.  Ken Mehlman's speech to the NALEO conference was pathetic -- "we love you, even as we take away your voting rights and kick your relatives out of the country!"  We need to keep reminding people of the world-class hypocrisy. 

---

by: Boddhisattva @ Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 04:04:46 AM UTC

That kind of language (0.00 / 0)

Is unbecoming of someone using your handle.  Perhaps you should change it to Bubbasattva.

---

by: Wanderer @ Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 15:22:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is an embarassment to Texas (3.00 / 1)

---

by: bonddad @ Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 13:12:26 PM UTC

Separate Issues (0.00 / 0)

1) The English-only language is silly and should be thown in the trash.

2) I still think there should be a debate about states/regions covered by pre-clearance.

Manhattan is covered, but not Queens or the Bronx.

New Haven is covered, but not Los Angeles or Oakland.

Every county in Texas is covered, but no county in Arkansas is.

Can someone explain to me why the Congress shouldn't readjust the pre-clearance areas during the reauthorization of the Act?

---

by: notgonnatell @ Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 15:06:04 PM UTC

That idea is too smart and simple to go anywhere (0.00 / 0)

They would never agree on which areas to cover and not cover.

---

by: Wanderer @ Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 15:23:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

Sadly, I think Wanderer is probably right.  The pre-clearance portions of the VRA could definitely use some updating, as some former problem areas are probably okay now while other areas have emerged as danger zones (e.g., regions which now have a high number of naturalized Asian Pacific Americans, for example, whose influx has been relatively recent).

Unfortunately, any adjustments would require a renewed compromise among every single district represented by all 435 Reps, not to mention the Senators' takes.  Definitely not happening in this Congress.

Anyone know if the opposition cadre wants to do anything to change the 1982 amendments to Section 2 (statutorily repealing the SCt's intent requirement to show discrimination)?

"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H.L. Mencken

---

by: PI Lawyer @ Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 22:45:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sec. 2 vs Sec. 5 (0.00 / 0)

Any attempt to confuse the Section 2 provisions and the Section 5 provisions is intellectually dishonest.

The former is a legal safeguard to protect minority representation. The latter is a paperwork Wheel-of-Fortune game that allows, for example, the North Harris County/Montgomery County Community College bond consolidation election or the El Paso water district elections to go foward without question, but nit-picks over rural West Texas underground water protection plans.

The RNC strongly supports the Act's reauthorization without amendment.

You can either argue (1) that the only goal of the 1990s Congressional reapportionment was to elect Eddie Bernice Johnson and Frank Tejeda; or (2) acknowledge that the the 2000s reapportionatment was designed to make a Red state's delegation better reflect the makeup of the of the electorate.

You can't have it both ways.

Why can't Congress ever have a real debate (sorry, dumb statement).

---

by: notgonnatell @ Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 14:46:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What am I being intellectually dishonest about exactly? (0.00 / 0)

Uh, my Section 2 question was unrelated to my comment about the preclearance requirements.  I don't see how asking if there is anything going on with respect to that element of the VRA is related to the preclearance issue.  It was merely an aside to clarify my own understanding of all dimensions of the current debate.

As for the preclearance comment, I don't see how we're suddenly in redistricting land.  First, I AGREED that the old preclearance requirements need revisiting, but that politically, it probably wouldn't happen.  Second, in case you're confused, I oppose partisan gerrymandering by either party.  That means I can argue that (1) and (2) are both wrong.  I favor non-partisan redistricting regimes along the lines of the Iowa system.  I think some greater measure of geographic population center integrity would improve representation by making a district more coherent, and non-partisan redistricting would create more competitive districts with higher levels of voter engagement.  Whether such districts actually help moderate the politics of its representatives is now questionable, of course, given recent empirical data.

And incidentally, I think (2) is questionable, both as a descriptive and normative matter.  Descriptively, I highly doubt it's an accurate explanation of the motives of Tom DeLay and other architects of the redistricting.  Normatively, I think there are still a lot of problems.  First, it violated the precedent of once a decade redistricting, which, while unsatisfying in many ways, maintained an informal limit to political maneuvering by both parties.  As with many other political conventions that have been overturned in recent years, undermining that truce has taken partisan squabbling to levels unseen in decades.  Second, it's unclear if the apportionment really better reflects the makeup of the electorate.  If we're comparing total registered voters of each party in the entire state, I'm unsure if the current representation would reflect that makeup.  And it's far from clear how independents would break down in any given election cycle throughout the rest of the decade.  Turnout by different segments of the voting population would be, especially today, even harder to predict.  If redistricting were truly done with an eye towards better reflecting the makeup of the electorate, there couldn't honestly be any predetermined calculation of how many seats would go to either party.  Instead, districts would be drawn by reference only to population and distribution, rather than the tortured, twisted shapes currently in use, and then the chips would fall where they may.  If redistricting had been done that way, it's far from clear what the end result would have been.  It's likely that as many Republicans would have lost their seats as Democrats, particularly if high population center urban districts were drawn coherently, instead of being sliced up and connected through narrow winding corridors with outlying areas.

"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H.L. Mencken

---

by: PI Lawyer @ Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 19:51:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

okay (0.00 / 0)

Cogent comments, and most with which I agree.

The "they did it us, now we'll do it them" argument may have some practical merit, but in most households it means sending the kids to their room with any supper.

Terms like "communities of interst," "compactness," "commanality," and the mind-numbing "totality of the circumstances" makes reapportionment a nightmare for lawmakers, the DOJ and the judiciary.

While my point about the nonsensical and discrimatory effect of Section 5 remain, I welcome any discussion about how voters can choose their officials, as opposed to officials selecting their voters.

---

by: notgonnatell @ Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 20:19:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

1st ammendment (2.00 / 2)

I haven't figured out why some folks can't realize that "freedom of speech" totally covers the language you want to speak in.

On what legal basis can John Carter require citizens to use ballots only in English?  Or does he just get his personal "druthers"?

---

by: MsInformed @ Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 16:31:21 PM UTC

14th Amendment (0.00 / 0)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is for all the Republicans who are supposed to always uphold the Constitution.

---

by: John McClelland @ Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 22:09:44 PM UTC