Burnt Orange Report

Voting Rights Act Kabuki

By Jim Dallas

JURIST Paperchase has a blurb about the upcoming debate about renewing parts of the Voting Rights Act (or not):

A small minority of southern Republicans have announced their intention to challenge the renewal of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act [text; DOJ introduction], currently being evaluated by Congress for a 25-year renewal on the grounds that it is unfair to southern states and no longer necessary. Though the White House, Congressional leaders of both parties, US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the teh US Justice Department support the reauthorization of the Act [JURIST report] in its entirety, several southern lawmakers are critical of section 5, which requires southern states with dicriminatory voting records to seek federal approval before changing voting locations within districts, a requirement not imposed on northern states. The original purpose of the provision was to prevent the racist practice of moving voting locations to intentionally inconvenience black voters. Leading the opposition, first-term US House member Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) [official website] argues that the areas protected by the provision are now "controlled by minorities" and no longer need protection. Representative Sanford Bishop (D-GA) [official website], one of many House members who support the renewal of the provision, has nonetheless noted that "in an ideal world we would not need the Voting Rights Act, and in an ideal world we could apply Section 5 across the board without watering it down and making it ineffective. But if history, both past and present, teaches us anything, it's that we do not live in an ideal world." AP has more.

Continued below the fold...

The AP writes it up this way:

A school closes that once housed a polling place. For the next election, city officials send voters to a new site across the street. In Boston, no problem. In Atlanta, no problem provided the federal government grants permission.

Such has been the law for 40 years under the Voting Rights Act, which sought to end racist poll taxes and literacy tests by putting Southern states - then, without question, the worst offenders - on a shorter leash than most other places.

Now President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and congressional leaders from both political parties are pushing to renew this requirement for 25 more years. Although it doesn't expire until 2007, continuation of Section 5 - the provision involving federal preclearance of voting laws - seems a foregone conclusion.

Still, a handful of Southern Republicans - particularly those from Georgia - are determined to mount a spirited dissent, though they realize it will probably be in vain.

"It's just a matter of feeling dissed when you know you've paid for your sins or the sins of your forefathers, and it wasn't even our party that did it," said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga.

Congress is just a few weeks into its hearings on the act's renewal, but most have involved a parade of witnesses who support extending the requirement and a small handful who don't. So Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a Georgia Republican in his first congressional term, decided it's time for the other side to mobilize.

Earlier this month, Westmoreland called a meeting of several Southern Republicans whose states are subject to Section 5 approval. He shared with them some facts involving his state.

First, blacks there now turn out to vote at a higher rate than whites, according to a study by two political scientists. Second, the state has little trouble electing minorities to office. Four of 13 members of the U.S. House are black, as is Thurbert Baker, who was easily re-elected as the state's attorney general.

"I'm not going to deny there weren't problems," Westmoreland said. "But right now, if you look at those same communities where there were problems, those communities are controlled by minorities."

Ironically, the loudest voices for continuing Section 5 use the same primary argument as those who want to scrap it. They just insist the progress happened mostly because the Voting Rights Act was there at all. Take that away, they fear, and discrimination returns in force.

At a news conference this past week largely in response to Westmoreland's efforts, Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and civil rights leader, called Section 5 "the heart of the act." His Georgia Democratic colleagues agreed, with Rep. David Scott predicting a "full-frontal assault" by opponents.

This all seems kind of... ridiculous... to me. If, in fact, large areas of the South have changed (and they probably have), then the simple and reasonable solution to removing the heavy hand of Big Government is to change the coverage formula for Section Five, not repealing it entirely. The Justice Department has to vet thousands of election law changes a year under Section Five, and many of the jurisdictions covered were first added to the "naughty list" thirty or forty years ago. It's probably reasonable to suggest that this situation may not be entirely fair or efficient. But shouldn't the law have a provision holding serial offenders of voting rights accountable? Mend it, don't end it.

More to the point a debate over Section Five (unless Congress wants to extend its coverage to all fifty states, fat chance) does nothing to resolve voting rights issues in non-covered jurisdictions. Most of Florida and none of Ohio is covered by Section Five, despite widespread complaints in those states during the last two presidential elections.

And coverage means... what, exactly? It didn't seem to have any effect during Texas re-redistricting or Georgia's voter identification kerfluffle.

I fear that the debate over renewing the Voting Rights Act is going to be purely symbolic, instead of what we really need - a serious debate about improving the quality of our democracy.