Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 2 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 2 (4 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   No comments, 11 series

Life Arts

Robert Reich Warns: Millions of Voters Could Be Turned Away in November

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 4 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Funny 1  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H2 3/17/14

Become a Fan
  (74 fans)
- Advertisement -

Robert Reich
(image by

My guest today is economist, author and political commentator, Robert Reich. 

Joan Brunwasser: Welcome back to OpEdNews, Robert. You sent out a recent Common Cause missive about getting Congress to fix the Voting Rights Act. Why all the commotion?

Robert Reich: Because several key states that, prior to the Supreme Court's "Shelby County vs. Holder" decision were under Justice Department review, are now free to put roadblocks in the way of minority voters. Unless Congress acts quickly to amend the Voting Rights Act, those states will be actively suppressing their votes November's midterm elections. 

JB: More background, please. Why were some states being supervised in the first place? Which ones? 

- Advertisement -

RR: They were southern states with long records of voter suppression. Even as late as 2006, Congress by huge margins reauthorized this part of the Voting Rights Act, recognizing that the problems continued. A majority of the Supreme Court -- all Republican appointees -- chose to disregard this explicit decision of Congress, and instead decide on their own that these states no longer merited Justice Department review. The Court used the fact that Barack Obama carried several of these states as evidence. 

JB: How often is the Voting Rights Acts reauthorized? Is it subject to the whims of Congress on a yearly basis? And since when has the Supreme Court weighed in on it? We need some more historical context.

RR: Okay. Some background: The Voting Rights Act has been amended five times to expand its protections. Section 5 prohibits certain states from implementing any change affecting voting without first obtaining approval from the Attorney General or a three-judge panel of the of the U.S District, who must find that the voting change doesn't have a racially discriminatory purpose or effect. The states covered by that provision had engaged in the most egregious voting discrimination in 1965. Congress updated the formula in 1970 and 1975, and then, in 2006, extended the provisions for another 25 years with the same coverage formula. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0, and George W. Bush signed it into law. That's what's so odd about the Court's reasoning in "Shelby County," only seven years later -- arguing that the coverage formula was unconstitutional because it was no longer responsive to current conditions. How did the Court know? That's also why it's so important for Congress to enact a new formula for determining what states are covered. Otherwise, none will be. 

JB: What do you mean when you ask, "How did the Court know?" How does the Court know anything? What do they base their decisions on?  Sound reasoning? Whim? Political agenda? Something else?

RR: That's the problem. The Court's majority merely assumed that those particular states had somehow remedied their histories of discrimination because many of their citizens had voted for Barack Obama for president, and for black candidates for some other offices. But that's like arguing that there's no need for an umbrella because the sun is shining. The reason these states were required to get clearance from the Attorney General before changing their voting laws in the 1965 Act was they had a long record of altering their voting laws in ways that discriminated against African-American voters, and might well do so again. And an overwhelming majority of Congress recognized this reality as recently as 2006. 

- Advertisement -

JB: How do we go about remedying the situation so we won't suffer from more voter suppression going forward? And we do have the midterms coming up so it has be to fast. 

RR: Congress has to come up with a new formula for determining which states need pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act -- and has to do so well before November's midterm. Granted, that's going to be hard to do, given the prevailing gridlock. But without it, the Voting Rights Act won't be the bulwark against voter suppression it was intended to be. In the meantime, the Justice Department must take to the federal courts any and all states that may be suppressing minority votes.

JB: Is there any sign that the Justice Department is on top of this?  Sees this as a priority? And if not, what's to be done? 

RR: The Justice Department is taking voter suppression very seriously. The problem is the Department is understaffed, with too many important laws to enforce and too few enforcement resources. Taking a state to the federal courts, and getting an injunction against state laws or rules that suppress the votes of minorities, is labor-intensive and difficult. Many district court judges are reluctant to intrude unless the Department has ample evidence of discriminatory effect. Yet several of the laws and rules that now impose burdens on voters (such as providing a driver's license at polling places, or eliminating early voting) have been implemented recently, and don't yet show they'll have a disproportionate burden on minority voters.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4

Joan Brunwasser is a co-founder of Citizens for Election Reform (CER) which since 2005 existed for the sole purpose of raising the public awareness of the critical need for election reform. Our goal: to restore fair, accurate, transparent, secure elections where votes are cast in private and counted in public. Because the problems with electronic (computerized) voting systems include a lack of (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

Other Series: View All 24 Articles in "Documentary"

Other Series: View All 27 Articles in "economic inequity"

Other Series: View All 11 Articles in "film"

Other Series: View All 21 Articles in "grassroots"

Other Series: View All 47 Articles in "journalism"

Other Series: View All 22 Articles in "justice"

Other Series: View All 18 Articles in "legislation"

Other Series: View All 12 Articles in "teacher"

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -
Google Content Matches:

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Interview with Dr. Margaret Flowers, Arrested Tuesday at Senate Roundtable on Health Care

Renowned Stanford Psychologist Carol Dweck on "Mindset: The New Psychology of Success"

Howard Zinn on "The People Speak," the Supreme Court and Haiti

Snopes confirms danger of Straight Ticket Voting (STV)

Fed Up With Corporate Tax Dodgers? Check Out!

Literary Agent Shares Trade Secrets With New Writers


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments