We have so many things to be outraged about that it's all too easy to fall into a kind of cynical oblivion. But that's a dangerous cop-out. Even if someone is living in the bluest of states, they're likely to have friends or relations in a red state -- and those friends or relations need to be mobilized to take on Republicans who won't lift a finger to save the Voting Rights Act or who might try to suppress minority votes.

::::::::

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? 

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. 

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.

JB: What're we talking about numbers-wise? How many votes in how many states will be affected? 

RR: If nothing is done, potentially millions of votes.

JB: Yikes! That's shocking. So, what can we do about this? Millions of votes, no matter where or whose they are, are nothing to take lightly. 

RR: We really do need a national movement to set minimum voting standards around the country. Colorado recently came up with excellent standards, which could be emulated elsewhere. In the meantime, there's no substitute for vigilant and informed citizens. Voters in states that have recently changed their voting laws to make it more difficult for minorities to vote should be making a ruckus. 

JB: Yes, that's in principle. I'm all in favor of ruckus-making.  But a few individuals here and there making a ruckus do not a ruckus make. What action is Common Cause proposing, for instance?  How can individuals jump on a pre-started bandwagon and make a difference that way? 

RR: Congress is on recess this week, and many members are holding forums around their state/district and appearing at public events. You should attend these congressional meetings and town hall events, and ask questions about what your member of Congress is doing to update the Voting Rights Act. 

JB: What else? Common Cause sent out an action link, I believe. Tell us about that. 

RR: The action link in my email encouraged people to email their members of Congress, asking them to cosponsor the Voting Rights Amendment Act if they haven't already done so.

JB: That's easy enough. What else would you like to add before we wrap this up?

RR: Like everything else, it ultimately comes down to people exercising their indignation. We have so many things to be outraged about these days that it's all too easy to fall into a kind of cynical oblivion. But that's a dangerous cop-out. Even if someone is living in the bluest of blue states, they're likely to have friends or relations in a red state -- and those friends or relations need to be mobilized to take on Republicans who won't lift a finger to save the Voting Rights Act, or who might be trying to suppress the votes of minorities. This is our democracy, after all. 

JB: I totally agree. It's so hard to sustain serial outrage; it leads to serious burnout.  But what choice have we got? Ultimately, if Democrats, Independents and fair-minded Republicans fail to do what it takes to support the Voting Rights Act, then we all must share the blame. 

RR: We also have to do everything possible to get big money out of politics, including getting the Supreme Court to reverse itself in "Citizens United." I'm starting up a generous retirement fund for Justice Kennedy.

JB: What do you mean by that, Robert? Who's to say that we'll do better the next time around? Or even get anyone good confirmed?

RR: What choice do we have but to try? Our democracy is our most precious legacy.

JB: What's new with your film, Inequality for All? 

RR: It's now available on Netflix, iTunes, DVD, and On Demand -- and being seen by increasing numbers of people. I'm getting hundreds of emails from people who tell me they laughed and cried, and think it should be "required viewing" for everyone. I'm even hearing from lots of Republicans who tell me it's changed the way they see the world. 

JB:  That's heartening news! Did the Republican segment's reaction come as a surprise? 

RR: Yes and no. Yes, because I'm pleased it's reaching Republican audiences. So much of our media these days is segmented according to political belief. But I'm not surprised in that the film presents realities that are hard to deny, and in explaining and developing them we used humor -- the universal political disinfectant. 

JB: Humor is good, even essential. Your film website features numerous ways that people can become better versed and get more involved in the issues surrounding income inequality.  Will you be able to measure the impact that the film (and website) have? Is that important?

RR: Ideas and values seep into the public consciousness in ways impossible to measure. I think the film is having an effect, but I'll never be able to prove it. 

JB: A fellow blogger told me this afternoon that she loves your work and that  Inequality for All is on her list but... She's been putting off watching it because she was sure it would be a downer.  I assured her that it was not. She's now going to watch the film and report back. But, I'm sure that hers is a common reaction: movie about income inequality = depressing. How do you offset that natural initial reaction? 

RR: I suppose we could have come up with a different title, like Sex and Inequality or The Inequality Vampire, but we didn't. That's why we have to rely on word-of-mouth. People who have seen the film say they're inspired by it. Many watch it several times. Most say it's very funny, as well as being poignant. 

JB: That gave me a chuckle. I can see where the film got its sense of humor.  

And I get it. Once again, it's up to People Power to spread the word. Thanks for talking with me, Robert. It was a pleasure, as always. 

RR: My pleasure, Joan.  

***

Inequality for All website

Reich's website

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich

more Brunwasser interviews:

Robert Reich and his new film, "Inequality for All" - An In-Depth Interview 10/2/2013

Producer/Director Jake Kornbluth Shares the Backstory of "Inequality for All" 10/24/2013

Robert Reich on "Bungee-Jumping Over the Fiscal Cliff"   December 8, 2012

Robert Reich on Romney, the New Gilded Age and More September 5, 2012

Authors Website: http://www.opednews.com/author/author79.html

Authors Bio:

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 transparency and the ability to accurately check and authenticate the vote cast, these systems can alter election results and therefore are simply antithetical to democratic principles and functioning.



Since the pivotal 2004 Presidential election, Joan has come to see the connection between a broken election system, a dysfunctional, corporate media and a total lack of campaign finance reform. This has led her to enlarge the parameters of her writing to include interviews with whistle-blowers and articulate others who give a view quite different from that presented by the mainstream media. She also turns the spotlight on activists and ordinary folks who are striving to make a difference, to clean up and improve their corner of the world. By focusing on these intrepid individuals, she gives hope and inspiration to those who might otherwise be turned off and alienated. She also interviews people in the arts in all their variations - authors, journalists, filmmakers, actors, playwrights, and artists. Why? The bottom line: without art and inspiration, we lose one of the best parts of ourselves. And we're all in this together. If Joan can keep even one of her fellow citizens going another day, she considers her job well done.


When Joan hit one million page views, OEN Managing Editor, Meryl Ann Butler interviewed her, turning interviewer briefly into interviewee. Read the interview here.

While the news is often quite depressing, Joan nevertheless strives to maintain her mantra: "Grab life now in an exuberant embrace!"


Joan has been Election Integrity Editor for OpEdNews since December, 2005. Her articles also appear at Huffington Post, RepublicMedia.TV and Scoop.co.nz.