House Delays Renewal of Voting Rights Act WASHINGTON, June 20 — House Republican leaders today abruptly canceled a planned vote to renew the Voting Rights Act after a rank-and-file rebellion by lawmakers who say the civil rights measure unfairly singles out Southern states and promotes multi-lingual ballots. The reversal represented a significant embarrassment for the party leadership, which has promised a vote on the landmark anti-discrimination law and hailed its imminent approval in a rare bipartisan press event on the steps of the Capitol last month. But lawmakers critical of the bill mutinied in a closed meeting of House Republicans this morning just hours before the vote was expected to occur and several said it was uncertain whether a majority of Republicans would back the legislation at this point. "A lot of it looks as if these are some old boys from the South who are trying to do away with it," said Representative Lynn A. Westmoreland of Georgia, who said it would be unfair to keep Georgia under the confines of the law when his state has cleaned up its voting rights record. "But these old boys are trying to make it Constitutional enough that it will withstand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court." Despite what appears to be mounting Republican resistance, the leadership issued a statement declaring that once the concerns of lawmakers are addressed, it will move ahead with a vote on what the leaders described as one of the nation's most important civil rights laws. "While the bill will not be considered today, the House G.O.P. leadership is committed to passing the Voting Rights Act legislation as soon as possible," the statement said. Democrats and civil rights groups expressed severe disappointment in the change of plans. "The fact of the matter is that you have a small group of members who have hijacked this bill and many of these individuals represent states that have been in violation for along time," said Nancy M. Zirkin, deputy director of the Leadership Council on Civil Rights. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/w...&en=e4a29f4284cbf696&ei=5094&partner=homepage
I don't think you'll see one democrat wanting to withhold a vote on this. My question is why is it even up for debate?
The bill itself is not. However, nine southern states want to remove the provisions where they have to go through all sorts of hoops because of racism in the 1960's. I don't know enough about the issue as to whether they have a valid point, but it doesn't seem as though its going to get changed even if they wait. Strange, but fairly understandable for the southern states, I guess. Also seems to have multi-lingual issues mixed in. Here's the CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/21/voting.rights.act.ap/index.html WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Republican leaders on Wednesday postponed a vote on renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act after GOP lawmakers complained it unfairly singles out nine Southern states for federal oversight. "We have time to address their concerns," Republican leaders said in a joint statement. "Therefore, the House Republican Leadership will offer members the time needed to evaluate the legislation." It was unclear whether the legislation would come up this year. The temporary provisions don't expire until 2007, but leaders of both parties had hoped to pass the act and use it to further their prospects in the fall's midterm elections. The statement said the GOP leaders are committed to renewing the law "as soon as possible." The four-decade-old law enfranchised millions of black voters by ending poll taxes and literacy tests during the height of the civil rights struggle. A vote on renewing it for another 25 years had been scheduled for Wednesday, with both Republican and Democratic leaders behind it. The dramatic shift came after a private caucus meeting earlier Wednesday in which several Republicans also balked at extending provisions in the law that require ballots to be printed in more than one language in neighborhoods where there are large numbers of immigrants, said several participants. 'A majority of the majority' required "The speaker's had a standing rule that nothing would be voted on unless there's a majority of the majority," said Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Georgia, who led the objections. "It was pretty clear at the meeting that the majority of the majority wasn't there." The legislation was approved by the Judiciary Committee on a 33-1 vote. But despite leadership support, controversy has shadowed the legislation 40 years after it first prohibited policies that blocked blacks from voting. Several Republicans, led by Westmoreland, had worked to allow an amendment that would ease a requirement that nine states win permission from the Justice Department or a federal judge to change their voting rules. The amendment's backers say the requirement unfairly singles out and holds accountable nine states that practiced racist voting policies decades ago, based on 1964 voter turnout data: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. Westmoreland says the formula for deciding which states are subject to such "pre-clearance" should be updated every four years and be based on voter turnout in the most recent three elections. "The pre-clearance portions of the Voting Rights Act should apply to all states, or no states," Westmoreland said. "Singling out certain states for special scrutiny no longer makes sense." Bipartisan opposition to amendment The amendment has powerful opponents. From Republican and Democratic leaders on down the House hierarchy, they argue that states with documented histories of discrimination may still practice it and have earned the extra scrutiny. "This carefully crafted legislation should remain clean and unamended," Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, who worked on the original bill, which he called "the keystone of our national civil rights statutes." By his own estimation, Westmoreland says the amendment stands little chance of being adopted. The House also could bring up an amendment that would require the Justice Department to compile an annual list of jurisdictions eligible for a "bailout" from the pre-clearance requirements. That amendment, too, has little chance of surviving the floor debate, leaving the underlying bill likely to pass the House. The Senate is scheduled to consider an identical bill later this year. Other efforts to chip away at the act have faltered under pressure from powerful supporters. One such measure, sponsored by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, would have stripped a provision that requires ballots to be printed in several languages and interpreters be provided in states and counties where large numbers of citizens speak limited English. "It seems sort of redundant to have both of those provisions," said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Georgia. He added that any foreign-speaking voter must prove some English proficiency to win citizenship. However, Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, called that logic an effort to mix the divisive debate over immigration reform with the Voting Rights Act renewal. Three-fourths of those whose primary language is not English are American-born, he said.
Civil rights are the cornerstone of America. Why do southern Republicans hate America? Psst, that's how you do it gwayneco.
Forget for a moment whether the idea has any merit... it's incredibly bad politics. Just when you think you've seen as much implosion as the GOP could possibly manage this year, they pull something else out of their hat. Amazing! Keep D&D Civil.
Assuming the continued existence of the US, should those nine states have to jump through extra hoops 300 years from now because of voter turnout numbers from the 1960's? What about 3,000 years from now? Is it a matter of not enough time having passed, or must those 9 states have extra requirements forever?
Well I figured that's the way conservatives liked to work around here ya know? giddy what would you suggest the thread title should be?
forreal sorry i was just being snide it is kind of like the label in the new shoes that says don't eat the bag of white gelled stuff Why does it have to be there??? because people are idoits Rocket River
Now see? If a libpig elitist such as myself would have said something like that, the conservatives would be all over me! but you're right
