Some Some Thoughts on Voting Rights Act on the Anniversary of Selma-Montgomery

     There is no little irony that on the 38 year anniversary of this historical march-where the mob violence precipitated on Americans of all races who were exercising their right for peaceful demonstration so shocked the country that the Voting Rights Act was voted for with huge majorities in both Houses of Congress just 4 months later-that we now see the Voting Rights Act under attack in the highest court in the land.

     Justice Antonin Scalia's truly odious insult in calling the VRA just "racial entitlement" crystallizes that while we have made lots of progress, there is still a long way to go. Indeed, his specious argument underscores that there is still a problem that requires the seemingly extraordinary nature of the 5th section of the VRA

    It ought to be understood that while it may seem a little extreme that certain states are singled out for being required to clear changes to the voting laws with the federal government, this is only so without any historical or legal context.

     For one thing it's clear that there was a need for such a seemingly extreme section as the original states named had very recently at the time engaged in deliberate intimidation and discrimination at the polls-poll taxes, etc.

      Indeed, most who are now arguing that Section 5 should be stricken are agreeing that it was needed at the time but that it's not w
       SJC s Supreme Court Justice, John Roberts, has a long history of trying to undermine the VRA. His argument last week was actually not only quite wrong, but highly revealing. He asked rhetorically if there's an assumption that Southern states are more racist than others. This is totally wrongheaded thinking. A few responses:

        1). On the one hand we're tempted to say that, yes, there is a history in many deep south states. This is where slavery existed, these are the states that seceded and continued even after the Emancipation Proclamation to systematically deny the right of African American to vote.

        2.)  In the end though this is not right. Actually some non-southern districts are now under watch-like the Bronx here in New York. In fact it is possible for a state or district to get out of purgatory, provided they show 10 years of non-discrimination. Indeed, the issue is not as some supporters of repealing Section 5 suggest, that the South is being discriminated against as it suggests that only southerners are racist. To the contrary, non-southern states and districts can get on the list and southern states and districts can get off. Unfortunately, Selma is on the record for passing many, many discriminatory laws in recent years. It is true that other non-southern places are getting in on the act-just see Pennsylvania; maybe at some point it will find itself on the list.

     3.)  There's a nasty attempt to blame the victims here in both Scalia's and Roberts' comments that this is about favoritism for blacks and other minorities, when it's just about making sure they truly receive equal protection before the law.

     There's a very nasty undertone in the Right wing SJC where a lot of the old grievances and grudges over things like affirmative action and  "reverse racism" is still stuck in the old political correctness wars of the late 80s. One hopes the President will get a chance to appoint a few Justices to redress the balance and bring the
Court into the 21st century.

      The Vice President was at the Selma-Montgomery march today and mentioned how in 1976 he was able to convince Strom Thurmond to vote for renewing the Voting Rights Act. Who knew that Thurmond-who was once and actual segregationist-was to the Left of Scalia?