The Supreme Court is about to hear another civil rights case that could either uphold all of the gains of that costly social movement or set the nation back more than sixty years in race relations. The entire issue of voting fairness hinges on one issue, the idea of state and local government's needing pre-clearance from the federal government before any changes are made to their voting dates, procedures, or requirements. But how should the Supreme Court decide?
America's dark history of racism and racial terrorism lends incredible weight to the affirmative side of the debate. Ever since our ancestors first came to this country they were discriminated against on the basis of their darker skin color. Slavery was an economic institution, given social approval under the guise of white supremacy, that exploited African labor and subjugated Blacks as a people for over 200 years. Politically, Blacks were not people, they were property. The famous three-fifths clause allowed Blacks to be counted up like cattle and their votes given to their owners. Black people didn't even count as a whole person! They were told they were sixty percent of a man, woman or child. Escaped slaves and those who managed to buy their freedom were not allowed to vote.
Following the Civil War, Blacks were freed and took political office and power throughout the south. As soon as the federal troops left, violence and economic warfare was again used against the Black community to keep them in their place. Blacks were again forced into the economic slavery of sharecropping, cheated out of fair wages, and stripped of political power. Jim Crow laws were enacted and after Plessy v Ferguson, "separate but equal" became the law of the land. Things were separate but they were far from equal. It would be another 100 years after the end of the civil war before Blacks were finally accepted as equal citizens and protected under enforcable federal law. The Voting Rights Act of 1964 was a beacon of hope that America could overcome its racist past. Specifically, one of the provisions of this act is that local and state governments had to get permission to change anything about their elections. This pre-clearance would allow the federal government to make sure that everyone was being treated fairly. This protection was essential in 1964 when many state governments and local officials outright defied the federal government's half-hearted efforts to appease Black voters. Klan violence, economic warfare, and corrupt laws like the grandfather clause, poll taxes, and literacy tests were all in place to keep Blacks disenfranchised. The Voting Rights Act was a major step towards correcting these injustices.
So what about now in 2009? The opponents on the negative or con side of this debate contend that America has moved into a "post-racial" state and that these protectiosn for minorities are no longer necessary. They cite the election of Barack Obama as the ultimate and irrefutable proof that racism in America is dead. I will be the first one to applaud the progress that this nation has made in the area of race relations. That we have come this far in the last 55 years is nothing short of a miracle. However there is still work to be done. When disparities in judge sentencing for minorities, unfair drug laws, police brutality, high African American unemployment and other problems are considered, it becomes evident that more work is required. Barack Obama is not the Black messiah. He was elected president, but he can't solve all of our nation's problems by himself. Just because he was elected doesn't mean that racism no longer exists in this country.
To be clear, I am not saying that if the Supreme Court strikes down the doctrine of pre-clearance then Blacks will be met once again with an open challenge to their political power. No one is going to reinstate the poll tax or grandfather clause. And no Klansmen are going to start making night rides through Black neighborhoods on the night before elections like they did in the 1960's. However, Barack Obama's election victory illuminates some key truths about the American electorate. A major part of Obama's coalition was minority voters. Many of these votes were cast before the actual election in special polling places in inner cities across the nation. In places where absentee ballots and early voting were allowed, the Democratic turnout was much higher than in places where they were not. I went the Saturday before the election and still had to wait six hours because there were so many people in line. The vast majority of them were also minorities. It also just so happens that some 80% of all African Americans in this country identify with and vote for the Democratic party. Political scientist note that when voter turnout is high, the Democrats tend to do better. Therefore efforts at suppressing the vote would have a negative impact on the Democratic party and a negative impact on African American politcial power. In short, discrimination could occur, not on the basis of skin color, but based upon party identification and electoral politics.
Without the doctrine of pre-clearance, changes could be made in local laws and procedures without the consent of the federal government. Systems like absentee ballots, early voting stations and others that are set up to help everyone, but mostly minorities, could be discontinued. Blacks, especially those with kids and jobs, often find it hard to make it to the polls on election day. Most other democracies either make their election day a holiday or move it to the weekend but that is a discussion for another time. What's important is that the supreme court should uphold the Voting Rights Act, otherwise minority voter turnout could be severely curtailed. That sounds like discriminaton to me.
source:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103315775
America's dark history of racism and racial terrorism lends incredible weight to the affirmative side of the debate. Ever since our ancestors first came to this country they were discriminated against on the basis of their darker skin color. Slavery was an economic institution, given social approval under the guise of white supremacy, that exploited African labor and subjugated Blacks as a people for over 200 years. Politically, Blacks were not people, they were property. The famous three-fifths clause allowed Blacks to be counted up like cattle and their votes given to their owners. Black people didn't even count as a whole person! They were told they were sixty percent of a man, woman or child. Escaped slaves and those who managed to buy their freedom were not allowed to vote.
Following the Civil War, Blacks were freed and took political office and power throughout the south. As soon as the federal troops left, violence and economic warfare was again used against the Black community to keep them in their place. Blacks were again forced into the economic slavery of sharecropping, cheated out of fair wages, and stripped of political power. Jim Crow laws were enacted and after Plessy v Ferguson, "separate but equal" became the law of the land. Things were separate but they were far from equal. It would be another 100 years after the end of the civil war before Blacks were finally accepted as equal citizens and protected under enforcable federal law. The Voting Rights Act of 1964 was a beacon of hope that America could overcome its racist past. Specifically, one of the provisions of this act is that local and state governments had to get permission to change anything about their elections. This pre-clearance would allow the federal government to make sure that everyone was being treated fairly. This protection was essential in 1964 when many state governments and local officials outright defied the federal government's half-hearted efforts to appease Black voters. Klan violence, economic warfare, and corrupt laws like the grandfather clause, poll taxes, and literacy tests were all in place to keep Blacks disenfranchised. The Voting Rights Act was a major step towards correcting these injustices.
So what about now in 2009? The opponents on the negative or con side of this debate contend that America has moved into a "post-racial" state and that these protectiosn for minorities are no longer necessary. They cite the election of Barack Obama as the ultimate and irrefutable proof that racism in America is dead. I will be the first one to applaud the progress that this nation has made in the area of race relations. That we have come this far in the last 55 years is nothing short of a miracle. However there is still work to be done. When disparities in judge sentencing for minorities, unfair drug laws, police brutality, high African American unemployment and other problems are considered, it becomes evident that more work is required. Barack Obama is not the Black messiah. He was elected president, but he can't solve all of our nation's problems by himself. Just because he was elected doesn't mean that racism no longer exists in this country.
To be clear, I am not saying that if the Supreme Court strikes down the doctrine of pre-clearance then Blacks will be met once again with an open challenge to their political power. No one is going to reinstate the poll tax or grandfather clause. And no Klansmen are going to start making night rides through Black neighborhoods on the night before elections like they did in the 1960's. However, Barack Obama's election victory illuminates some key truths about the American electorate. A major part of Obama's coalition was minority voters. Many of these votes were cast before the actual election in special polling places in inner cities across the nation. In places where absentee ballots and early voting were allowed, the Democratic turnout was much higher than in places where they were not. I went the Saturday before the election and still had to wait six hours because there were so many people in line. The vast majority of them were also minorities. It also just so happens that some 80% of all African Americans in this country identify with and vote for the Democratic party. Political scientist note that when voter turnout is high, the Democrats tend to do better. Therefore efforts at suppressing the vote would have a negative impact on the Democratic party and a negative impact on African American politcial power. In short, discrimination could occur, not on the basis of skin color, but based upon party identification and electoral politics.
Without the doctrine of pre-clearance, changes could be made in local laws and procedures without the consent of the federal government. Systems like absentee ballots, early voting stations and others that are set up to help everyone, but mostly minorities, could be discontinued. Blacks, especially those with kids and jobs, often find it hard to make it to the polls on election day. Most other democracies either make their election day a holiday or move it to the weekend but that is a discussion for another time. What's important is that the supreme court should uphold the Voting Rights Act, otherwise minority voter turnout could be severely curtailed. That sounds like discriminaton to me.
source:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103315775
No comments:
Post a Comment