General Forum - Forums about everything!




Law and Political Theory Some issues are timeless. Discuss political issues not related to current events.

Go Back   General Forum > Mature Discussion > Law and Political Theory

» Sponsored Ads
 



160X600 - Love Your New Phone

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 
Old 07-13-2006, 10:54 PM
Kazmarov's Avatar
Kazmarov
Registered Member
 
House passes Voting Rights Act renewal

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House voted Thursday to renew the 1965 Voting Rights Act, rejecting efforts by Southern conservatives to relax federal oversight of their states in a debate haunted by the ghosts of the civil rights movement.

The 390-33 vote sends the measure to the Senate. The act bans discrimination in voting, including through poll taxes and literacy tests, and requires some states, mostly in the South, to clear proposed changes in voting procedures with the Justice Department.

Southern conservatives had complained that the act punishes their states for racist voting histories they say they've overcome.

"By passing this rewrite of the Voting Rights Act, Congress is declaring from on high that states with voting problems 40 years ago can simply never be forgiven," said Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a Georgia Republican and one of several lawmakers pressing for changes to the law to ease its requirements on Southern states.

The House overwhelmingly rejected amendments that would have shortened the renewal period from 25 years to a decade and would have struck its requirement that ballots in some states be printed in several languages.

Supporters of the law as written called the amendments "poison pills" designed to kill the renewal because if any were adopted by the full House, the underlying renewal might have failed.

Supporters used stark images and emotional language to make clear that the pain of racial struggle -- and racist voting practices -- still stings.

Georgia Democratic Rep. John Lewis displayed photos of civil rights activists, including himself, who were beaten by Alabama state troopers in 1965 as they marched from Selma to Montgomery in support of voting rights.

"I have a concussion. I almost died. I gave blood; some of my colleagues gave their very lives," Lewis shouted from the House floor, while the Rev. Jesse Jackson, another veteran of the civil rights movement, looked on from the gallery.

"Yes, we've made some progress; we have come a distance," Lewis added. "The sad truth is, discrimination still exists. That's why we still need the Voting Rights Act, and we must not go back to the dark past."

The very debate over changes to the act is testament to the influence of Southern conservatives, even over their own GOP leaders, who had hoped to pass the renewal as a fresh appeal for support from minorities on Election Day.

With rare bipartisan support among leaders of the House and Senate, the renewal was widely expected to sail through Congress and on to the White House for President Bush's signature.

Republican leaders, however, were forced to cancel a House vote last month when conservatives rebelled during a closed meeting against provisions they contended singled out Southern states for federal oversight despite civil rights progress they had made in recent years.

Unable to satisfy the dissenters and eager to pass the bill this week, Republican leaders announced late Wednesday they would allow the House to consider amendments, none of which passed.

The amendment that would have extended the act for a decade, rather than the 25 years in the bill, was rejected 288-134. The proposal to strike requirements in the law that ballots in districts with large populations of non-English speakers be printed in other languages failed 238-185.

"What unites us? It's our language, the English language," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican of California. Without the amendment, the act is "hurting America by making it easier not to learn English."

Democrats made clear early in the day they would vote against the renewal if any of the amendments were added.

"Any one of them would be a weakening of the Voting Rights Act," Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said.

The White House also weighed in during the debate, saying in a statement that the Bush administration "supports the intent" of the renewal. The statement did not take a position on the amendments proposed by lawmakers who represented the GOP's conservative base.

Their objections to the renewal already were being echoed by some Senate colleagues from the same states.

Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma noted that the act doesn't expire until next year.

"It's 13 months away, and we're creating a political situation that doesn't need to be created," Coburn said in an interview. He said changes such as those proposed by the House amendments needed time for consideration.

Rep. Alcee Hastings, a Florida Democrat, called lawmakers who wanted to loosen the requirements in the law "ideological soul mates" of lawmakers who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

"For them, this is not a debate about fairness, it is about ideology. Ideology has no place in today's debate," Hastings said. "We should do this not for the partisan benefit but because, as John Kennedy said, it is right."

The states identified in the bill as still in need of federal oversight are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/....ap/index.html

I was worried about this. Should voting conditions be a state or federal issue?



Join GeneralForum.com Today!

Join GeneralForum.com today for FREE!

GeneralForum.com is the fastest growing general forum on the web!

  • Join thousands of discussions on every topic imaginable!
  • Chat with people from all over the world in real time!
  • Play live games with other members in real time! 
  • Make new friends, discuss new ideas, talk about whatever!
  • Yes, it's free! What are you waiting for? DO IT NOW!
» Click here to join the fun!

  #2 
Old 07-14-2006, 09:33 AM
Mecha
Guest
 
Should they be? Yes. A person's capablity to vote should never be dictated by locals, it should be gauranteed. Federal elections should be completely federalized to bring voting problems to light and to provide legal methods of eliminating problems.

Quote:
By passing this rewrite of the Voting Rights Act
Hmm... So, it has been edited.

Quote:
Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma noted that the act doesn't expire until next year.

"It's 13 months away, and we're creating a political situation that doesn't need to be created,"
A Republican who wants to put off something deserving attention because there is an election!? Complete shocker!

~Mecha
  #3 
Old 07-14-2006, 09:55 AM
SenatorB's Avatar
SenatorB
Registered Member
 
I think everyone has an equal right to have unrestricted access to a fair voting environment, and to have their vote be counted fairly. Ideally, this would be a given and it wouldn't be an issue at all, but if it takes a federal act to make it happen then so be it, that is what should be done.

Quote:
A Republican who wants to put off something deserving attention because there is an election!? Complete shocker!
Covering both fields... bringing up relatively unimportant things (gay marriage, etc.) that will help them get votes and putting aside things till later that will make them lose votes. Although admittedly, it's not just the Republican party that does this, I'd say it's the majority.
  #4 
Old 07-14-2006, 12:41 PM
Kazmarov's Avatar
Kazmarov
Registered Member
 
Indeed. The Republicans' arguement was somewhat illogical, as federal voting standards as dictated in the Voting Rights Act has brought fairness to all elections. It also put Bill Clinton in office...
  #5 
Old 07-18-2006, 11:58 AM
IntheNet
Guest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenatorB
I think everyone has an equal right to have unrestricted access to a fair voting environment, and to have their vote be counted fairly.
There is no reason for ballot translation services during elections and everyone who legally immigrates to this nation has an obligation to learn its native tongue: English. Passing on mandatory ballot translation services to the states is wrong and an unfunded mandate by feds.
  #6 
Old 07-18-2006, 12:34 PM
Kazmarov's Avatar
Kazmarov
Registered Member
 
I'm from California,with a lot of minorities, and given that the ability to learn a new languages fades around the age 12, elderly people who immigrated late in their lives will probably never gain a functional amount of English to vote. But if they can become citizens but don't have enough English to vote, and we can't supply it to them, then that is taxation without representation.
Closed Thread

  General Forum > Mature Discussion > Law and Political Theory

Bookmarks



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




 


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:06 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin | Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Site designed and maintained by NURV® Original Concepts, Graphics, and Design Copyright © NURV® 2010
All user submitted content, threads and posts becomes the copyright-protected property of GeneralForum.com unless previously copyrighted.
The views and opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily the views of the staff or administration.
We are not responsible, nor can we be held liable for information posted on this site, or what it influences you to do.
Rules & Privacy Policy

3D Motion Graphics | Poker Design | Web Design | Mafia Graphics | Pop Culture News | Money Forum | Make Money Online | Stephen King