background preloader


Facebook Twitter

A Dream Undone. On the morning of his wedding, in 1956, Henry Frye realized that he had a few hours to spare before the afternoon ceremony. He was staying at his parents’ house in Ellerbe, N.C.; the ceremony would take place 75 miles away, in Greensboro, the hometown of his fiancée; and the drive wouldn’t take long. Frye, who had always been practical, had a practical thought: Now might be a good time to finally register to vote. He was 24 and had just returned from Korea, where he served as an Air Force officer, but he was also a black man in the American South, so he wasn’t entirely surprised when his efforts at the registrar’s office were blocked. Adopting a tactic common in the Jim Crow South, the registrar subjected Frye to what election officials called a literacy test. Continue reading the main story “Can we talk about this later?” After a few weeks, Frye drove over to the Board of Elections in Rockingham, the county seat, to complain. Photo 1.

Continue reading the main story 2. 3. 4. With Shaw v. The Fight for Voting Rights, 50 Years Later. U.S. Is Suing in Texas Cases Over Voting by Minorities. The Justice Department said it would file paperwork to become a co-plaintiff in an existing lawsuit brought by civil rights groups and Texas lawmakers against a Texas redistricting plan. Separately, the department said, it filed a new lawsuit over a state law requiring voters to show photo identification. In both cases, the administration is asking federal judges to rule that Texas has discriminated against voters who are members of a minority group, and to reimpose on Texas a requirement that it seek “pre-clearance” from the federal government before making any changes to election rules. In June, the Supreme Court removed the requirement by striking down part of the Voting Rights Act.

“Today’s action marks another step forward in the Justice Department’s continuing effort to protect the voting rights of all eligible Americans,” Attorney General Eric H. Texas Republicans denounced the move as an intrusion on states’ rights. Gov. Richard L. Republican voter ID initiatives are making it hard to rebrand the GOP as open to black voters. Photo by Chris Keane/Reuters On Monday, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory signed an omnibus voting standards bill into law. In a video message, he talked only about the voter ID portion of the law and assured citizens that only “the extreme left” opposed the law, for its usual crazy, extreme reasons.

He neglected to mention that he’d just cut back on same-day registration and in-person early voting. Hours later the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People sued the governor, arguing that he and legislators had “evidence that African-Americans used early voting, same-day voter registration, and out-of precinct voting at higher rates than white voters.” On Wednesday, Kentucky Sen. While Paul was speaking, the Republican National Committee announced a special 50th-anniversary commemoration of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Nobody said rebranding would be easy, but this is excruciating. There’s no question that the clowns hurt the cause. The result? North Carolina law takes war on voting rights to a new low. IN THE wake of the Supreme Court’s Shelby v. Holder decision, which gutted significant portions of the Voting Rights Act, it’s difficult to say which of the many recently passed voter-suppression bills constitutes the greatest threat to that most sacred of American freedoms: the right to vote.

The contest has several leading contenders, but the winner just might be North Carolina’s especially draconian bill, signed into law on Monday. The bill includes the usual provisions that have come to characterize the quiet assault on the franchise: a shortened early-voting period, the elimination of the state’s successful same-day registration program and, of course, a strict photo identification requirement despite any evidence of voter fraud in the state. Washington Post Editorials Editorials represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution, as determined through debate among members of the editorial board. Read more Video What makes this law unique is how much further it goes. Supreme Court Takes Huge Blow to Minority Voter Rights.

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act.


Reaction and Analysis of Supreme Court Decision on Voting Rights. President Obama said he was “deeply disappointed” with the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision ruling a central piece of the 1965 Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, and he called on Congress to pass legislation protecting access to voting. The president registered his critique in a written statement issued by the White House that noted the law’s bipartisan legacy and the high court’s acknowledgment, in the ruling, that discrimination persists.

He wrote: “For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act – enacted and repeatedly renewed by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress – has helped secure the right to vote for millions of Americans. Today’s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent. “As a nation, we’ve made a great deal of progress towards guaranteeing every American the right to vote.

Mr. Mr. . — Jackie Calmes. U.S. Asks Court to Limit Texas on Ballot Rules. In a speech before the National Urban League in Philadelphia, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the request would be the first of several legal salvos from the administration in reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision. “My colleagues and I are determined to use every tool at our disposal,” he said, “to stand against such discrimination wherever it is found.” Last month’s ruling, Shelby County v. Holder, did away with a requirement that Texas and eight other states, mostly in the South, get permission from the Justice Department or a federal court before changing election procedures. On Thursday, the administration asked a federal court in Texas to restore that “preclearance” requirement there, citing the state’s recent history and relying on a different part of the voting rights law.

Republicans harshly criticized the announcement, in a sign that both parties view the battle over voting laws as important to future elections. Gov. Richard H. Attorney General Eric Holder Delivers Remarks. Thank you, Marc [Morial], for those kind words – and thank you all for such a warm welcome. It’s a privilege to join every member of the National Urban League, both in this room and far beyond it, in renewing our shared commitment to the cause of equality. I’d particularly like to recognize my good friend Maudine Cooper, President and CEO of the Greater Washington Urban League, who is retiring this year after more than two decades of service to the Urban League movement.

Thank you for your contributions Maudine and your unwavering support. It’s an honor to stand alongside you and your colleagues this week as we continue the fight for social and economic justice – and carry forward the legacy of progress and achievement that has defined this organization for more than a century. This is the ideal that has shaped this organization, and guided our country’s steps forward, through the turbulent events of the last century. After all, this has never been a partisan issue. Thank you. 42 USC § 1973a - Proceeding to enforce the right to vote | Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare.

Civil Rights Division Home Page. The Voting Rights Act, adopted initially in 1965 and extended in 1970, 1975, and 1982, is generally considered the most successful piece of civil rights legislation ever adopted by the United States Congress. The Act codifies and effectuates the 15th Amendment's permanent guarantee that, throughout the nation, no person shall be denied the right to vote on account of race or color. In addition, the Act contains several special provisions that impose even more stringent requirements in certain jurisdictions throughout the country. Adopted at a time when African Americans were substantially disfranchised in many Southern states, the Act employed measures to restore the right to vote that intruded in matters previously reserved to the individual states.

Congress determined that such a far-reaching statute only in response to compelling evidence of continuing interference with attempts by African American citizens to exercise their right to vote. CBC seeks improvements to voting law. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) are seeking to strengthen the Voting Rights Act by making it easier for judges to expand voter protections across the country in response to individual discrimination lawsuits. The effort goes beyond crafting a broad definition of which voters should get extra protection based on regional records of racial discrimination. The move is an indication that some Democrats are hoping to use last month’s Supreme Court decision scrapping the law’s Section 4 coverage formula as an opportunity to bolster other provisions of the landmark civil rights legislation that were left intact by the ruling.

Specifically, the lawmakers are taking a close look at revising Section 3, which empowers the court to apply Section 5’s federal “preclearance” requirements to jurisdictions found to discriminate intentionally against minority voters. Rep. G.K. Along with Rep. Afterward, the lawmakers will deliver the recommendations to party leaders, including Rep. Rep. A New Defense of Voting Rights. Voting-rights-rally-in-dc. North Carolina On Cusp Of Passing Worst Voter Suppression Bill In The Nation. By Scott Keyes "North Carolina On Cusp Of Passing Worst Voter Suppression Bill In The Nation" (Credit: AP) Voting in North Carolina may soon change, much in the same way a wrecking ball changes a building.

The highly-conservative North Carolina legislature just released a new voter suppression bill that would enact not just voter ID, but a host of other new initiatives designed to make it more difficult to vote. A significant roadblock to the legislation was removed last month when the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, making it easier for states with a history of racial discrimination like North Carolina to enact new voter suppression laws. The Senate will consider substituted language for HB 589 on Tuesday afternoon. Each of these changes, on their own, would be a significant step away from increasing voting rights. Republicans currently hold strong majorities in both legislative houses and control the governorship, leaving Democrats with little recourse to block HB 589. North Carolina Passes the Country's Worst Voter Suppression Law.

Share A police officer watches over demonstrators near the state legislature during "Moral Monday" protests at the General Assembly in Raleigh, N.C., Monday, June 24, 2013. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome) I’ve been in Texas this week researching the history of the Voting Rights Act at the LBJ Library. As I’ve been studying how the landmark civil rights law transformed American democracy, I’ve also been closely following how Republicans in North Carolina—parts of which were originally covered by the VRA in 1965—have made a mockery of the law and its prohibition on voting discrimination. Late last night, the North Carolina legislature passed the country’s worst voter suppression law after only three days of debate.

And that’s just the start of it. “I want you to understand what this bill means to people,” said Representative Mickey Michaux (D-Durham), the longest-serving member of the North Carolina House and a veteran of the civil rights movement who grew up in the Jim Crow South.