Tag Archives: Voting Rights Act

Securing the Vote for All Americans

By Valerie B. Jarrett

President Barack Obama meets with Civil Rights leaders in the Roosevelt Room of the White House

Yesterday, President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Secretary of Labor Tom Perez met with civil rights leaders, and state and local elected officials at the White House to discuss how to safeguard every eligible American’s right to vote in light of the recent Supreme Court decision on Shelby County vs. Holder.

President Barack Obama meets with Civil Rights Leaders in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, July 29, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

The Supreme Court’s decision invalidating one of the Voting Rights Act’s 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.

President Obama acknowledged that for nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act has helped secure the right to vote for millions of Americans, and expressed deep disappointment about the recent decision. He asked the leaders in the room for their ideas on how to strengthen voting rights, and also encouraged them to continue educating their communities on the Voting Rights Act, and how to exercise voting rights.

read more

…read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at The White House

Jim Sensenbrenner, GOP Voting Rights Act Champion, Fears Black Panthers Case Will Stop Reform

By The Huffington Post News Editors

WASHINGTON — The best hope for replacing a key provision of the Voting Rights Act is a white Republican lawyer from Wisconsin who supports voter ID laws, thinks the Justice Department went easy on the New Black Panther Party, played a key role in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and once said first lady Michelle Obama has a “big butt.”

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner is a key voice in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives for replacing Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which determines which parts of the U.S. must have changes to their voting laws precleared by the Justice Department. Section 4 was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court last month.

Sensenbrenner, who helped pass reauthorizations of the Voting Rights Act in 1982 and 2006, is once again a key Republican figure now that Congress is trying to fix what the Supreme Court killed. He was on the phone with Attorney General Eric Holder soon after the ruling came down and appeared before at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week.

Read More…
More on Voter ID

…read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Huffington Post

North Carolina Lawmakers Hope To Finally Get Around To Repealing Jim Crow Literacy Test For Voting

By The Huffington Post News Editors

A group of state lawmakers in North Carolina is undertaking a new effort to eliminate a racist relic of the Jim Crow era that remains enshrined in the state constitution.

Literacy tests were popular mechanisms for disenfranchising African American voters for decades during the middle of the 20th century, until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 finally prohibited the practice. But the national legislation didn’t do anything to officially remove offending voting measures from the state books. Article VI, Section 4 of North Carolina’s constitution still reads, “Every person presenting himself for registration shall be able to read and write any section of the Constitution in the English language.”

The Institute for Southern Studies reported this week that there was a new push underway to remove the language from the document:

Read More…
More on North Carolina

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Huffington Post

Voting Rights Group Decries Virginia’s New Restrictive Voter ID Law

By The Huffington Post News Editors

WASHINGTON — Civil rights advocates say a new voter ID law signed by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) on Tuesday will creating more hurdles to voting.

“Rather than address the real issues Virginians have faced at the polls on Election Day, such as waiting in line for 6 to 7 hours to vote, the Governor decided to impose unwarranted restrictions that will only further exacerbate existing problems,” said Marcia Johnson-Blanco, co-director of the Voting Rights Project at the Lawyers’ Committee. “This law will inflict undue burdens on the very communities we should be encouraging to participate in our democracy – students, communities of color and poor persons.”

The Justice Department has to sign off on the law before it goes into effect. But that could change if the Supreme Court strikes down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires states like Virginia with a history of racial discrimination to have their voting laws and procedures approved by either the DOJ or a panel of federal judges in D.C.

Read More…
More on Video

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Huffington Post

Obama Abusing The Declaration

By Bradlee Dean

“We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but the men who pervert the Constitution.” – Abraham Lincoln

In response to being called out on the carpet for his tyrannical methods, Obama stated publicly, “I am not a dictator.”

Whatever Obama says, you can rest assured he is doing the exact opposite, calling “evil good and good evil” and putting “darkness for light, and light for darkness” (Isaiah 5:20).

To add to Obama’s list of abuses, his administration attempted to justify drone strikes on his own people. The American people are now beginning to realize we are no longer speaking of what happens in Third World countries; it is happening in our own backyard.

What is it that defines a dictator?

Parallel the abuses of tyrant King George III in 1776 to what is happening to the American people under Obama’s administration, and you will see the same tyrannical measures stemming from the same tyrannical ideology.

Replacing King George with Obama, the Declaration of Independence states:

The history of the present [president of the United States] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted. …

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

Operation Fast and Furious: Obama, as an accessory to criminal activity, including murder, asserted executive privilege where law as well as court precedent clearly shows it unlawful.

Obama has used criminal measures to attack American immigration law and illegally usurped constitutional laws by unashamedly announcing he will issue work permits to illegal aliens.

As the chief law-enforcement agent, Obama has refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act as well as the Voting Rights Act against a domestic terrorist group, the New Black Panthers.

Obama has been held in contempt of court for refusing to lift the Gulf of Mexico oil-drilling ban.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained;

With no constitutional jurisdiction in the area of states laws regarding illegal immigration, Barack Hussein Obama sued states such as Arizona and Alabama for their laws preventing and prosecuting illegal immigration.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

Czars, anyone? He has sent his EPA, IRS, DOJ, and other gangsters to sue private American businesses and citizens, steal private lands, and assault churches as well as private groups that oppose him.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

Obama set criminal precedents as he moved the United States military from the congressional chain of command and used them in Libya with no regard to the violation of the War Powers Act. Obama’s secretary of defense has advised Congress that the military will go to war upon the authorization of the U.N., NATO, or other global entity, …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Obama Voting Rights Act: Administration Planned For Law Being Struck Down

By The Huffington Post News Editors

WASHINGTON — If the Obama administration needs a plan to deal with the likely death of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, it may be able to dust off its blueprint from 2009.

Back then, oral arguments indicated the Supreme Court was taking a skeptical view of the constitutionality of the act’s Section 5, which requires certain jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to get federal approval of any changes to their voting laws and procedures. Oral arguments in a different case last week also strongly suggested a slim majority of the court believes now may be time to end Section 5.

Civil rights advocates in 2009 had braced for the justices to overturn the law‘s chief component. The vast majority of journalists, too, thought Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder — known as NAMUDNO in the election law community — would be the case that took down Section 5.

Read More…
More on Eric Holder

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Huffington Post

Texas Points To Need For Voting Rights Act, Say Latino Legislators, Groups

By The Huffington Post News Editors

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments on the Voting Rights Act, a group of Latino legislators and legal rights groups in Texas said if you want to know why it is important to keep this legislation, just look at the Lone Star State.

“Texas is the poster child of why we need to keep the Voting Rights Act,” says Luis Figueroa, a legislative attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF.) In 2011, Texas enacted a voter ID law which groups like MALDEF fought, alleging it would make it harder to Latinos and other minorities to vote. Among those who testified were 18-year-old Nicole and Victoria Rodriguez, Texan twins who did not have driver’s licenses – their parents could not afford to pay for their car insurance – but had valid high school IDs, birth certificates and social security identification.

Read More…
More on Voting Rights

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Huffington Post

The Myth About Democrat Voter Suppression In the 2012 Elections

By Paul Roderick Gregory, Contributor The Supreme Court’s hearing of challenges to the Voting Rights Act may result in a tightening of voting requirements. In anticipation, Democrats are preemptively pushing to make voting and voter registration easier in the court of public opinion. They complain that long lines on Election Day cost “Democrats hundreds of thousands of voters in November.” President Obama is expected to call for further loosening of voter requirements in his State of the Union address. …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest

A Liberal History Of Union Thuggery And Civil Rights Perversion

By Shawn Paul

Democrat SC A Liberal History of Union Thuggery and Civil Rights Perversion

In the unfolding of recent events, well-informed citizens have likely noticed the hypocrisy that has shown through the actions and inactions of many affiliated with trade unions and the modern civil rights movement.

Most recently, this hypocrisy related to union practices could be seen in last month’s union protest of then-pending right-to-work legislation in Lansing at the Michigan State Capitol.

Just as is almost exclusively true with all public union activity, many of the protestors gathered in this assembly spewed insults and foul language and carried out violence against not only their outspoken detractors, but even against reserved individuals who they perceived might be in disagreement with their cause.

Two examples gaining much exposure involved Steven Crowder and Clint Tarver.

Steven Crowder, Fox News contributor, comedian, and political activist, is known for his irreverent and politically incorrect humor, as well as his outspoken conservative stances on practically every major current issue. That said, based on video captured at the event featuring his encounter with union protestors, he seemed to be on his best behavior. At least one of the union protestors, though, launched a profanity-ridden verbal attack on Crowder, only before launching a physical one on him that left Crowder with significant injuries.

Clint Tarver, on the other hand, was on the sidelines of the event, simply doing his job when he became a victim of the violence. Tarver had been hired by the pro-right-to-work group Americans for Prosperity to serve hotdogs in a tent set up for the organization at this event. Racial slurs were spouted at Tarver, who happens to be a black man, before his vending equipment and other property was overturned, trampled on, and destroyed. As he scrambled to try to salvage what he could of his property, a friend reportedly told him “You gotta get out of here.” It seems obvious that as the stirred-up protestors were looking for their next victim, he must have made for an easy target in that he was perceived to be associated with AFP. The fact that he was also a black man seems to have only fueled the fire of the attack, in that popular sentiment now tells us that black Americans who stand up for, or associate themselves with, conservative causes are somehow disloyal to their race (or, to quote a recent statement from a certain sports commentator, they are “not down with the cause.”) The objectives of this “cause” seem to become more painfully clear every day.

It is very telling that in just these two examples, so much typical liberal hypocrisy comes to light. The same liberal crowd that aligns themselves with union interests is also typically the one that presents themselves as the exclusive champions of free speech and assembly and of the modern civil rights movement. If that’s true, the attacks on these two men and others serve as another of many poor examples in showing their loyalty to these interests; and they seem to tell an entirely different story. The message of this mob of union thugs (and of most other liberals) seems to be: “We support your right to free speech and assembly as long as you agree with us and fall into the roles and stereotypes we’ve assigned to you.”

President Obama and various union officials and supporters have continually maintained that unions remain vital to the survival of certain industries, as well as regional, state, and national economies. On their watch and under their control, though, businesses, entire industries, and state economies have increasingly failed. The outcome has been no different for the auto industry in Detroit and for the state of Michigan, the birthplace of the UAW and the nation’s organized labor movement, under union control. As the unions have gained power and saturated the local market, industry has increasingly taken a downturn.

With this knowledge, union proponents continue to hide their selfish and power-hungry intentions behind the lies of supposed intentions for the good of the public and business majority. The fallout that follows hurts the economy and industry (at all levels), as well as the public at large and even union members themselves.

Well, it seems that the working public and state legislatures in Wisconsin, Indiana, and now Michigan are forming a consensus that right-to-work states allow for greater growth and opportunity and that union membership and dues are no longer necessary. Closed shops now seem to account for little meaningful workplace protection but only offer unequal promotion, waste, a decline in product and service quality, and a lack of marketplace competition as a return on their investment.

As it turned out, of course, in spite of all the threats and violence of these union thugs, Michigan became the nation’s 24th right-to-work state.

If these events alone are not enough to show the hypocrisy and destruction that is union control, the modern civil rights movement, and liberalism in general, then we need only to look into their history in this country.

While it’s certainly true that many involved in the efforts and in receiving the rewards of these causes have remained honest and sincere, the core of their power structure has historically been dishonest and self-serving; and so it also remains today.

As for unions, American unions can be traced back as far as 1786, when Philadelphian printers conducted the first recorded labor strike for higher wages. But the tradition of 20th century unionism was largely the work of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and its leader, Samuel Gompers.

This movement, beginning in 1881, enjoyed a small but growing membership throughout the 1880’s and 1890’s. Gompers and his federation enjoyed their greatest influence, though, during WWI, when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson appointed Gompers to the Council of National Defense, a position he used as leverage in convincing the president to enable government support for trade unions and collective bargaining in WARTIME! As this may sound familiar and similar to the current relationship between our government and unions, it also shows that unethical union practices are nothing new.

In fact, on AFL-CIO’s own official website, it is admitted that Samuel Gompers “…socialized with a group of émigré socialists and labor reformers whom he would always credit for his commitment to trade unionism as the essential vehicle for bringing about social reform.”

Like me, do you remember a time when “socialism” and “socialists” were seen as dirty words that were best kept unspoken, held at bay, or at least kept in secret? They now seem to be gaining acceptance and viewed, by some, as words to associate with and to be proud of. Even so, socialism and communism have always lain at the root of many societal problems that have been unnecessarily kept alive until the modern day.

Even to my own dismay in some respects, much of the history of the civil rights movement has evolved from less-than-honorable legacies. This is not in reference to the brave souls who defied an evil system, at the risk of their own lives, to rid society of very real and dangerous racism (they are to be commended and honored), but to those who used this cause, like many others, for personal and political gain, generally to the detriment of those they claimed to protect and defend.

The American civil rights movement of the 20th century is often traced back to 1948 when President Truman signed Executive Order 9981, which states: “It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.”

The next notable advance usually cited in this movement occurred on July 2, 1964, when Democrat President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, only after facing alienation from a Republican Congress that penned and passed the bill.

The same Congress also passed the Voting Rights Act the next year.

Johnson then issued Executive Order 11246, which first enacted “affirmative action” in the workplace. This was apparently a presidential overreach intended to secure a personal, politically expedient stance for the civil rights movement. In actuality, it was and remains a very discriminatory policy that placed race above qualifications for prospective employees.

The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the president’s executive order were all met with strong opposition and opposing votes from the president’s own Democrat party.

Many have seen through what they believe to have been obviously dishonest intentions on the part of President Johnson, based more upon personal, political, and party-line gain of power and money than upon civil rights or equality. Many more seem to speculate that this historical reality seems plausible.

To that effect, after weathering strong racist and segregationist resistance from fellow Democrats to his signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Lyndon Johnson is quoted in John Kessler’s Inside the White House as saying, “I’ll have those n*gg*rs voting Democrat for the next 200 years!” That’s not the sort of language we usually look for in a modern champion for civil rights!

In the person and presidency of Barack Obama, American liberals and Sharia law proponents find an unprecedented 21st century dream connection of possibilities. What a veiled imposter, thinly as it may be applied, this president has turned out to be.

We would all do well to prepare ourselves for the damage that such an American leader and commander-in-chief might inflict upon his own nation and the world.

In spite of this overly cautious era of political correctness, we ought to consider that this man, in some measure, shares similar appearance and DNA with those brave and peaceful civil freedom advocates of the 1960’s, but with demonstrated racially divisive, anti-Israel, and pro-Islamic allegiances that could not be further from the noble cause so bravely fought by those devoted men and women of history.

Ironically, in the face of this reality, the sitting president now invokes the name of the most honored leader of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King, Jr., every time it is politically expedient to do so (and will evoke his memory, as he reportedly intends to use the “traveling Bible” of King in the inauguration ceremony to usher in his second term.)

It should be obvious to even newcomer students of American history that there is a pattern of government interference into public life that is always followed by failure and destruction. Although our government is always seeking new avenues for corruption (i.e. green energy incentives) that always end in failure, their fraudulent use of unionism and the civil rights movement has become their traditional institution of deception. Gun control now stands to be their next institution, capitalizing upon tragedies that could not be thwarted by the addition of yet another law to the already saturated legal system. As informed and concerned Americans, we should not only be aware of the tricks and trade of the left. But we should also be vigilantly involved in the political processes of our communities, states, and country; in regular communication with our representatives (because corruption knows no bounds); and always relying on the Creator and ultimate founder of America, our Almighty God.

Photo Credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Black Conservatives Ask Supreme Court To Invalidate Section 5 Of Voting Rights Act

By Breaking News

Supreme Court building 2 SC Black Conservatives Ask Supreme Court to Invalidate Section 5 of Voting Rights Act

Legal Brief Argues Voting Rights Act’s Selective “Preclearance” Restrictions are Outdated, Onerous and Being Abused by Obama Administration

Court Asked to Make Nearly 50-Year-Old Civil Rights Law Applicable to 21st Century America

Washington, DC – As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on the constitutionality of “preclearance” standards in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Project 21 black leadership network has filed a legal brief with the Court arguing that the Department of Justice is using an obsolete portion of that law to justify a race-conscious administration of justice and to obstruct voting laws in affected states and localities.

“[S]eparate-but-politically-desirable is no more compelling an argument than separate-but-equal,” says the brief, which criticizes adherence to outdated rules apparently for political reasons.

Project 21 legal experts are available for comment about the brief, the overall problems with preclearance rules, the politicization of the Obama Justice Department and why the Court needs to rule against Section 5 enforcement.

“I agree with the petitioner’s argument that the Justice Department — under the leadership of Eric Holder — has engaged in aggressive enforcement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Cherylyn Harley LeBon, a former senior counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. “And since Congress failed to act on ways to modify the law for modern day standards, local and state governments have been left with the only remedy available — the Supreme Court.”

In the case of Shelby County, Alabama v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Shelby County officials want the Court to invalidate “preclearance” standards imposed on specific states and localities by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Due to reports of discriminatory behavior during the 1964 elections, states and localities covered under the Act are required to obtain federal approval for all voting procedure changes. This requirement, imposed 48 years ago, was intended to be temporary.

Although preclearance standards were considered to be an “extreme temporary measure” when adopted, Congress has repeatedly failed to address changing demographics and the evolution of American society during reauthorizations of the Act.

As noted in Project 21′s brief: “Section 5… is not consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution… [N]ew circumstances now place even covered jurisdictions well ahead of where non-covered jurisdictions were in 1965, and provide an ongoing political check against backsliding. The urgent necessity for extreme measures such as preclearance is thus well past, and such legislation is no longer appropriate.”

The brief points out: “That Section 5 has become a tool for requiring racial classifications and race-based redistricting illustrates how far this remedy has fallen from the more noble purposes that animated it in 1965.”

Shelby County officials are suing to end the onerous process of applying and waiting for federal approval of even minor and popularly-supported actions related to the voting process. The lawsuit is not meant to have the Court overturn the Voting Rights Act in its entirety, but merely remedy the “dramatic upheaval to the relationship between the federal government and the states” caused by Section 5′s preclearance mandate.

Noting how Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is being used by the Obama Administration to pursue policies meant to promote political power based solely on racial identity, the Project 21 brief states: “[The Justice Department‘s] vote-dilution views and conduct actually treat block voting somewhat schizophrenically. Block voting by minority groups, for example, is effectively favored and encouraged, and if successful would be taken as evidence that discrimination has been defeated… That the identical conduct by non-minority voters is deemed as evidence of unconstitutional discrimination requiring congressional remedy shows the contradictions.”

It is also asserted in the brief: “Section 5 itself is now a central tool for institutionalized racial discrimination at the command of the [Obama Justice Department] itself.”

The Obama Administration used Section 5 as a tool to block voter ID, which it opposes, in 2012, even though the constitutionality of photo ID was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 in Crawford v. Marion County.

“Congress passed the Voting Rights Act to ensure that all Americans had access to the ballot. The Obama Justice Department’s abuse of this authority to favor his political allies makes a mockery of the Voting Rights Act,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, a former congressional leadership aide and constitutional law professor. “Either these abuses must be ruled illegal or the preclearance standards must be struck down.”

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for nearly two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, free-market, non-profit think-tank established in 1982. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Photo Credit: Laura Padgett (Creative Commons)

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism