Let’s Look At the Issues

By Peter Ward

Well, that didn’t take long. Two weeks ago this column mentioned the deep disappointment many are feeling over the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in June that pretty much took the teeth out of the Voting Rights Act, a federal law passed in 1965 that protected the rights of all citizens to vote. Specifically, the Supreme Court found fault with the section of the Voting Rights Act that named nine states and more than 50 additional local jurisdictions in the U.S. that must get approval of the Justice Department or a special court in Washington before changing voting procedures. The reasoning behind the ruling, according to Chief Justice John Roberts, was that much civil rights progress had been made in these areas and there was no longer a need to oversee any changes they made in voting procedures.

Well, it didn’t take long for some of those same jurisdictions to begin changing voting procedures. In fact, it almost seemed like a contest to see which Southern state could change voting procedures the fastest.

Texas acted as soon as the decision was issued. Almost immediately, state officials said that Texas would start enforcing stringent photo identification requirements for all voters. The reason for the new regulations, according to an oft-repeated Republican claim, is to cut down on voter fraud. Only there is no voter fraud! Federal agencies and private investigations have both repeatedly revealed that voter fraud is extremely rare and in fact is almost non-existent. Some people wonder that if this is the case why would Texas need strict photo ID requirements for its voters? The answer is simple: To stop minorities from voting!

Under the Texas regulations, only certain types of photo identification would be permitted to allow people to vote; As examples, your Union photo identification, your employment photo identification and your children’s college student Identifications would not be accepted, but drivers licenses or other photo identifications that require a drivers license to obtain would be accepted. It’s a clever distinction because not every adult in Texas has a drivers license. In fact, many don’t, and it is far more prevalent for poor people to be among those who do not have drivers licenses. Not only that, but a panel of three federal judges had earlier said this: “The Texas photo identification law imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor, and racial minorities in Texas are disproportionately likely to live in poverty.” The Supreme Court’s recent decision voided this ruling against the Texas law by the panel of three federal judges.

It gets worse. Texas was soon followed by Mississippi and Alabama, both of which also plan to enforce very strict photo identification requirements for people to be able to vote.

We should add that strict photo identification rules aren’t the only method used to suppress minority voting. Another common tactic is to reduce the number of early voting days or eliminate early voting entirely. Early voting is a step favored by the poor, the elderly, and people of color, as well as those who do not have ready private transportation to the polls on election day. These are people who tend to favor more Democrats than Republican candidates, and that’s why many believe that the reduction or elimination of early voting favors Republicans. Just days after the Supreme Court’s ruling, the state of North Carolina reportedly began planning to reduce the number of early voting days, and Florida officials indicated they were considering the same thing.

There are other ways to suppress minority voting, such as locating polling places far from minority neighborhoods, changing polling locations without notifying voters, and purging names from eligible voter rolls without notification. One particularly devious way to reduce minority voting is by creating situations (broken voting machines, not enough machines, burdensome sign-in rules, etc.) that cause long lines at polling places. We all saw the huge lines in Florida during the last presidential election, where people waited 14 or more hours to vote. We can only wonder if the Supreme Court’s recent ruling will increase those lines in many of those polling locations and create new ones elsewhere.

In issuing the majority decision Chief Justice Roberts was quick to point out that Congress could always revise the part of the law where the Supreme Court found fault. He also noted that individuals or groups that objected to changes in voting rules could still go to court to fight those changes. But considering that this is a partisan Congress that had difficulty passing a routine farm bill and left unfilled for years an unprecedented number of federal judiciary vacancies and a majority of positions on the National Labor Relations Board, it is unlikely lawmakers will do anything approaching the original scope of the Voting Rights Act. Roberts is correct in saying people could go to court if they feel changes in voting procedures are discriminatory. But there is a big difference between requiring court approval before changes are made, as was originally required by the Voting Rights Act, and seeking court disapproval of changes after they are made and indeed even after voting has taken place.

Seeing the return of steps to suppress minority voting so soon after the Supreme Court’s ruling should wake up anyone who believes in fairness and in the right of all citizens to vote. It’s another reason for working men and women to remain politically active. Because if only the wealthiest are allowed to vote, the candidates that favor the wealthiest will always win.