Congress to Consider Voting Rights Act

The Washington Post ^ | 10/17/2005 | Jeffrey McMurray

[NapkinUser]

Supporters of the Voting Rights Act acknowledge they know no member of Congress who wants to scrap it. But with hearings beginning Tuesday, Congress is hardly their biggest concern.

The House Judiciary Committee this week holds the first two of what could be more than a dozen congressional hearings into extending key provisions of the 1965 law for another 25 years. While congressional approval may seem inevitable, advocates insist exhaustive hearings are necessary to ensure the extension stands up in court.

[NapkinUser]

It's beyond time to let section 5 expire.

[CarmichaelPatriot]

Fine. Extend it, but add some Voters Responsibilities provisions, such as purging of inactive voters from the voters registration roles every 10 years, a requirement to show proof of citizenship in order to register to vote and some biometric method of insuring one person, one vote (only).

[Prospero]

The selective enforcement of Section 5 is a joke. During the state redistricting lawsuit here in North Carolina that, in 11 venues, reaffirmed the state's "whole county" provision with regard to legislative districts with Section 5 and with "one-man-one-vote requirements, each dilution of minority voting strength presented by Democrats (to form "coalition" districts, an OUTRIGHT violation of Section 5) the Civil Rights division agreed to lower the bar in each case, for the sake of the liberal Plantation.

The use of Section 5 only only in certain places, 40 of North Carolina's 100 counties for example, is a clear violation of Equal Protection. The only way to rid ourselves of the VRA, since it is unlikely to be repealed with people like John McCain falling all over themselves to pontificate about its renewal, is to make Section 5 universal.

Then, the rest of the country - those not anym longerr occupied and essentially still under Reconstruction after 140 years would, after, the next census, scream and scream again.

Then we would be rid of it. We'd better settle for that "modest proposal," as ugly as it is, because repeal of the VRA is very unlikely. The only way to make people care about the essentially racist Section 5 is to make it universal, as they should have done the last time if was renewed in 1982(?).

[Prospero]

The selective enforcement of Section 5 is a joke. During the state redistricting lawsuit here in North Carolina that, in 11 venues, reaffirmed the state's "whole county" provision with regard to legislative districts with Section 5 and with "one-man-one-vote requirements, each dilution of minority voting strength presented by Democrats (to form "coalition" districts, an OUTRIGHT violation of Section 5) the Civil Rights division agreed to lower the bar in each case, for the sake of the liberal Plantation.

The use of Section 5 only only in certain places, 40 of North Carolina's 100 counties for example, is a clear violation of Equal Protection. The only way to rid ourselves of the VRA, since it is unlikely to be repealed with people like John McCain falling all over themselves to pontificate about its renewal, is to make Section 5 universal.

Then, the rest of the country - those not anym longerr occupied and essentially still under Reconstruction after 140 years would, after, the next census, scream and scream again.

Then we would be rid of it. We'd better settle for that "modest proposal," as ugly as it is, because repeal of the VRA is very unlikely. The only way to make people care about the essentially racist Section 5 is to make it universal, as they should have done the last time if was renewed in 1982(?).