Democracy Hangs in the Balance on Obama's 100th Day

100 Days -- that is how long President Barack Obama has been in office. 100 years ago, no one would have predicted we, as a nation, would have elected an African-American President. 100 days into the first African-American President's administration, the Supreme Court will hear arguments challenging a key provision of the very Act that helped make his election possible.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, the landmark civil rights statute that assures an inclusive democracy, is being assailed by far right groups who are stuck in the 18th Century. Millions of people - white, black, Hispanic, Asian and Native American - rejoiced in the breakthrough election of President Obama. It was the shattering of the highest glass political ceiling and his victory, our victory, was in no small part because of the doors that were flung open to all Americans to participate in the electoral process.

The Voting Rights Act's section 5 requires that districts and jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination submit all proposed changes to the Department of Justice for approval-and it prevents hundreds of acts of voter discrimination in every election cycle.

Our far right opponents are not resting. Their strategy was to find a test case from a tiny, virtually all white municipal district in Texas, to have section 5 - often called the heart of the voting rights act- declared unconstitutional. Their claim is that we don't need the Voting Rights Act anymore because we have successfully elected an African American president.

I ask you, if we don't need the Voting Rights Act anymore then why do we continue to have dialogue and discussion about voter intimidation and suppression? Why are we hearing about voters of color being purged and removed from the registration rolls? Why are we still talking about voters who happen to have a similar name to an incarcerated felon being turned away at the polls? Why are we still seeing states not complying with federally mandated voting law changes like the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act? Finally, why are we still seeing racially polarized voting in those states affected by Section 5?

What they fail to examine is the lack of change in voting patterns amongst whites in the states covered by Section 5. President Obama received 47 percent of the white vote in non section 5 states. But in the states covered under the Act, he only received 26 percent. In Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, he garnered an average of about 15 percent of the white vote. Obama did among whites than John Kerry in several of the covered jurisdictions , despite a nationwide Democratic swing. Race seems the best explanation for this difference ...doesn't look like we are post racial yet.

As recently as the 2008 elections, counties covered under section 5 were the scenes of voter intimidation. In Boynton, Florida, people went through African American neighborhoods stating that anyone who has outstanding warrants or owes child support or even has an outstanding traffic ticket would be arrested if they attempted to vote. Police officers were stationed outside of polling places. Officials in Waller County Texas, have tried to prevent students at the historically Black Prairie View A&M University from voting for the past three decades. The county only abandoned this effort to suppress Black turnout when the university chapter of the NAACP brought a Section 5 enforcement action.

In other parts of the country, Section 5 has made sure that Hispanic, Vietnamese and other people of color have had access to a free and fair voting process. It is obvious that voter intimidation still exists and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act must remain intact.

Dr. Martin Luther King stated that our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. As a nation, we must remain vigilant as the Supreme Court ponders this case. We don't know yet what will emerge from this new configuration of the Supreme Court. We can only hope that they recognize the fundamental value of the basic right to vote for all Americans, unfettered by the barriers of racism. In 2006, we advocated successfully for this provision to be continued and the extension was signed by then-President Bush. Now is the time for the Court to reject this latest threat to realizing our promise of democracy and assure every American can vote.

Benjamin Todd Jealous is President and CEO of the NAACP

Comments

[J G H]

Sad that if the section is overturned, it will likely be because Clarence Thomas follows the conservative line. Folks, when you vote for President remember that he appoints the replacements any time a justice dies or retires. The preponderance of the court now were appointec by Reagan or Bush.

[digeridoo]

Sounds like we need to do more than just ensure that the Supreme Court validates the Fair Voting Act. Intimidators and violators should be prosecuted for obstructionist racism. Waller county "officials" especially. If we can show voter intimidation, then they should be in jail where they belong. Remember, Republican = hate...

[GrainOSand]

The way it should be:
In a society claiming to provide “all” citizens “Equal protection of the law”, there should not be a scenario in 2009 where the protection of the god-given right or cosmic inclination of certain citizens to express their dissent or approval (via the vote) of the system in which they find themselves, falls under review or consideration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

"Contrary to popular belief, neither the U.S. Constitution nor the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (or any other federal statute) guarantees American citizens the right to vote."
http://www.advancementproject.org/pdfs/09-EstablishingAffirmative.pdf

The countless faceless and nameless people of the Civil Rights Era and prior, who toiled in the hot fields and trenches of hate fighting for meaningful and lasting change are/were true patriots... American heroes. Add to their ranks numerous luminaries and distinguished individuals who lent their heart, their name, their energy, and their life to the cause of true freedom for all of America’s people. The accomplishments of “The Movement” are to be applauded and duplicated where possible. That said, I totally disagree with Civil Rights legislation due to the very fact that what can be given can be taken away.

Acknowledging common humanity fosters civility. Not acknowledging such, but changing the law to obfuscate "real view", causes "real view" to continue rearing its’ ugly head. Thus, that is the way it is in 2009.

[kathy001]

This is one of the most twisted defenses of legal discrimination I have ever read.

[GrainOSand]

You are quick (it seems) to attack. Upon review of your projectile I find it quite void of substance -- firing blanks. Please do elaborate on your straight-and-narrow majestic view of my mangled diatribe of lowly to no consequence and/or meaning. I can hardly contain myself as I await your magnificence to rain down upon my poor sorry self and provide me with much needed morsels of enlightenment and wisdom for the ages.

Do tell?

[luckybear]

We as a nation have made great progress on the issue of race. Probably not fast enough for minorities who had to wait decades for the basic American right to vote. To think my parents lived in a segregated world and my grandparents while still prejudiced actually voted for a black man for president it's quite incredible.

As for the voting rights act I'll let the Supreme court make the decision on whether it is constitutional. Personally as a laymen I think it should stay if only to make sure my fellow citizens can still exercise their voting rights.