On August 6, 1965, President Johnson stood in the Capitol Rotunda in Washington, D.C. to deliver remarks at his signing of the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965. His soaring remarks echoed back to the founding of the nation and to the ongoing struggle — from slavery to the march in Selma — for freedom.
Last night, Attorney General Eric Holder reflected on our history and on LBJ’s legacy to reaffirm the Obama administration’s commitment to protecting the franchise for all Americans. He spoke to a packed crowd at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library & Museum in Austin, Texas. At this venue, named for the president who championed voting rights in the darkest of days, Attorney General Holder emphasized the importance of continuing the fight and enforcing that law nearly half a century after its passage.
The battle to ensure access to the ballot has been long and hard-fought, Holder said, noting solemnly that the Voting Rights Act followed a brutally violent—and sometimes deadly—struggle for equal rights. But that battle did not end with President Johnson’s signature. A healthy democracy requires that all citizens are able to participate. He reminded the crowd that reaching this goal demands continued dedication and continued vigilance.
That is why Attorney General Holder is taking very seriously the Department of Justice’s mission to protect the fundamental right to vote. The Department of Justice’s work on this issue is especially crucial in light of the wave of recently passed voter suppression laws around the country that are narrowing access to the ballot. In just the 2011 legislative season alone, we saw regressive measures introduced in more than 30 states, and 16 states advanced measures that would create more barriers to voting. These laws come in several different forms—either requiring citizens to present photo identification or proof of citizenship in order to vote, making it more difficult to register or conduct registration drives prior to elections, reducing the opportunity for early voting or disfranchising more citizens with past criminal convictions.
In last night’s address, the Attorney General, quoting a recent speech by voting rights icon Rep. John Lewis, described these laws as a deliberate attempt to exclude voters — low-income individuals, minorities, senior citizens, young voters and students — from democracy. He correctly pointed out that this new wave of regressive laws hearkens back to the ugly days before 1965.
“The reality is,” he noted, “that — in jurisdictions around the country — both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common.”
The Attorney General assured that the Department of Justice will not allow states to reverse the landmark progress made with the Voting Rights Act and will take strong and decisive action to thwart efforts to restrict the franchise of voting.
Specifically, he described a multi-pronged strategy to ensure a broad base of voter participation, which will include: a push for public support of much needed reforms, such as banning deceptive practices about when and where to vote, modernizing voter registration, and the need for fair and effective redistricting efforts and the Department’s continued enforcement of a number of federal voting rights statutes. These statutes include, among others, Sections 5 and 203 of the Voting Rights Act, which require certain states and jurisdictions to seek preclearance for changes to voting procedures and to provide bilingual written materials and other assistance; the National Voter Registration Act, which helps to increase voter registration and keep accurate registration lists; and UOCAVA and the MOVE Act, which protect the right to vote for those overseas and U.S. service members and their families.
In 1965, President Johnson said at the Voting Rights Act signing: “[t]oday is a triumph for freedom as huge as any victory that has ever been won on any battlefield.” But yesterday evening, Attorney General Holder reminded us that the battle to secure the right to vote for all Americans is not over.
He emphasized that “protecting this right, ensuring meaningful access, and combating discrimination must be viewed, not only as a legal issue — but as a moral imperative.”
We could not agree more. Take action and tell Attorney General Holder you agree with his efforts to protect the right to vote.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/crawford-v-marion-county-election-bd/
The United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the State of Indiana's strictest Voter I.D. Law, in the nation, in a 6 to 3 decision
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798/ns/politics/t/supreme-court-upholds-voter-id-law/
You need to show ID to cash a check, buy liquor, and many other things.
Unions require ID in order to vote in their elections, but we should not need to show ID to vote for representatives to our government?
It isn't that there may not be a legitimate state interest to prevent ‘voter fraud’; but what we’ve witnessed is akin to taking a sledge hammer to a fly. Proponents of these measures forget their blunderbuss approach smacks of authoritarianism, more than the Party of Lincoln’s historical origins suggest. The measure needs to effectively prevent the injury or wrong sought to be prevented without wiping making it more difficult to vote than it was in the waning days of the Soviet Union.
Trust Holder to be for "justice"? Hard to do that when he stonewalls, lies (of course he has a new definition for "lie") about the gunrunning Fast and Furious program that supplied weapons to the drug cartels and now the DEA laundering money for the drug cartels. Perhaps his "investigation" of voting irregularities is a way of diverting attention from his past (and present) actions.
Taking away the right to VOTE is not a non-issue.
If it were...why do you think it is being introduced in OVER 40 states ????
To understand this issue, you need to know who / what groups are BEHIND it.
Folks like the American Heritage Foundation and ALEC, both founding by Paul Weyrich
http://en.Âwikipedia.Âorg/wiki/PÂaul_WeyricÂh
Per Paul:
"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
So there you go. Let's limit the non-conservatives from voting where ever we can.
ALEC has even gone so far as to draft legislation to be introduced (by Rebulicans of course) at the state levels.
So there you have it...the more obstacles created for those that typically vote Democrat (elderly, youth, poor, poorly educated) the better outcomes for the "conservatÂives". It's not surprising after seeing the results of the 2008 elections. They are not able to combat large voter turn outs.
The United States Supreme Court has already ruled 6 to 3, in favor of the strickest Voter I.D. Law in the Nation ~ the State of Indiana in Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections
"Supreme Court upholds voter ID law ~ Stevens: Law justified to protect integrity, reliability of electoral process"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798/ns/politics/t/supreme-court-upholds-voter-id-law/
Show me proof of ANY voter suppression?
However, it is absolutely ludicrous to compare what is happening now to what LBJ and the Voting Rights Act were addressing in the 60s.
Playing with the rules to gain your party a policital advantage has been happening in America since the founding of our republic. The Voting Rights Act was passed to avoid the wholesale disenfranchisement of an entire race of American citizens. Don't even pretend that the two situations are comparable. Nobody is being murdered attempting to vote without an ID.
Personally, I think government employees should not be able to vote. Anyone receiving welfare or other government grants or subsidies should not be able to vote in Federal elections.
I also believe a photo ID should be required for anyone to show up at the polls. Voter fraud is too rampant to do otherwise.
Oh, and get rid of electronic voting, it's too easy to tamper with.
.
respectfully, please explain why these citizens should be excluded from voting
.
1. Go online and make calls to figure out what she has to do to get all the required documents from 3 government agencies.
2. Obtain and complete forms for 3 agencies (2 state, 1 federal)
3. Gather mortgage and property tax documents (to prove residency).
4. Go to Vital Statistics to get a copy of her birth certificate. (They don't accept anything she's willing to mail them as proof of ID.)
5. Take the birth certificate to the Social Security office to get a new SS card (old one lost long ago.)
6. Drive roundtrip to and from her home state's DMV to get the photo ID. (Her presence is required so the photo can be taken.)
7. Change her voter registration.
And nothing would be different for others else except the length of the drive.
This requires driving 700 miles, walking long distances, and waiting for hours in each agency. It will take 3 days including waiting for documents to be produced. (Too much for one day. Too many hrs at each agency and too hard for her physical condition).
Much too much for ill or disabled seniors and those simply too weak. It will also cost hundreds of dollars.
I hope Republicans' inconvenienced voters who do all this are angry enough to vote against them, too.
May it blow up in the GOP's face.
.
*IF* the GOPs platform and policies are truly what the nation needs right now, and truly reflects the "will of the moral majority" WHY restrict voting and exclude all these folks that could assure your election victories?
.
unless they are targeting Obama and the progressive policies he and the dems are spearheading. calculating the margin of victory that Obama garnered during the 2008 election
.
Then there are ill-informed voters, hanging chads, ballot measures that are worded in a way that make voters think they are voting one way but they mean something else (trust me i have worked polls), bond issues out the wazoo that build debt and never seem to go anywhere, politicians that earn votes and never come through on promises, politicians that take a 51-49 victory and claim it is a nationwide mandate for their policies, etc.
Access to the vote is cool, but i fail to see how awesome it really is. I would be less offended by letting republicans and democrats rule in predetermined shifts and lets cast our votes via public debate, mass protests, and social media. It would be way more interesting.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_21
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/New-Haven-Asks-State-to-Allow-Non-Citizens-to-Vote--135569598.html
Ms. Vagins has made an interesting point, she is simply stating that voters rights are of the utmost importance to our country. Although I'm sure that you are willing to accept your life as the standard of what Americans should be, I assure you it never will. It seems that you are not, and have never been disenfranchised from the society of which you live (and good for you.) You also seem to be xenophobic. The ACLU, as it seems, is trying to keep disenfranchised American citizens from being denied their inalienable rights to vote. With the attachment to this article was a study about how these laws can, and have had negative ramifications against poorer citizens, different ethnic groups, and even the elderly. Included in your comment you also referenced a link in which stated:
"Dissenting Judge Terrence Evans claimed that the law was a thinly-veiled attempt to dampen turnout by those likely to vote for Democratic candidates."
Had you read more you may not have been so inclined to exhale such a fear mongered perspective on the subject, and then end your snarky comment with a link that Ms. Vagins' article may have some truth to it. The sadness of the situation is that your mentality is the kind that activists for YOUR rights have to fight on a daily basis to keep legislation from stripping YOUR rights away.