In 2000, all eyes turned towards Florida as voting ballots and accuracy were called into question during the highly contested presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. After weeks of wrangling and court hearings, in the end, just over 500 votes handed Bush the victory. But while much of the attention focused on recounts, the notion of voter purging received far less media coverage. In effect, some 173,000 names were removed from voting, when in reality, thousands were later discovered to be added to the list improperly and therefore unjustifiably prevented from partaking in the election. It's no coincidence that African Americans (who predominantly vote Democratic) were strategically targeted in this process, and it's no coincidence that the notion of voter purging is once again leading us to the great state of Florida. This time, it appears the aim is Latinos -- another largely Democratic constituency that Republicans only wish they could court.
Florida, under the tutelage of Republican Gov. Rick Scott, is set to exclude as many as 182,000 voters claimed to be 'non-citizens' this close to the 2012 election. Nearly 60% of these voters are Latino. In the last few weeks alone, the state has already purged tens of thousands of voters who are alleged felons, or supposedly dead. Not surprisingly, election supervisors have discovered a slew of inaccuracies, like the inclusion of a 91-year-old World War II vet onto this list. These sorts of maneuvers are reprehensible at best. If military vets, grandparents, legally naturalized citizens and others can be disenfranchised from this election, what does it say about our democracy?
While Florida's voter purging moves are primarily targeting Latinos, voter suppression around the country is principally impacting Blacks and the poor. Implementing new ID requirements in several states, Republican lawmakers are trying every dirty trick in the book to diminish the number of eligible voters. These harsh voter ID laws will clearly target the Black community, other racial minorities, the poor, the elderly and the young -- all part of the staunch Democratic voting block. This is precisely why we at National Action Network (NAN) reenacted the historic Selma to Montgomery march a few months ago, and why we will once again take to the streets and visit the very constituencies that will suffer from these outrageous policies.
Beginning at the end of June and lasting throughout the summer, NAN will embark on a multi-state tour designed to educate the voting public and raise increased awareness to the very real and very detrimental notion of voter suppression. As institutions like the Brennan Center have highlighted, millions of qualified voters may be systematically excluded from the process this November. And with schemes like this latest move in Florida, the constitutional right of all citizens to elect their next leader is under threat. We cannot allow this to continue.
History will look upon the 2008 election as a year when record numbers of Blacks, Latinos and young folks came out and participated in the process of choosing their next leader. Standing in line for hours in many cases, they proved that their sheer numbers could and would yield results. Everyone took notice -- including Republicans.
As the nation continues to diversify, and the GOP continues to fail to appeal to racial minorities and young people, they have resorted to their next best option: calculated efforts to block the vote. It's our job to ensure that they don't succeed.
Whether it's sudden new voter ID requirements, or the purging of thousands of eligible voters, we will fight back. Join us.
Follow Rev. Al Sharpton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheRevAl
Dolores Huerta: Siempre En La Lucha: Latinos and Marriage Equality
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Wonder if he reads anything it says, let alone understand it. He certainly doesn't write it, from what I've heard from his poor syntax and massacre of the King's english on the news shows.
It is unfortunate that this conversation has been skewed to make it appear that the Latino and Black Communities are being subjected to discriminatory laws which will preclude them from voting, especially because Americans of all races, including blacks and latinos,have no problem procuring identification to collect at the casinos, buy alcohol, at the liquor stores, enter clubs, or any other places where we need identification to gain admittance, and therefore there is no additional burden to acquire a Valid IDs to vote.
What bothers me is that there has been no conversation concerning immigration and voting provisions found in the Mexican Constitution. There are numerous restrictions on immigrants.
The belief that Latinos will vote for President Obama is based on a rebuttal presumption, and it is also my opinion that any African American who doesn't have a valid State Issued ID but supports President Obama enough to go to the polls to vote,will find the time to go and get a valid ID. I also feel that creating a faux atmosphere of singled out discrimination is wrong, because just like there are no special prices on the gas tanks for anyone regardless of color, anyone, black, white, latino, or otherwise would all have to provide the same valid ID.
"Rights" are "inalienable" which means no piece of paper nor governmental body gives them to you - nor can take them away.
Ergo, the Constitution provides for a PRIVILEGE to vote in a U.S. Election IF you qualify i.e. 18 years old and a citizen. IF it were a right - you wouldn't have to be 18 nor a citizen... get it? Those who are "ok" with non-citizens voting are also likely questioning the age requirement.
We may be splitting hairs - but that is the point!!!!
We use the word "Right" as in civil rights, human rights, animal rights, etc with no real understanding of the precedence that we are setting.
A "Civil Right" is not really a "Right" as it requires qualification ergo, these are "Civil Privileges" conferred upon you when you become a citizen, 18 and in most states a non-convicted felon. (Try explaining why a felony conviction would strip a "Right" if they are inalienable - that alone demonstrates that it is a privilege).
If it is given to you by a governmental slip of paper, administrated by a governmental body - it is most certainly not a right. That same governmental slip of paper can be administratively taken from you... Just ask a felon - most of "them" no this 1st hand.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/west-palm-beach-man-accused-of-beating-another-2390417.html
I don't see what the problem is with requiring ID. We're required to have ID to board an airplane - does that mean the airline industry is racist? We're required to have ID for driving a car, using a credit card (theoretically), and buying alcohol. Are those racist policies too?
I could be wrong - maybe there's a valid reason to protest against these. I'm just not seeing it.
My half Iranian son, subjected to what seems to be "special screening" and racially motivated based on his appearance, would say yes.
,he didn't feel black people or latino's or white people were owed anything, and he was right.May he rest in peace,as Coretta always felt Rev. King's, own people did him in and may she RIP knowing she was right!
Please don't respond with all the hype about how voter ID wouldn't acutally change the outcomes of elections, because that's not what I'm asking.
And how many members in the majority have not engaged in judicial legislation in the Citizens United decision??
"The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'"
The decision only gave a go-ahead to write the laws. If the legislatures who did go ahead were interested in the "integrity and reliability of the electoral process," wouldn't they have done everything they could to get photo IDs in the hands of ALL eligible voters??? I have heard of only 1 or 2 doing so, and Wisconsin under Gov. Walker made it tougher by reducing the hours of some DMV offices. That means that Stevens's test has not been passed--that had he still been on the court when any of the new ID laws reached them, he would have found that their actions subsequent to the ruling DID impose "excessively burdensome requirements."
You're using Stevens's lack of ESP as justification. It's as if he had been a trial judge saying that a defendant did not commit murder, and you're using that statement to say that the accused didn't kill someone else after being acquitted.
"Implementing new ID requirements in several states, Republican lawmakers are trying every dirty trick in the book to diminish the number of eligible voters. These harsh voter ID laws will clearly target the Black community,"
Now apply this argument to Romney's tax returns.
Politicians must be hurt where it hurts the most, i e at the polls, because the only thing most politicians really care about is getting reelected.
That's not a very effective threat. That's like saying, "Oh yeah? You wanna play hardball? Then Im going to do EXACTLY what you want!"