Melissa Harris-Perry, professor of political science at Tulane University, talks with Rachel Maddow about a nation-wide effort by state Republican leaders to reconfigure voting rules, independent of principle, to bias the electoral system against President Obama's re-election.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
N.C. GOP fails to override veto of voter-ID photo mandate
By Gary D. Robertson
RALEIGH, N.C.
Republican lawmakers failed Tuesday to override a veto by Gov. Beverly Perdue that would have required voters to show photo identification before casting an in-person ballot.
The North Carolina House voted on party lines 67-52 in favor of the override, five votes short of what's needed to move it to the Senate. Republicans performed a parliamentary maneuver, however, that keeps the voter ID issue alive.
Republicans argued the photo ID mandate would discourage voter fraud and build the public's confidence in voting. Democrats said the requirement is unnecessary because reports of fraud are few and that it would only lead to voter suppression, particularly among older people, minorities and women.
The override question spurred passionate debate for more than an hour about voting in an era in which citizens show identification to enter government buildings or get on an airplane but only a half-century since blacks in the Jim Crow-era South were discouraged from voting because of the color of their skin.
"This bill is an insult to me. It's an insult to the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King," said first-term Rep. Rodney Moore, D-Mecklenburg. "Right now, I feel like my rights have been raped. Yes I do because there is no substantive problem in North Carolina with voter fraud and this is purely, purely an attempt at voter suppression."
Perdue vetoed the measure last month.
"I want to thank the legislators who stood firm in the belief that every North Carolinian has the constitutional right to vote and that the state should not be creating obstacles to stop them," Perdue said in a statement after the vote.
GOP legislative leaders contend polls show strong support for voter ID and that Perdue vetoed the measure to please her Democratic base. Several Republican House members have said voter identification is one of the most important issues to their constituents.
"How can you possibly vote against a requirement where in one instance you have to show a photo ID (in Winston-Salem) to panhandle but not show a photo ID to do the most important and sacred thing that we do as citizens?" said House Speaker Pro Tempore Dale Folwell, R-Forsyth.
Democrats argue the bill was purely partisan. Others have suggested ID requirements would make it harder for President Obama to win North Carolina's electoral votes next year after winning them for Democrats in 2008 for the first time in 32 years.
Voter fraud is a felony in North Carolina. The State Board of Elections referred 43 cases of potential fraud to district attorneys in 2008 and 21 in 2010. Meanwhile, about 147,100 active black voters do not have photo ID, according to the election reform group Democracy North Carolina. The bill didn't even consider potential fraud problems with obtaining absentee ballots, said House Minority Leader Joe Hackney, D-Orange.
"Everyone is interested in the integrity of the elections and it does appear that common sense says that people should show an ID," said Bob Hall, Democracy North Carolina's executive director. "But when you look at the data, there are more people that are hurt that requirement than would be helped."
North Carolina Dem Governor Vetoes GOP Voter-ID Bill
North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue (D) has vetoed a Voter-ID bill passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature. The proposed law was part of a wave of similar bills that have been pushed by Republican-led legislatures in the wake of the 2010 elections. Like those, it would have required voters to show certain approved forms of photo identification at their polling places, or else cast provisional ballots and then have to prove their eligibility later.
"This bill, as written, will unnecessarily and unfairly disenfranchise many eligible and legitimate voters," Perdue wrote in her veto announcement.
She also added an allusion to North Carolina's past as a segregated, Jim Crow state before the Civil Rights movement: "There was a time in North Carolina history when the right to vote was enjoyed only by some citizens rather than by all. That time is past, and we should not revisit it."
Perdue's veto is likely to succeed, rather than be overridden. The CBS affiliate in Raleigh points out that while the bill had passed the state Senate by a veto-proof margin, it had in fact only passed the state House by a margin of 62-51, short of the 72 votes that would be needed to override the veto in that chamber.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
You can’t script a scene like that with Senator Fred Risser being cut off by Senate President Ellis (Risser’s one of the longest serving legislators in the country). It looks like a scene from the floor of the Reichstag in the early 1930s. It makes Mr. Smith Goes to Washington look like a fantasy. And it has the whiff again of where’s your papers, boy? that President Obama eventually overcame.
Let’s face it, it’s the poll tax come north. This is voter suppression. And this time, it will disenfranchise not only black Democratic voters, but poor people, the elderly (some of whom–lord help us all–voted these Republican idiots into office), and students who still carry driver’s licenses from out of state but who are resident here in Wisconsin while they attend UW. (The Republicans particularly voice contempt for the Madison campus as though it is the equivalent of UC Berkeley during the Sixties. Both campuses are much quieter these days yall, though the tradition of activism remains here and there. The same contempt is displayed when they talk directly or indirectly (in codes) about Milwaukee, with its large African American community.) Along with Latinos and immigrants and new citizens, all of these groups vote, and many vote consistently Democratic. That’s why Walker, the Fitzgeralds and the rest of their claque were so insistent about instituting this uncalled-for legislation. And it’s not just happening in Wisconsin. It’s happening in all of the 28 states where Republicans control the governor’s chair and the legislature.
Before I go into the story, I just want to say that I have seen nothing yet of a grassroots movement that would counteract the effects of yet another Walker-Fitzgerald-inspired imposition on Wisconsin. A movement that would go into the hinterlands–to the hunters-fishermen-flag-waving areas–as well as the cities–to the hip-hop nation as well as the students–and help educate these groups about what to expect and how to fight it. A movement that would even help and encourage those to get a state ID card ($28.00 at your local DMV) and become legal. People needed to get started yesterday because this will impact the upcoming recalls. And not everyone has a computer in order to get the word. This needs to be a house-to-house, face-to-face movement in all communities and neighborhoods in order to counter misinformation and voter suppression. Since the Republicans cannot sustain a majority in fact, they will try to legislate it (or manufacture it) into existence.
New Hampshire House Speaker Bill O’Brien (R) took to the House floor this morning to defend Senate Bill 129, which would require voters to show photo identification in order to vote. But even before the bill became law, a sign was hanging on the door of a polling station in O’Brien’s own district, demanding that voters show ID before they could vote. The progressive blog Blue Hampshire first reported the placement of the signs, which were hanging outside polling places for the special election to replace state Rep. Robert Mead (R):
Signs posted at the New Boston Elementary School, one of the five polling locations in the district, this morning read, “Per pending legislation you will be required to produce a photo ID in order to receive a ballot.” They were removed at the request of the New Hampshire Attorney General, but not before voters on their way into the polls turned saw them and turned around.
“Law abiding New Hampshire citizens were discouraged from voting this morning as a direct result of Speaker’s O’Brien terrible piece of legislation, SB129,” said Harrell Kirstein, press secretary for the New Hampshire Democratic Party. “Just moments before O’Brien defended this reckless bill in Concord, voters in his own district were walking away from the polls without having cast a vote.”
ThinkProgress has documented recent efforts by legislators in as many as 22 states, including South Carolina, Florida, and Wisconsin, to disenfranchise voters through voter identification laws and other methods. Republicans often justify these proposals by spreading fear about widespread voter fraud, but voter fraud is, in fact, extremely rare. For instance, in Kentucky, which is holding statewide primary elections today, the Lexington Herald-Leader reported that the state’s voting fraud hotline has not received a single call.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
REPORT: In 22 Statehouses Across The Country, Conservatives Move To Disenfranchise Voters
In statehouses across the country, Republican lawmakers are raising the specter of “voter fraud” to push through legislation that would dramatically restrict the voting rights of college students, rural voters, senior citizens, the disabled and the homeless. As part of their larger effort to silence Main Street, conservatives are pushing through new photo identification laws that would exclude millions from voting, depress Hispanic voter turnout by as much as 10 percent, and cost taxpayers millions of dollars. In the next few months, a new set of election laws could make going to the polls and registering to vote significantly more difficult — in some cases even barring groups of citizens from voting in the communities where they live.
Mark Kirk Sends Poll Monitors To 'Vulnerable,' Largely African-American Neighborhoods
Ryan J. Reilly | October 12, 2010, 2:45PM
In a private phone conversation that was secretly recorded, Mark Kirk, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Illinois, told state Republican leaders last week about his plan to send "voter integrity" squads to four predominately African American neighborhoods of Chicago "where the other side might be tempted to jigger the numbers somewhat."
Kirk's campaign confirmed the candidate was secretly taped last week as he was talking about his anti-voter fraud effort.
"These are lawyers and other people that will be deployed in key, vulnerable precincts, for example, South and West sides of Chicago, Rockford, Metro East, where the other side might be tempted to jigger the numbers somewhat," he said in the audio posted on YouTube.
As TPMMuckraker has reported, accusations from conservatives that ineligible voters are fraudulently stealing elections for Democrats have continued to fly in the 2010 campaign cycle, despite the lack of evidence of widespread voter fraud. "Voter fraud" has been the rally cry for conservative groups seeking to make it more difficult to cast ballots and suppress minority voter turnout. In particular this election cycle, Tea Party groups have taken up the issue, and Democratic groups have called for assurances that poll watchers trained by such groups are clear on polling station rules.
Talking Points Memo tried to reach the Kirk campaign when the audio emerged last week on the blog ArchPundit to confirm its authenticity, but we did not hear back. Blogger Larry Handlin told TPM he promised not to give away information about the source, but said it was recorded on Monday or Tuesday of last week.
Year in and year out, voter-discouragement is an important part of the ongoing Republican campaign.
The Democratic Party seems to fall asleep between elections, and it has been historically very poor at the kind of message development and dissemination done by think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Foundation, the Heritage Foundation
Democratic voter-registration and get-out-the-vote efforts have been spotty at best, and it’s notable that the individuals and groups doing the best job of this (ACORN recently and Jesse Jackson a couple of decades ago) have been very little appreciated by the ruling group in the party.
The Democratic Party is a business like any other, and just as newspapers get their money from advertisers, and not from readers, the Democratic Party gets its money from donors rather than from voters. Bringing new voters from the lower orders into the party would almost certainly require policy proposals which would negatively impact the big-money people, and even if the Democratic Party started winning elections that way, the boodle coming in would be reduced, and boodle is what pays the mercenary pros at the party headquarters.
In large part this explains the constant refrain from the Democratic leadership: we’d like to do the right thing, but political realities make it impossible. The truth is that the Democratic leaders are very happy with the political realities and don’t want to change them. If it were "politically possible" to pass single-payer, for example, the Democratic Party would lose incredible amounts of money from key donors in the medical biz. Single-payer might make the voters ecstatically happy, but these happy voters are not at all likely to replace the money the party lost.
Major props to JJP commenter, Miranda, for finding this story on a new challenge to the Voting Rights Act . . . We should take the following as an opportunity to educate ourselves and each other about OUR voting rights . . .
via USA Today:By Joan Biskupic,
The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will hear a challenge to the landmark 1965 voting rights act, paving the way for a major decision this term on federal power to oversee state election laws.
In the backdrop is the recent election of Barack Obama and the question of whether America still needs an expansive law protecting against discrimination in voting now that a black man has won the presidency.
A decision in the case from Texas, to be heard in April, could impact the U.S. government's authority to ensure that racial minorities — who were subjected to literacy tests and other devices to keep them from the polls for most of the 20th Century — continue to have as much of a chance as whites to elect candidates of their choice.
In dispute is the 2006 renewal of the Voting Rights Act, which Congress passed overwhelmingly and President Bush signed.
I must admit that I'm surprised the Court is even taking time to hear this case. The purpose of the Voting Rights Act (as I've interpreted) has always been a matter of access to the ballot - a concern that was wholly distinguishable from whether or not America ever had the guts to elect the first black President.
But here we have a challenge to the Voting Rights Act based on what I consider to be a weak legal premise:
continued from USA Today:"A Texas utility district says the provision known as Section 5, which gives the U.S. government authority to oversee state electoral-law changes, is no longer needed and is unconstitutional. The utility district uses the election of the first black president as evidence.
'The America that has elected Barack Obama as its first African-American president is far different than when Section 5 was first enacted in 1965,' say lawyers for the utility district.'"
Umm, yeah . . . that appears to be the jist of their legal challenge - we elected the black guy.
Talk about a slippery slope. You know, race relations have changed since the Civil War as well. So why not do away with the Civil War Amendments? I mean, who needs those pesky 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments anyways.
It's important to note that this is a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, not necessarily the Voting Rights Act in its entirety. However, Section 5 is a very important provision.
What does Section 5 do?
Well, in effect, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires "preclearance" for "covered jurisdictions" that wish to make changes to their voting rights laws. "Covered jurisdictions" are explained in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. (more info after the jump)
"I wish I were an Alabama trooper, then I could kill a n****r legally..."
by lollydee [Subscribe]
Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 03:38:42 PM PDT
I had Sunday lunch over my aunt Patsy's house today and she sang those words to the tune of the Oscar Mayer jingle, recalling the summer of 1966 following the riots in Chicago. She was fourteen years old then, and she had never been to the deep South, but she told me that she figured that the mobs there during the open housing march she and her parents were attending probably were just as bad.
"A group of white kids were singing it at us and throwing things while their parents watched them. One white boy just stood there, not saying or doing anything. I thought to myself that maybe that kid would grow up and be different than the trash he was raised in."
My aunt told us that her boyfriend at the time wasn't a fan of Dr. King's non-violent methods, a loyalist instead to the Black Power movement. The Vietnam war was heating up and she thought this might have further radicalized young blacks, contributing to the disintegration of the coalition that had been brought together during the early 1960's.
It's a heavy conversation to have at a casual Sunday lunch, but it's eight days away from maybe electing the first African-American President and no one at the table can talk about much else.
My aunt is an ardent supporter of Barack Obama, but she scoffed a little at me when I talked excitedly about how what is happening now is a revolution, a new uprising.
"You be careful how you handle yourself. People back then got to thinking all crazy and believing all this change was gonna come all of a sudden. Radicals said dangerous things and then even white folks who were behind us started moving away from us. Be prepared for the bumps in the road."
I knew exactly what she meant by that. Whenever a Conservative talks to me about why they believe what they do, I like to remind them that the Conservative movement was a direct response to the Civil Rights movement. I can't help but to wonder what the response will be to electing Obama.
"I don't think McCain and his camp are as bad as the people back then, though. I think that they're really just trying to win an election and are getting a little desperate. They don't believe what a lot of those people do, they just want them to vote for them," my sister said.
My aunt poured herself some juice and sat down, shaking her head.
"McCain is old enough to know what he's doing. Don't you believe that. He might as well be telling those folks that if a black man takes power he's only gonna do stuff for black people, period. That's what they're hearing, if not worse."
My dad nodded his head, "People forget that one of the most profound by-products of the civil rights movement in Mississippi was the rebirth of the Republican Party."
History break: In 1972, two Mississippi Republicans, Thad Cochran and Trent Lott were elected to the House of Representatives. Neither one of them sounded like the Radical Republicans who had once attained power in the state. Both were State's rights advocated and were opposed to further federal civil rights measures like affirmative action. By the 80's they were both in the Senate and then Lott became majority leader in 1996, even though their policies often went against a sizable African American population who now had the right to vote.
Black voters at that point had the power to use their voices to move the struggle forward, but lacked the belief that they could play a major part in the political process. My father calls this "an invisible leash".
Some white people are shocked. The African American turnout is unprecedented. It must be fraud, not this many new voters could be registered. Georgia is close to being blue? North Caroline is in play? Virginia might give it's electoral votes to a Negro?
With the nomination of Barack Obama by the Democratic party, the leash holding back people like my aunt's second husband who grew up in the deep south, once watched his 19 year old cousin get lynched, and has never voted in all of his 78 years, is off.
I know we like to pretend that race in this election is a non-issue, but I think doing so is a great injustice to the descendants of one of the most shameful periods of American history. They are savoring this step forward.
"There is a lot of joy down at the meeting place. (Of a woman's club she belongs to) We all voted early. I worry every time I pick up the paper about someone being hurt like they were way back when," she said. "You all laugh at those videos you send around at those people at them Palin rallys, but I don't thinks its funny."
My Dad got a little indignant. "It's funny because they're so stupid. They can't kill us like they used to by coming and murdering us on the street."
I didn't say anything. It's clear her and my uncle still bear the pain of their past and of the people who died before them.
My aunt raised an eyebrow at him. "There was a nice young white girl over here the other day asking if I needed a ride to the polls. I told her I already sent in my ballot absentee and she told me how excited she was about Obama being elected and asked what I would do on the night he won."
We waited and she didn't say anything. "What will you do?" my Dad finally asked.
"Sleep. But I'm gonna tell Jim (my uncle) to have his gun loaded."
I laughed. "I hope we've gone beyond all that. I think some people will be mad at first, but they'll get over it. We've had black Senators, a Secretary of State. It's not the same. It's also different because the law is on our side this time."
"What about that man that spit on you?"
I though about it for a second. "He spit on me, he didn't beat me up or try to kill me. I'm perfectly unharmed. It was a childish reaction but it was nothing compared to what people back then went through."
"Aha! That's because Obama ain't President yet! Do you think he would have just spit on you if it were November 5th? And what if that story that girl made up about being robbed and beaten by a black man hadn't been proven to be a lie?"
"I don't know," I said.
"That's right. You don't know. I hope we've come far enough, but don't make fun of folks for being afraid of otherwise," she said. "Us old folks know the way this all works," she warned me. "We've been down this road before."
Another history break: The Holocaust revealed to the world the atrocities that could be committed by people driven by an ideology of supremacy and moved quite a few people towards the belief in the ideal of equality for all, but the red scare led by Joe McCarthy came along and erected a hurdle for civil rights activist to overcome. People were so afraid, that they were opposed to social change in general and handed white supremacists a potent weapon in which to smear the opposition. W.E.B. Du Bois was so tarnished by the communist label that he virtually disappeared from American life. Not until McCarthyism subsided did the civil rights movement regain momentum.
Read the paragraph I wrote above, and replace the word "communism" with "un-American".
It's a tough conversation to have. I tried to reassure her. "They can rant and rave all they want, their time is over. People send those videos around because they are in the minority. Their actions make them look ignorant. They're part of the reason McCain and Plain are looking so foolish," I said.
My aunt nodded. "I hope you're right. But now that you and your brothers and sisters are out there on the front lines, I just want you to be cautious and aware of the type of people you're up against."
It's funny to hear her say "front line". I instantly think of the people at the Media, PA office and here at DailyKos. I joke about having a Dem Mafia, but in likelihood, I'd worry more about a game of Trivial Pursuit breaking out at campaign headquarters than a revolution.
But in truth it’s people like us, chatting away in forums like this, who are on the front lines of one of the greatest cultural showdowns in our history.
Racism and prejudice have been at core of the political identity of the Republican party. Even if Obama is elected, he isn't going to be able to excise those qualities overnight. When you get a hard line Conservative into a heated discussion about this election, they always produce a Willie Horton or a Bill Ayers or some other contagious viral smear ready to infect their supporters with fears of terrorism or anti-white prejudice or whatever the code word happens to be this week.
They’re trying it even now, with the McCain campaign running ads showing Obama as darker than he is, next to other blacks in power alongside of a fearful looking white woman, switching a letter in his name to make it become "Osama" to invoke memories of 9/11. They are pulling out all of the stops. If one were to believe everything coming out of that camp, when Barack Obama is elected president, gangs of gay black Muslim immigrants will rape our children so they can force them all to have abortions.
But why not use smears? These tactics almost always worked in the past.
"This year is different, and that's why we're seeing the panic across the aisle. They aren't working anymore," I told her. "Sarah Palin’s claimed that Obama doesn’t see America as "you and I" and people didn't rise up to stand behind her, most people laughed at her."
She shook her head again. "That's good. Stay positive, baby. But just be careful."
I sat back. "I will. But I have to admit I can't wait to see some people's heads explode when he's elected. It's going to be a good day."
I was a little surprised when she frowned at me. "Hold no hatred in your heart. Do you think I'd have lived as long as I have if I held onto that anger?"
Zechariah Chaffee, Jr. once said, "The real value of freedom is not to the minority that wants to talk but to the majority that does not want to listen."
So after this election, the bigger issue of letting go of the anger, at least for me, will be the hardest thing of all.
Thanks for all those who indulged today's navel grazing. Eight more days.....
Posts
All Comments
