Voting Rights Act

(Difference between revisions)Sections 2 and 5 are the most important parts of the Voting Rights Act.  Section 2 prohibits racial discrimination in elections nationwide, and is relatively non-controversial.  But Section 5 imposes "temporary" restrictions on certain "covered" regions that require those regions (9 states, mostly in the South, are covered in whole, and another 7 states are covered in part) to obtain pre-clearance by the federal government for any changes in election procedures.  This "temporary" restriction was intended to last only five years, but has been repeatedly been extended, most recently in 2006 for another 25 years.Sections 2 and 5 are the most important parts of the Voting Rights Act.  Section 2 prohibits racial discrimination in elections nationwide, and is relatively non-controversial.  But Section 5 imposes "temporary" restrictions on certain "covered" regions that require those regions (9 states, mostly in the South, are covered in whole, and another 7 states are covered in part) to obtain pre-clearance by the federal government for any changes in election procedures.  This "temporary" restriction was intended to last only five years, but has been repeatedly been extended, most recently in 2006 for another 25 years.Section 4 provides the formula for which jurisdictions are covered by Section 5.  Sections 4 and 5 are being challenged in ''Shelby County v. Holder'', to be decided by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in 2013.Section 4 provides the formula for which jurisdictions are covered by Section 5.  The formula was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013 in the case ''Shelby County v. Holder''The Act also outlawed literacy tests that once limited the right to vote in some areas to those who could read, as well as so-called "Grandfather Clauses".The Act also outlawed literacy tests.

The National Voting Rights Act of 1965[1] authorized, and in some areas required, federal oversight of elections. Many (but not all) of these areas were in the Democratically controlled South. The Act gave the Department of Justice the power to approve or reject any change in a voting law in certain districts where less than 50% of the population were registered to vote in 1964.

Sections 2 and 5 are the most important parts of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 prohibits racial discrimination in elections nationwide, and is relatively non-controversial. But Section 5 imposes "temporary" restrictions on certain "covered" regions that require those regions (9 states, mostly in the South, are covered in whole, and another 7 states are covered in part) to obtain pre-clearance by the federal government for any changes in election procedures. This "temporary" restriction was intended to last only five years, but has been repeatedly been extended, most recently in 2006 for another 25 years.

Section 4 provides the formula for which jurisdictions are covered by Section 5. The formula was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013 in the case Shelby County v. Holder

The Act also outlawed literacy tests.

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

The Act was passed by the U.S. Congress over strong opposition within the Democratic Party. President Lyndon Johnson asked Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen for help [2] in breaking the Democratic filibuster. Dirksen spoke on the Senate floor,

The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied. It is here!

Under Johnson, the Senate had not been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a Civil Rights Bill. With Republican support, the final count showed 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans voting to end the filibuster, with 23 Democrats and only 6 Republicans opposed. The formal Senate vote on the bill took place on June 19, 1964. It passed overwhelmingly, 73-27.

The final Senate vote on August 4 was 49 Democrats and 30 Republicans in favor, one Republican and 17 Democrats opposed. Segregationists who voted against the Voting Rights Act were J. William Fulbright [3], awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bill Clinton, and Al Gore, Sr., father of Democratic Presidential Nominee Al Gore.

In December 1989 a three-judge district federal court found that Bill Clinton had violated the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of fact in Clinton vs Jeffers [4] that the Arkansas governor and future Democratic president violated the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court Justices wrote,

Bill Clinton does not dispute here -- that violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment justifying equitable relief have occurred in Arkansas. In May 1990, the district court turned to those claims, holding that "the State of Arkansas has committed a number of constitutional violations of the voting rights of black citizens." J.S. App. A5. In particular, the court determined that the "State has systematically and deliberately enacted new majority-vote requirements for municipal offices, in an effort to frustrate black political success in elections traditionally requiring only a plurality to win." In 1990...Devotion to majority rule for local offices lay dormant as long as the plurality system produced white office-holders. But whenever black candidates used this system successfully -- and victory by a plurality has been virtually their only chance of success in at-large elections in majority-white cities – the response was swift and certain. Laws were passed in an attempt to close off this avenue of black political victory.

The court concluded these series of laws passed under Clinton

represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity. Such an attempt is plainly unconstitutional. It replaces a system in which blacks could and did succeed, with one in which they almost certainly cannot.

And most pointedly the

inference of racial motivation is inescapable.

Although the Act is over 40 years old and addresses issues from the early 1960s and before, in 2006 Congress passed a 25-year extension without meaningful debate. 33 House members opposed the 25-year extension, primarily because of the imposition of multilingual balloting. Not a single senator, however, voted against it, and President George W. Bush signed it into law.

The law now imposes a complex system of regulations that include forcing local governments to print multilingual ballots at their own expense, in many different foreign languages. It requires federal registration of voters in regions where less than 50% of minorities are registered.

In recent years it has enabled liberals in Washington, D.C. to block reforms such as voter ID sought by local jurisdictions in 16 states. However, it should be noted that Georgia's voter ID law was precleared and that a three-judge panel allowed South Carolina's voter ID law to take effect (albeit modified by a state interpretation during the trial).[5] The entire State of Texas was subjected to ongoing federal control of its elections until it successfully bails out of being a covered jurisdiction in part because Texas once printed its ballots in English rather than Spanish. Texas has also had more objections to changes in its voting procedures from 1966 to 2004 than any other covered state.[6]

? 42 U.S.C. § 1973-1973aa-6? Everett McKinley Dirksen's Finest Hour: June 10, 1964, The Peoria Journal Star, June 10, 2004, retrieved from The Dirksen Congressional center 05/20/07.? Picking the Team, TIME Magazine, December 12, 1960.? Findings of the Supreme Court of the United States in Clinton vs Jeffers No. 90-394 (1990) on appeal 730 F. Supp. 196, 198-201 (ED Ark. 1989) (three-judge court), aff'd, No. 89-2008 (Jan. 7, 1991).? South Carolina v. United States (D.D.C. 2012)? Northwest Austin Mun. Utility Dist. No. One v. Mukasey 573 F.Supp.2d. 221, 281 (D.D.C. 2008)

View the original article here

Voting Rights Act

(Difference between revisions)Sections 2 and 5 are the most important parts of the Voting Rights Act.  Section 2 prohibits racial discrimination in elections nationwide, and is relatively non-controversial.  But Section 5 imposes "temporary" restrictions on certain "covered" regions that require those regions (9 states, mostly in the South, are covered in whole, and another 7 states are covered in part) to obtain pre-clearance by the federal government for any changes in election procedures.  This "temporary" restriction was intended to last only five years, but has been repeatedly been extended, most recently in 2006 for another 25 years.Sections 2 and 5 are the most important parts of the Voting Rights Act.  Section 2 prohibits racial discrimination in elections nationwide, and is relatively non-controversial.  But Section 5 imposes "temporary" restrictions on certain "covered" regions that require those regions (9 states, mostly in the South, are covered in whole, and another 7 states are covered in part) to obtain pre-clearance by the federal government for any changes in election procedures.  This "temporary" restriction was intended to last only five years, but has been repeatedly been extended, most recently in 2006 for another 25 years.Section 4 provides the formula for which jurisdictions are covered by Section 5.  Sections 4 and 5 are being challenged in ''Shelby County v. Holder'', to be decided by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in 2013.Section 4 provides the formula for which jurisdictions are covered by Section 5.  The formula was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013 in the case ''Shelby County v. Holder''The Act also outlawed literacy tests that once limited the right to vote in some areas to those who could read, as well as so-called "Grandfather Clauses".The Act also outlawed literacy tests.

The National Voting Rights Act of 1965[1] authorized, and in some areas required, federal oversight of elections. Many (but not all) of these areas were in the Democratically controlled South. The Act gave the Department of Justice the power to approve or reject any change in a voting law in certain districts where less than 50% of the population were registered to vote in 1964.

Sections 2 and 5 are the most important parts of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 prohibits racial discrimination in elections nationwide, and is relatively non-controversial. But Section 5 imposes "temporary" restrictions on certain "covered" regions that require those regions (9 states, mostly in the South, are covered in whole, and another 7 states are covered in part) to obtain pre-clearance by the federal government for any changes in election procedures. This "temporary" restriction was intended to last only five years, but has been repeatedly been extended, most recently in 2006 for another 25 years.

Section 4 provides the formula for which jurisdictions are covered by Section 5. The formula was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013 in the case Shelby County v. Holder

The Act also outlawed literacy tests.

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

The Act was passed by the U.S. Congress over strong opposition within the Democratic Party. President Lyndon Johnson asked Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen for help [2] in breaking the Democratic filibuster. Dirksen spoke on the Senate floor,

The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied. It is here!

Under Johnson, the Senate had not been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a Civil Rights Bill. With Republican support, the final count showed 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans voting to end the filibuster, with 23 Democrats and only 6 Republicans opposed. The formal Senate vote on the bill took place on June 19, 1964. It passed overwhelmingly, 73-27.

The final Senate vote on August 4 was 49 Democrats and 30 Republicans in favor, one Republican and 17 Democrats opposed. Segregationists who voted against the Voting Rights Act were J. William Fulbright [3], awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bill Clinton, and Al Gore, Sr., father of Democratic Presidential Nominee Al Gore.

In December 1989 a three-judge district federal court found that Bill Clinton had violated the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of fact in Clinton vs Jeffers [4] that the Arkansas governor and future Democratic president violated the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court Justices wrote,

Bill Clinton does not dispute here -- that violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment justifying equitable relief have occurred in Arkansas. In May 1990, the district court turned to those claims, holding that "the State of Arkansas has committed a number of constitutional violations of the voting rights of black citizens." J.S. App. A5. In particular, the court determined that the "State has systematically and deliberately enacted new majority-vote requirements for municipal offices, in an effort to frustrate black political success in elections traditionally requiring only a plurality to win." In 1990...Devotion to majority rule for local offices lay dormant as long as the plurality system produced white office-holders. But whenever black candidates used this system successfully -- and victory by a plurality has been virtually their only chance of success in at-large elections in majority-white cities – the response was swift and certain. Laws were passed in an attempt to close off this avenue of black political victory.

The court concluded these series of laws passed under Clinton

represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity. Such an attempt is plainly unconstitutional. It replaces a system in which blacks could and did succeed, with one in which they almost certainly cannot.

And most pointedly the

inference of racial motivation is inescapable.

Although the Act is over 40 years old and addresses issues from the early 1960s and before, in 2006 Congress passed a 25-year extension without meaningful debate. 33 House members opposed the 25-year extension, primarily because of the imposition of multilingual balloting. Not a single senator, however, voted against it, and President George W. Bush signed it into law.

The law now imposes a complex system of regulations that include forcing local governments to print multilingual ballots at their own expense, in many different foreign languages. It requires federal registration of voters in regions where less than 50% of minorities are registered.

In recent years it has enabled liberals in Washington, D.C. to block reforms such as voter ID sought by local jurisdictions in 16 states. However, it should be noted that Georgia's voter ID law was precleared and that a three-judge panel allowed South Carolina's voter ID law to take effect (albeit modified by a state interpretation during the trial).[5] The entire State of Texas was subjected to ongoing federal control of its elections until it successfully bails out of being a covered jurisdiction in part because Texas once printed its ballots in English rather than Spanish. Texas has also had more objections to changes in its voting procedures from 1966 to 2004 than any other covered state.[6]

? 42 U.S.C. § 1973-1973aa-6? Everett McKinley Dirksen's Finest Hour: June 10, 1964, The Peoria Journal Star, June 10, 2004, retrieved from The Dirksen Congressional center 05/20/07.? Picking the Team, TIME Magazine, December 12, 1960.? Findings of the Supreme Court of the United States in Clinton vs Jeffers No. 90-394 (1990) on appeal 730 F. Supp. 196, 198-201 (ED Ark. 1989) (three-judge court), aff'd, No. 89-2008 (Jan. 7, 1991).? South Carolina v. United States (D.D.C. 2012)? Northwest Austin Mun. Utility Dist. No. One v. Mukasey 573 F.Supp.2d. 221, 281 (D.D.C. 2008)

View the original article here

Presidential Proclamation -- National Crime Victims' Rights Week, 2013

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK, 2013

- - - - - - -

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

Every year, millions of Americans fall victim to crime through no fault of their own. These are people we know: families trying to rebuild after financial fraud or identity theft, grandparents spending their golden years in the shadow of elder abuse, children whose right to safety has been stolen away by violence or neglect. Many struggle to get help in the aftermath of a crime, and some never report their crime at all. During National Crime Victims' Rights Week, we reaffirm our solemn obligation to ensure they get the services they need -- from care and counseling to justice under the law.

Thanks to thousands of victim assistance programs all across our country, we are making progress toward that goal. As dedicated advocates continue their important work, my Administration will continue to support them by raising awareness about victims' rights, making sure those rights are protected and practiced, and investing in training programs for law enforcement and other professionals. I was proud to sign the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act into law last month, preserving and strengthening critical services for victims of abuse. We have continued to crack down on financial crimes that leave too many families struggling to get back on their feet. And we are stepping up our efforts in the fight against human trafficking, whether it occurs halfway around the world or right here at home.

Even now, we have more work to do. As an epidemic of gun violence has swept through places like Newtown, Aurora, Oak Creek, and cities and towns all across America, our country has come up against the hard question of whether we are doing enough to protect our children and our communities. As Americans everywhere have stood up and spoken out for change, my Administration has responded with reforms that give law enforcement, schools, mental health professionals, and public health officials better tools to reduce violent crime. But we cannot solve this problem alone. That is why I will continue to fight for common-sense measures that would address the epidemic of gun violence and help keep our children safe.

By working to prevent crime and extend support to those in need, we keep faith with our fellow citizens and the basic values that unite us. Let us renew that common cause this week, and let us rededicate ourselves to advancing it in the year ahead.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 21 through April 27, 2013, as National Crime Victims' Rights Week. I call upon all Americans to observe this week by participating in events that raise awareness of victims' rights and services, and by volunteering to serve victims in their time of need.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this nineteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh.

BARACK OBAMA

National Park Week celebrates and gives back to our country’s great natural and cultural landscapes.

100 students from more than 40 states were at the White House for an all-day, hands-on celebration of the power and potential of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education.

President Obama hosts the 3rd Annual White House Science Fair and celebrate the student winners of a broad range of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) competitions from across the country.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

ACLU calls for Miranda rights for Boston bombing suspect

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is calling for the Obama administration to read the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings his legal rights.

The Department of Justice indicated Friday that the administration would not read 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights, citing a public safety exception.

But Anthony Romero, the ACLU's executive director, said Saturday that the immediate threat is over and that Tsarnaev, an ethnic Chechen who became a naturalized U.S. citizen last year, should now be treated like any other suspected criminal.

“Every criminal defendant is entitled to be read Miranda rights," Romero said in a statement. "The public safety exception should be read narrowly. It applies only when there is a continued threat to public safety and is not an open-ended exception to the Miranda rule."

Tsarnaev was captured Friday night in the Boston suburb of Watertown after leading law enforcers on a tense, day-long manhunt that captured the attention of the nation and locked down much of Greater Boston.

Tsarnaev and his older brother, Tamerlan, are suspected of planting the two bombs that detonated Monday near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring more than 170.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev was killed in a shootout with police in Watertown in the early hours of Friday morning. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured Friday night after another shootout with police roughly a mile away. 

Legal experts say the younger Tsarnaev, who remains in a Boston hospital in serious but stable condition, could face the death penalty if convicted on federal terrorism charges. 

A number of powerful Republicans – including Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.), as well as Rep. Peter King (N.Y.) – are urging the Obama administration to treat Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant.

"Under the Law of War we can hold this suspect as a potential enemy combatant not entitled to Miranda warnings or the appointment of counsel," McCain and Graham said Friday in a joint statement. "Our goal at this critical juncture should be to gather intelligence and protect our nation from further attacks."

Romero and the ACLU are pushing back against that notion, arguing that even those suspected of the most heinous crimes have constitutional protections that law enforcers must abide.

"Every criminal defendant has a right to be brought before a judge and to have access to counsel. We must not waver from our tried-and-true justice system, even in the most difficult of times,"  Romero said. 

"Denial of rights is un-American and will only make it harder to obtain fair convictions."

Miriam Conrad, public defender for Massachusetts, told the Associated Press that there are "serious issues regarding possible interrogation." The news service reported that federal public defender's office in Massachusetts will represent Tsarnaev once he is charged.

--This report was updated at 4:42 p.m.

View Comments

View the original article here

Rand Paul Falsely Says He Never Opposed The Civil Rights Act

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964's bans on whites-only lunch counters and discrimination by private employers. We know this because there are multiple videos of him opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964's bans on whites-only lunch counters and discrimination by private employers. Here’s video of him saying it to a Kentucky paper’s editorial board. Here’s a lengthy interview where he tries to defend his opposition to the Civil Rights Act to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. Here’s video from just last year of him defending his father’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act (according to Rand Paul, “it’s not all about race relations, it’s about controlling property, ultimately.”) Still don’t believe that Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act? You can watch this embedded video of Paul saying that “the hard part about believing in freedom” is that you have to oppose the Civil Rights Act:

Nor is this a particularly new position for Sen. Paul. In a 2002 letter to his hometown newspaper, Paul wrote that “[a] free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination – even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin.”

So it is a bit baffling that Paul told an audience at the historically black Howard University today that he actually believes something else:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), a proponent of civil liberties, told a professor on Wednesday that he never opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“I’ve never been against the Civil Rights Act. Ever,” he said during a question and answer session at the historically black Howard University in Washington.

“This was on tape,” countered the questioner.

“I have been concerned about the ramifications of the Civil Rights Act beyond race…but I’ve never come out in opposition,” Paul clarified.

Again, Paul has never said that he is “concerned about the ramifications of the Civil Rights Act beyond race.” He’s said — repeatedly, over a period of many years, and sometimes on video — that he opposes applying federal civil rights law to private businesses, such as the private business where this picture was taken:

View the original article here

Private Prison Firm Pulls Funding For College Stadium Naming Rights

Florida Atlantic University’s football stadium will no longer be named after a notorious private prison corporation, after GEO Group announced Monday it would withdraw its $6 million pledge to the university, saying it has “surprisingly evolved into an ongoing distraction.”

The announcement in February that the university would rename its stadium garnered immediate outcry and protests, and the reaction should not have been so surprising. GEO Group, the second-largest operator of U.S. private prisons, has become known for reports of juvenile abuse, deaths, and riots at its facilities, and has poured money into Florida politics as the legislature considered proposals to privatize the state’s prison health care. GEO executives escalated the controversy over associating college football with prison by falsely denying reports that GEO had overseen a facility that a federal judge described as a “cesspool of unconstitutional and inhuman acts.” The $6 million pledge paid out over 12 years would have been the largest one-time gift in the history of FAU athletics, signaling both the monetary influence of the private prison industry, and its willingness to wield that influence to secure a better reputation. Instead, the company said it would make one $500,000 donation toward the school’s scholarship program.

View the original article here

Conservative Pundit Says Country Shouldn’t Move Too Fast In Granting Equal Marriage Rights To Gays

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan said this morning that a Supreme Court decision leaving the states to decide whether or not to allow same-sex marriage was in the best interest of Americans, because it would ensure that the country didn’t move too fast in granting equal marriage rights to all of its citizens.

Noonan said on ABC’s This Week that Americans “don’t take it well” when the Supreme Court makes decisions that affect the entire country — such as declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional or repealing the Defense of Marriage Act — and said one of the “great sins” of Roe v. Wade was that it took power away from the states:

NOONAN: Oh, George Will said something here a few weeks ago, he said, look, opposition is literally dying out — it is the older Americans, not the younger Americans. One of the things that I like by the way about a compromise in which state by state does it, it’s not only about localities and keeping power local — it also takes a little time. Sometimes it’s good when everything takes a little time to settle itself out. May I note, by the way, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a famous court liberal, her acknowledging very recently, in the “Times” today, that the Roe v. Wade decision, the abortion decision, had gone too far and was an overreach, that is an epic statement.

Noonan’s reference to Ruth Bader Ginsburg came from a speech the Supreme Court justice gave at Columbia Law school last year, in which she said Roe v. Wade went “too far, too fast.” But Noonan’s appeal to let the issue take time to “settle itself out” ignores the fact that activists have been fighting for marriage equality for nearly 40 years. And her insinuation that Americans won’t like it if the Court declares a ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional ignores that support for marriage equality is at an all time high: a Washington Post-ABC News poll found 58 percent of Americans support gay marriage rights, up from 37 percent in 2003. That 58 percent includes 81 percent of youth, which lends credibility to Noonan’s insight that opposition to marriage equality is dying out.

View the original article here

Strengthening the inter-American human rights system

Strengthening the inter-American human rights system - The Hill's Congress Blog @import "/plugins/content/jw_disqus/tmpl/css/template.css"; li.item435,li.item437,li.item439,li.item441,li.item443,li.item497,li.item499,li.item501,li.item503,li.item605,li.item689,li.item691,li.item693,li.item695,li.item697,li.item683,li.item685{display: none;} var _comscore = _comscore || []; _comscore.push({ c1: "2", c2: "10314615" }); (function() { var s = document.createElement("script"), el = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.async = true; s.src = (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://sb" : "http://b") + ".scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js"; el.parentNode.insertBefore(s, el); })(); function getURLParameter(name) { return decodeURI( (RegExp(name + '=' + '(.+?)(&|$)').exec(location.search)||[,null])[1] );}(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=369058349794205"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); if (getURLParameter("set_fb_var") == '1') { jQuery.cookie('set_fb_var', 'true', { expires: 7, path: '/' }); return true; } if (!jQuery.cookie('set_fb_var') && d.referrer.match(/facebook.com/i)) { window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({ appId : '340094652706297', status: true, xfbml: true, cookie: true, oauth: true }); }; }}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));if((navigator.userAgent.match(/iPhone/i)) || (navigator.userAgent.match(/iPod/i))) {document.write('');}if(navigator.userAgent.match(/iPad/i)) {document.write('');}if(navigator.userAgent.match(/Android/i)) {document.write('');} Follow!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");Advanced Search Options » Home/NewsSenateHouseAdministrationCampaignPollsBusiness & LobbyingSunday Talk ShowsCampaignBusiness & LobbyingK Street InsidersLobbying ContractsLobbying HiresLobbying RevenueOpinionColumnistsEditorialsLettersOp-EdWeyants WorldCapital LivingCover StoriesFood & DrinkNew Member of the Week20 QuestionsMy 5 Min. W/ObamaAnnouncementsMeet the LawmakerJobsVideoGossip: In The Know Briefing RoomRegWatchHillicon ValleyE2-WireFloor ActionOn The MoneyHealthwatchTransportationDEFCON HillGlobal AffairsCongressBallot BoxIn The KnowPunditsTwitter Room HomeSenateHouseAdministrationCampaignPollsBusiness & LobbyingSunday Talk ShowsBlogsBriefing RoomRegWatchHillicon ValleyE2-WireFloor ActionOn The MoneyHealthwatchTransportationDEFCON HillGlobal AffairsCongressBallot BoxIn The KnowPunditsTwitter RoomOpinionA.B. StoddardBrent BudowskyLanny DavisDavid HillCheri JacobusMark MellmanDick MorrisMarkos Moulitsas (Kos)Robin BronkEditorialsLettersOp-EdsJuan WilliamsJudd GreggChristian HeinzeKaren FinneyJohn FeeheryCapital LivingCover StoriesFood & DrinkAnnouncementsNew Member of the WeekMy 5 Min. W/ObamaAll Capital LivingVideoHillTubeEventsVideoClassifiedsJobsClassifiedsResourcesMobile SiteiPhoneAndroidiPadLawmaker RatingsWhite PapersOrder ReprintsLast 6 IssuesOutside LinksRSS FeedsContact UsAdvertiseReach UsSubmitting LettersSubmitting Op-edsSubscriptions   Strengthening the inter-American human rights systemBy Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.)-03/22/13 10:30 AM ET Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");

This Friday, the Foreign Ministers of the Americas are gathering in Washington D.C. at the august headquarters of the Organization of American States (OAS). There are a good number of these meetings throughout the year, and we could be forgiven for not noticing. But this one is different and we should pay attention. The stated reason for the meeting is to “strengthen” the Inter-American Human Rights (IACHR) system”, the jewel of the OAS. In fact, this gathering is the culmination of a process in which the hemisphere’s most egregious human rights violators seek to do the exact opposite – weaken the region's human rights structures.

The OAS, like the U.N., has moments when it gets little love in the U.S. foreign policy establishment. In the last Congress, we even had several attempts to stop paying U.S. dues to the OAS, the only one of several regional organizations of which we are a member. Thankfully, these never made it very far. The OAS is, after all, a collection of governments who make collective decisions which often do not live up to the expectations of individual member states.  So it often gets treated as a punching bag for all the ills and failings of our neighborhood – until we need it, of course. And boy do we need it now. Simply stated, the IACHR is under fire and in great danger of being gutted.
 
The IACHR has a long and storied history. It faced down the dictatorship in Argentina in the 70s and 80s. It has been virtually alone in a steady drumbeat of criticisms of the excesses of the Chavez government in Venezuela. It has never stopped issuing reports on the horrible human rights situation in Cuba.  It indefatigably champions the rights and safety of individual human rights defenders in the region, the men and women that put themselves in harms way to call attention to specific problems in their countries. And yes, even the U.S. has not escaped its occasional chastising.    
 
No country likes to be told that they are a human rights violator – especially by a club of which they are a member. In fact, it is a wonder that this human rights system has survived with this level of effectiveness for as long as it has. It represents, I believe, a testament to the level-headed, democratic regional consensus that emerged in the post-dictatorship era of the Americas.    
 
It is no secret that the move to gut the human rights system is spearheaded by those OAS member states that least resemble mature democracies:  Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. Ecuador’s President Correa, in particular, cannot get over the fact that the IACHR --- especially its special rapporteur on Freedom of Expression ---- has publicly called him out for his systematic assault on free expression in his own country. By a combination of intimidation, expropriation of media outlets, and targeted fines using vague laws prohibiting “biased” reporting, Correa has effectively silenced his few remaining detractors in the media.  Correa has announced his plans to  attend the OAS meeting this Friday so we can hear from him loudly and clearly.
 
I have traveled significantly in the region and, as former chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee and now ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I am persuaded that the majority of our neighbors in the Americas have internalized the democratic paradox that we are strengthened by having an effective human rights defender which might periodically criticize our behavior when we stray from democratic norms. And many OAS member states and their people have directly and immeasurably benefited from the checks and balances provided by the IACHR in the past several decades. If these member states have been waiting for the best moment to say their piece and defend the jewel of the OAS, I respectfully submit that the time is now.
 
Engel is the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and represents the 16th Congressional District of New York, including parts of the Bronx and Westchester Country.
 

Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=369058349794205"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); View Comments Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/289811-strengthening-the-inter-american-human-rights-systemThe contents of this site are © 2013 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc. The Hill Archives: Senate | House | Administration | Campaign | Business & Lobbying | Capital Living | OpinionView News by Subject:
Defense & Homeland Security | Energy & Environment | Healthcare | Finance & Economy | Technology | Foreign Policy | Labor | Transportation & InfrastructureGO TO THE HILL HOME » More Videos »

Congress Blog
Most Popular StoriesMost ViewedAid reform delivering resultsEnhancing America's image in the worldUS is unprepared to face another TB epidemicStrengthening the inter-American human rights systemAgencies should treat discrimination as a misuse of federal fundsEmailedArbitrary soda ban does nothing to resolve obesity Paul-Leahy sentencing bill will ensure time fits the crimeObama in Israel: Tourism or opportunityUS is unprepared to face another TB epidemicStemming the tide of military suicideDiscussedTWA flight attendants deserve earned seniority restored before merger is approvedProtect rights of artists in new copyright lawSenate budget is a bad choice for AmericaStemming the tide of military suicidePerez is the best choice to head Labor DepartmentBlog Home »Most Viewed RSS Feed »  More Foreign Policy HeadlinesAid reform delivering resultsEnhancing America's image in the worldObama and the Palestinian detainee generationMore Foreign Policy Headlines » Foreign Policy News RSS feed »  Congress Blog Topics Campaign » Cardoza's Corner » Civil Rights » Economy & Budget » Education » Energy & Environment » Foreign Policy » Healthcare » Homeland Security » Judicial » Labor » Lawmaker News » Politics » Presidential Campaign » Religious Rights » Technology » The Administration »Briefing RoomSenate moving through 400 amendments on way to budgetChristie opposes 'conversion therapy'Biden fuels 2016 speculation with fundraisers in key Dem primary states
More Briefing Room »Congress BlogEnvironmentalists shouldn't side with Big Oil against biofuelsSeismic testing will inform sound energy decisionsRestricting drug patent settlements would result in protracted litigation
More Congress Blog »Pundits BlogSame-sex marriage: From hot-button issue to litmus testCan the Republican Party recover from Iraq? Can America?Shocker: Hillary crushes Rubio and Bush in Florida, annihilates Perry in Texas
More Pundits Blog »Twitter RoomObama Twitter retweets Yoko Ono photo of John Lennon's bloody glassesNotre Dame sends Obama neon jersey after sartorial swipeFormer Defense chief Rumsfeld's Iraq war tweet sparks support and backlash
More Twitter Room »Hillicon ValleyNews bites: Google's Schmidt calls for Internet freedom in MyanmarFCC's Genachowski to step downOVERNIGHT TECH: Negotiations continue over CISPA
More Hillicon Valley »E2-Wire (Energy)Senate Democrats in 'reply mode' on climate budget amendmentsObama taps nuke safety chief Macfarlane for new termNews bites: Obama to announce national monuments, Apple’s data going green, and more
More E2-Wire (Energy) »Ballot BoxReport: Clinton urging Judd, Grimes to run for Senate in KentuckyBillionaire opens attack on Lynch in Mass. Senate race over Keystone XLCLF attacks two House freshmen on budget in first ads of 2014 cycle
More Ballot Box »On The MoneyGrassley pushes for consumer bureau watchdog in budget amendmentWaters calls for funds to rehab foreclosed propertySupport grows for renewing fast-track authority
More On The Money »HealthwatchInsurers spent little on quality improvement, study findsNRCC launches anti-'ObamaCare' fundraising siteNews bites: Health reform at 3
More Healthwatch »Floor ActionGOP bill would block political robo-callsSenate rejects repeal of healthcare law, againSenate rejects plan to tie tax hikes to lower unemployment
More Floor Action »TransportationRep. Shuster applauds Amtrak decision to continue Pennsylvania serviceNews bites: Pilot error133 lawmakers demand TSA reverse to allows knives on planes
More Transportation »DEFCON HillReport: US drone strike kills four in Pakistan Three killed in shooting, suicide at Quantico Marine Corps. baseOVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Sen. Levin backs GOP over Syria
More DEFCON Hill »Global AffairsObama gets diplomatic win with Netanyahu apology to Turkey Congress axes Pakistan counterinsurgency fundTop Republican on intel panel joins call for arming rebels in Syria
More Global Affairs »In The KnowFBI director hasn't seen 'Zero Dark Thirty'Gary Sinise: If you do good things, 'somebody wants you to run for office'Jill Biden, Sen. Gillibrand honored as Elle and Gucci's 'luminaries'
More In The Know »RegWatchGOP lawmaker: No more food stamps to buy junk foodCordray vows to soldier on at consumer bureauAdministration: $20 million in grants for background checks
More RegWatch » Blogs News FeedCongress Blog RollCapital GamesDaily KosDCCCDNCDrudge ReportDSCCJudicial WatchNRCCNRSCPolitical AnimalRNCThe ChamberPostThe CornerThe Huffington PostThe NoteThe Plank COLUMNISTSA.B. StoddardGOP infightingBrent BudowskyCordray, Warren, 2014More Columnists »

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.

Home/NewsNews by SubjectBlogsBusiness & LobbyingOpinionCapital LivingSpecial ReportsJobsVideo Home | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Contact | Advertise | RSS | Subscriptions

The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax

The contents of this site are © 2013 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.

View the original article here

Statement by NSC Spokesperson Caitlin Hayden on UN Human Rights Council Vote on Sri Lanka

Statement by NSC Spokesperson Caitlin Hayden on UN Human Rights Council Vote on Sri Lanka | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama Get Email UpdatesContact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts 2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2012 Annual Report to Congress 2011 Annual Report to Congress 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff A Commitment to Transparency

Browse White House visitor logs

Issues Civil Rights It Gets Better Defense End of Iraq War Disabilities Economy Jobs Reform and Fiscal Responsibility Strengthening the Middle Class A Plan for Refinancing Support for Business Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Immigration Reform Taxes Tax Receipt The Buffett Rule Rural Urban Policy Veterans Joining Forces Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Creating Jobs Health Care Small Business PreK-12 Education Women Violence Prevention Now Is The Time

To do something about gun violence

Immigration Reform

Creating an Immigration System for the 21st Century

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Chief of Staff Denis McDonough Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco Counselor to the President Peter Rouse Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House White House On the Go

Download our mobile apps

Easter Egg Roll

Be Healthy, Be Active, Be You: April 1, 2013

Inside the White House Interactive Tour West Wing Tour Video Series Décor and Art Holidays Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows President’s Commission About the Fellowship Current Class Staff Bios News and Newsletters White House Internships About Program Presidential Department Descriptions Selection Process Internship Timeline & FAQs Tours & Events 2013 Easter Egg Roll Kitchen Garden Tours Take a Virtual Tour of the White House Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources /* Maximize height of menu features. */if(typeof(jQuery)!='undefined')jQuery.each($('#topnav'),function(i,v){var o=$(v),oh=o.height(),sh=o.siblings().height();if(oh Home • Briefing Room • Statements & Releases   The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release March 21, 2013 Statement by NSC Spokesperson Caitlin Hayden on UN Human Rights Council Vote on Sri Lanka

The United States welcomes today’s passage of the UN Human Rights Council resolution on “Promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka.” This resolution, which the United States co-sponsored as part of a cross-regional group, calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to fulfill its commitments to promote meaningful reconciliation for all Sri Lankans. The resolution also encourages the Government to credibly investigate allegations of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law as Sri Lanka continues to heal from more than two decades of conflict. Today’s vote sends a clear message that the international community is committed to working with the Government of Sri Lanka to promote greater peace, stability, and prosperity for all of the people of Sri Lanka.

Blog posts on this issue March 22, 2013 11:20 AM EDTFirst Lady Michelle Obama Visits Military Families at the Fisher House and Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

First Lady Michelle Obama (and First Dog Bo) celebrate an early Easter with military families

March 22, 2013 11:01 AM EDTLloyd Austin to Lead U.S. Central Command

The general becomes the first African-American in the post.

March 22, 2013 10:28 AM EDTBeing Biden Vol. 2: A Good Omen

In the latest installment of the audio series "Being Biden," the Vice President takes you to St. Peter's Basilica, just after the Inauguration Mass of Pope Francis.

view all related blog posts ul.related-content li.views-row img {float: left; padding: 5px 10px 0 0;}ul.related-content li.view-all {padding-bottom: 3em;} Stay ConnectedFacebookTwitterFlickrGoogle+YouTubeVimeoiTunesLinkedIn   Home The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Issues Civil Rights Defense Disabilities Economy Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Taxes Rural Urban Policy Veterans Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Women Violence Prevention The Administration President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Inside the White House Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows White House Internships Tours & Events Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job

View the original article here

How Kansas’ Anti-Abortion Bill Launches A Sweeping Attack On Women’s Rights

Not to be outdone by states like North Dakota and Arkansas that have recently passed record-breaking abortion restrictions, Republicans in Kansas are advancing a stringent anti-abortion bill that combines several attacks on reproductive rights into one omnibus measure.

HB 2253 is a 70-page piece of legislation that failed last session, when the Senate was more moderate — but since anti-choice state lawmakers won big victories in the 2012 election, Kansas’ abortion opponents are seizing the opportunity to push it through this year. The House approved the bill by a 92-31 vote on Wednesday afternoon, and it’s also expected to pass in the GOP-controlled Senate, where Republican leaders have promised to “violating medical privacy laws by allowing state auditors to demand access to individuals’ medical records. The bill would also target groups affiliated with abortion providers by preventing them from receiving the same tax breaks that other organizations do.

3. Requires doctors to give women biased information about the dangers of having an abortion. Under the omnibus bill, doctors would be required to provide women with disputed information about abortion risks. Of course, every patient undergoing a medical procedure should be fully educated about the risks — but these kind of “informed consent” sessions are a popular anti-choice tactic specifically designed to dissuade women from terminating a pregnancy. Doctors would need to tell women about a potential link between abortion and breast cancer, even though medical experts don’t believe there’s a connection between the two.

4. Doesn’t include exceptions for victims of rape or incest. One Kansas lawmaker attempted to amend the bill to include a exception for some of Kansas’ existing abortion laws — including the state’s late-term abortion ban, restrictions on insurance coverage of abortion, and a requirement for minors to get parental consent for abortion services — in cases of rape or incest. Women’s health advocates call such policies “common-sense, compassionate exceptions,” particularly for minors who may have become pregnant from incest and can’t get permission from a family member to terminate the pregnancy. But Republicans in the House voted it down on Tuesday, saying they weren’t interested in revisiting the details of the nearly two dozen abortion restrictions that are already on the books.

5. Restricts the use of comprehensive sex ed resources in public schools. The bill contains a clause that prohibits anyone who works for an abortion provider from also working in a school — a provision intended to specifically target Planned Parenthood and prevent the women’s health organization from providing students with any comprehensive sexual health instruction. Originally, it was so broadly worded that it would have also prevented any parent who works for an abortion provider from volunteering at their child’s school. It’s since been tweaked to specify that volunteering is okay.

Kansas’ omnibus bill is similar to a controversial package of abortion restrictions that Michigan lawmakers forced through their lame duck session at the end of last year. Women’s health advocates warn that HB 2253 represents the “biggest threat this year” to Kansas women’s access to reproductive rights.

View the original article here

NPS regains rights to bowel drug from Takeda

NEW YORK -- NPS Pharmaceuticals Inc. said Tuesday it is regaining the overseas marketing rights to its bowel drug Gattex and another product from Japanese drugmaker Takeda, and NPS shares surged in morning trading.

NPS is regaining rights to develop and sell the short bowel syndrome drug Gattex, which is also called Revestive, as well as a hormone drug called Preotact, in all countries. Preotact is approved in Europe as a treatment for post-menopausal osteoporosis, and NPS is trying to get it approved in the U.S. as a treatment for hypoparathyroidism under the name Natpara. NPS said it will also get assets related to the two products.

Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. had the right to develop and market the drug in most countries other than the U.S. Takeda will get $50 million in NPS stock, and it can get a milestone payment of $30 million the first year that combined sales of the drugs exceed $750 million. NPS can choose to make that payment in cash or stock.

Shares of NPS Pharmaceuticals rose $1.54, or 17 percent, to $10.58 in morning trading.

The generic name of Gattex and Revestive is teduglutide. The drug is designed to treat short bowel syndrome, a potentially life-threatening chronic condition that prevents patients from absorbing nutrients from food. People with short bowel syndrome are prone to malnutrition, diarrhea and dehydration. Teduglutide is a pill taken once a day and it is intended to reduce the need for intravenous nutrition in adult patients.

Hypoparathyroidism is a deficiency of parathyroid hormone.

NPS is based in Bedminster, N.J. It licensed Preotact to Swiss drugmaker Nycomed in 2004, and Nycomed licensed Revestive in 2007. Takeda bought Nycomed in 2011.

View the original article here

Queen ‘Fights’ For Gay Rights Without Mentioning Them

Headlines this weekend praised The Queen for promoting gay rights in a new Commonwealth Charter, which includes this commitment to civil rights:

We are implacably opposed to all forms of  discrimination, whether rooted  in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds.

The “other grounds” is meant to refer to sexuality, but was kept ambiguous because some of the commonwealth countries still have strict laws against homosexuality. Her live speech will add that rights must “include everyone,” apparently another nod at gay rights.

Though the public display of her signing and live speech is notable, British LGBT groups are not impressed by the allusion. Prominent activist Peter Tatchell had higher expectations:

TATCHELL: In her 61 years on the throne, the Queen has never publicly uttered the words lesbian or gay. She is a patron of hundreds of charities but none of them are gay ones. Never once has she visited or supported a gay charity. In truth, the Commonwealth Charter does not include any specific rejection of discrimination based on sexual orientation. This was vetoed by the homophobic majority of member states. [...]

While I doubt that Elizabeth II is a raging homophobe, she certainly doesn’t appear to be gay-friendly. Not once during her reign has she publicly acknowledged the existence of the LGBT community… Astonishingly, since she became Queen in 1952, the words ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ have never publicly passed her lips. There is no record of her ever speaking them. Even when she announced government plans for gay law reform in her Queen’s Speeches, she did not use the words lesbian or gay. Apparently, mentioning LGBT people is beneath the dignity of the monarch.

The Guardian’s Patrick Strudwick similarly notes that “to refrain from specification is to collude with silence, the Grand Pause that keeps lesbians and gay men invisible, suffocating in marriages of inconvenience or trapped in police cells.”

The charter is a worthwhile commitment to civil rights in commonwealth countries and also includes support for gender equality and women’s empowerment. Still, claims that The Queen is suddenly “fighting” for gay rights seems to be quite the overstatement.

View the original article here

Supreme Court justices hint at striking Voting Rights Act provision

The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared likely to strike down a key part of the Voting Rights Act, the landmark civil rights law designed to protect minority voters from discrimination.

The court’s conservative justices were at times hostile to the law’s requirement that states with a history of discrimination gain “preclearance” from the federal government before changing their voting procedures.

Justice Antonin Scalia called the policy an example of “racial entitlement” — a comment that seemed to strike a nerve with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, underscoring the delicate racial politics at play in the case.

Democratic lawmakers, civil rights leaders and hundreds of activists rallied outside the court Wednesday, arguing that the Voting Rights Act is still a necessary tool to fight discrimination. Some lawmakers had to duck out of the arguments halfway through in order to help unveil a statue of Rosa Parks across the street in the Capitol.

“I am proud to stand with my colleagues today to send a clear message to the public and to the court that the right to vote is not a matter of race, entitlement or partisanship,” said Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio), the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

But inside the court’s chambers, lawyers arguing in favor of the Voting Rights Act clearly struggled to convince skeptical conservatives that the preclearance requirements are still needed.

Congress has reauthorized the Voting Rights Act several times, most recently in 2006, but it has not changed the criteria for determining which states and municipalities must get clearance before changing their voting procedures. States bound by the preclearance rules say the outdated rules intrude on their right to set their own election laws.

Scalia suggested that Congress could not be trusted to scrap preclearance requirements when they become outdated. He noted that each time the Voting Rights Act has been reauthorized, it has passed by a wider margin in the Senate. Lawmakers might simply be too timid to vote against it, he said.

“I think it is very likely attributable to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement,” Scalia said. “It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), who attended part of the oral arguments, said Scalia’s comment was “unfortunate.” Equal voting rights are indeed an entitlement, he said — and have been since 1870, when Congress passed the 15th Amendment to the Constitution.

Sotomayor also seized on Scalia’s comments, asking a lawyer arguing against the Voting Rights Act, “Do you think Section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement” and “Do you think racial discrimination has ended?”

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s traditional swing vote, compared the preclearance requirement to previous acts of Congress that worked well in their time but are no longer relevant.

“The Marshall Plan was very good, too — the Northwest Ordinance, the Morrill Act — but times change,” Kennedy said.

Chief Justice John Roberts pursued the same point, pressing Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., who represented the Obama administration, to explain why the preclearance requirements are still necessary.

Verrilli defended the 2006 reauthorization as a “cautious choice” supported by a rigorous set of congressional findings. Some specific forms of discrimination that existed in 1965 are extinct, such as literacy tests, he said, but the point of preclearance is to prevent states from devising new methods of voter suppression.

States and municipalities subject to the Voting Rights Act had to file 3,700 preclearance requests in 2005, but the Justice Department only objected to one proposed change, Roberts said.

He also said the biggest discrepancies in voter turnout and registration are in states that do not have to file preclearance requests.

“Is it the government’s submission that the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North?” Roberts asked Verrilli.

The court’s more liberal members questioned lawyers challenging the preclearance requirements about the lingering specter of racial discrimination, and also questioned whether Shelby County, Ala., which brought the lawsuit, should be able to get itself out of the preclearance requirements by citing improvements in other states.

“Why would we vote in favor of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with?” Sotomayor asked.

Alabama’s voting practices have been successfully challenged more than almost any state in the country, Justice Elana Kagan said, making the state a bad messenger for scrapping the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance requirements.

“I mean, you’re objecting to a formula, but under any formula that Congress could devise, it would capture Alabama,” she said to Bert Rein, the attorney representing Shelby County.

Even before Wednesday’s oral arguments, there were signs that Section 5 might be in trouble. The Supreme Court expressed “serious misgivings” about the provision in a 2009 case, saying the requirements intruded into an area that has traditionally belonged to state and local governments.

The court avoided a broad ruling on constitutional grounds in that case, but its decision to take up the issue again four years later was seen as a strong indication that those misgivings had grown.

President Obama also seemed to signal last week that a loss at the Supreme Court was possible, if not likely. Obama said in a local television interview last week that losing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act would not cause people to lose their right to vote.

“People will still have the same rights not to be discriminated against when it comes to voting,” Obama said. “You just won’t have this mechanism, this tool, that allows you to kind of stay ahead of certain practices.”

A ruling is expected in late June or early July.

— Updated at 8:23 p.m.

View Comments

View the original article here