Scalia the misunderstood

[howeird]

People don't read past the headline or the 10-second sound byte. The media sensationalizes these. So I posted this on FB for all the knee-jerks who were pounding on Justice Scalia for suggesting that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was an outdated, "racial entitlement". It's outdated, but it's more discrimination against a handful of states who sucked in 1964.

Here's what I posted:
This is for all my friends who have been lambasting Justice Scalia for his recent remarks about the Voting Rights Act. First of all, he was *not* talking about the whole Act, he was talking about a specific pair of sections, 4 and 5, which make extra demands of certain states and counties.

He made the unfortunate choice of words calling it an "entitlement". That was stupid. But the law is narrow, it only protects cases of race discrimination, and it treats some parts of the country differently than others, when (IMHO) the Act should apply evenly to all places Americans vote.

Details:
From the DOJ web site: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/about.php

"Section 5 freezes election practices or procedures in certain states until the new procedures have been subjected to review, either after an administrative review by the United States Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This means that voting changes in covered jurisdictions may not be used until that review has been obtained."

The states which the law singles out are:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. None of these has changed since 1975, many since 1965. The original list was drawn up as a result of incidents in 1964.

In California it targets Kings, Merced, Monterey and Yuba counties (The DOJ took Merced off the list last year)
In New York there is the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Manhattan.
5 counties in Florida, but not Dade.
Most of North Carolina
Two counties in South Dakota
Two townships in Michigan (Clyde & Buena Vista)
and 10 towns in New Hampshire.

It does not protect the elderly (a big one for Florida the last two Presidential elections) or gays, or people wearing skullcaps, turbans or other marks of their religion.

Comments

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

So is Justice Scalia saying, as you are, that these provisions should apply everywhere Americans vote, or that they should be removed?

I'm an observer from a distance, but the impression I get is that, particularly in the areas you list, the attitudes that led to the actions that necessitated the Act are still largely prevalent. Things haven't changed that much. Like you, I think the provisions should apply equally in all states and areas, because those attitudes might spread, and should protect anyone who might at any point be subjected to discrimination through changes in voting policy on the part of state governments.

But if Mr Scalia is saying that those provisions should be removed, that they are no longer needed...then I think he's mistaken at very least.

[howeird]

Good questions. Scalia was being racist in his remarks, there is no doubt in my mind about that. However, he was right about Section 5 needing to be revisited. Section 5 is an extreme measure, requiring Department of Justice's or a Washington DC Federal court's permission to make any change in voting - those targeted states can't even change a polling place from a school which has closed to a nearby fire station without this permission.

Most of the areas listed no longer have the problem of trying to keep voters away from the polls because of their race. There are still lots of racists around, but they aren't interfering with non-whites getting their vote in. Obama's two elections are pretty solid proof of that, as well as many minorities in those areas being elected at all levels of government.

The problems we saw in 2000, 2004 and 2008 were about Republicans manipulating the process to keep Democrats from voting (in some cases stealing ballots before they could be counted), regardless of race.

My belief is the Voting Rights Act needs to be brought into line with all the other rights acts (housing, education, etc.) which prohibit ALL discrimination everywhere in the USA and its territories, not just race discrimination, and without special circumstances for places which had issues 50 years ago.