Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are currently arguing the merits of the Voting Rights Act, in particular its most controversial component, Section 5. This provision mandates the following: any change in electoral procedures in specified states with a history of discrimination must be cleared with the U.S. Department of Justice.
During the debate earlier today, Justice Antonin Scalia, the most vocally conservative member (as opposed to Clarence Thomas, the most silently conservative justice) made a remark that caused audible gasps in the courtroom. He declared that "the Voting Rights Law is a perpetuation of racial entitlement." Hmmm! I had never realized that the right to vote was ever considered an "entitlement" rather than a right. (You're some teacher, Mr. Scalia, you really are).
Most states affected by the mandate have a sordid history of imposing draconian limits on the electoral rights of African Americans. However, prior to the 2012 elections, many Republican-dominated state legislatures throughout the country have crafted measures designed to disenfranchise groups likely to vote Democratic; specifically minorities, low-income households, and students. But millions of determined voters in affected states heroically defied the roadblocks, often enduring hours-long waits.
Many states are attempting to mandate voter ID laws, allegedly to combat vote fraud, which is virtually non-existent. Pennsylvania is a perfect case for expansion of Section 5. (State Senate Majority Leader Mike Turzai, infamously crowed that the voter ID law "would allow Romney to win Pennsylvania"). Because time was limited for obtaining IDs, voters were given a reprieve for the 2012 elections. But the state has every intention of enforcing it in 2014.
What's really mind-boggling to me is that Congress has routinely reauthorized the Voting Rights Act; it was last renewed in 2006, unanimously in the Senate. (Even Alabama Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions voted aye).
Yet the unelected Supreme Court may have it in its crosshairs!
A decision is expected in May or June. Justice Anthony Kennedy may furnish the pivotal vote. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Thursday, February 14, 2013
State of the Union Speech: Chock Full of Good Intentions
President Obama wasted no words. While it wasn't humanly possible to address every salient issue in an hour-long speech, (for instance, the postal service's fiscal troubles weren't mentioned), he managed to cover a lot of territory.
As promised, the focus was primarily on economic concerns; matters that resonate with folks beyond the Beltway, the ones who keep this nation vital. At times he did reach across the aisle, acknowledging that both parties have worked to lower the deficit. He also noted that the Senate passed the Violence Against Women Act (every Democrat and half ---<only half!> --- the Republicans supported it. House Republicans were urged to give it the high sign too).
However, in light of the Republicans' overall unwillingness to compromise during his first term, the President appears to have been chastened. He knows that the programs he proposed will have popular support, regardless of lack of congressional will.
Still, in light of frequent criticism for federal overreach, Obama made an effort to recognize the beneficial work of state programs. For example, during his promotion of pre-school education, he cited successful operations in Georgia and Oklahoma, among the reddest of red states. He also emphasized that the return on investment in such initiatives --- both human and capital --- would far outweigh the costs.
But despite congressional Republicans' insistence that there'll be no discussion of generating more tax revenue, the President spoke of closing corporate tax loopholes (which deny the government billions of desperately-needed dollars), and raising taxes for companies that outsource jobs, while lowering them for firms that create domestic employment.
Among other highlights of his speech were proposals for an Energy Security Trust, a "Fix It First" program for long-overdue infrastructure upgrades and repairs, and a bill to make it easier to refinance homes. In all cases, public-private partnerships were emphasized.
Not to be overlooked was the most emotional part of the evening. Acknowledging that both parties appeared to be in synch regarding background checks, Obama appealed to Congress to pass meaningful controls on the distribution of firearms and ammunition. He stated, "We must protect our most precious resource: our kids."
Honoring the memory of Hadiya Pendleton, a Chicago honors student (whose parents were seated with Michelle Obama), he appealed to the Congress to cast their ballots in behalf of sensible gun-control legislation. The President further cited the venues of other recent massacres: Newtown; Tucson; Aurora, Colorado; Blacksburg (Virginia Tech); and Oak Creek, Wisconsin. "These families (of survivors) all deserve your vote," he declared.
If legislation regarding background checks does pass, it'll be a significant achievement. But even in the aftermath of Newtown, the chances of any sort of firearms or ammunition control measures seeing the light of day seem dicey at best. Hopefully I'm wrong.
Recent polls, especially issue-oriented ones, indicate that Obama and the congressional Democrats have a strong mandate. Non-Tea-Party Republicans are surely aware of this. But still, too many, especially in the Republican leadership seem unwilling to give an inch. Their overarching concern seems to be getting "primaried" from the right in 2014.
I guess the question is, will the Obama Administration's noble intentions be allowed to wither in legislative limbo? Or will the Republicans come to their senses?
One final item to consider: the sequester-fueled budget "super-cuts" --- a creation of the Congress --- are two weeks shy of kicking in! Mr. McConnell, Mr. Boehner?
As promised, the focus was primarily on economic concerns; matters that resonate with folks beyond the Beltway, the ones who keep this nation vital. At times he did reach across the aisle, acknowledging that both parties have worked to lower the deficit. He also noted that the Senate passed the Violence Against Women Act (every Democrat and half ---<only half!> --- the Republicans supported it. House Republicans were urged to give it the high sign too).
However, in light of the Republicans' overall unwillingness to compromise during his first term, the President appears to have been chastened. He knows that the programs he proposed will have popular support, regardless of lack of congressional will.
Still, in light of frequent criticism for federal overreach, Obama made an effort to recognize the beneficial work of state programs. For example, during his promotion of pre-school education, he cited successful operations in Georgia and Oklahoma, among the reddest of red states. He also emphasized that the return on investment in such initiatives --- both human and capital --- would far outweigh the costs.
But despite congressional Republicans' insistence that there'll be no discussion of generating more tax revenue, the President spoke of closing corporate tax loopholes (which deny the government billions of desperately-needed dollars), and raising taxes for companies that outsource jobs, while lowering them for firms that create domestic employment.
Among other highlights of his speech were proposals for an Energy Security Trust, a "Fix It First" program for long-overdue infrastructure upgrades and repairs, and a bill to make it easier to refinance homes. In all cases, public-private partnerships were emphasized.
Not to be overlooked was the most emotional part of the evening. Acknowledging that both parties appeared to be in synch regarding background checks, Obama appealed to Congress to pass meaningful controls on the distribution of firearms and ammunition. He stated, "We must protect our most precious resource: our kids."
Honoring the memory of Hadiya Pendleton, a Chicago honors student (whose parents were seated with Michelle Obama), he appealed to the Congress to cast their ballots in behalf of sensible gun-control legislation. The President further cited the venues of other recent massacres: Newtown; Tucson; Aurora, Colorado; Blacksburg (Virginia Tech); and Oak Creek, Wisconsin. "These families (of survivors) all deserve your vote," he declared.
If legislation regarding background checks does pass, it'll be a significant achievement. But even in the aftermath of Newtown, the chances of any sort of firearms or ammunition control measures seeing the light of day seem dicey at best. Hopefully I'm wrong.
Recent polls, especially issue-oriented ones, indicate that Obama and the congressional Democrats have a strong mandate. Non-Tea-Party Republicans are surely aware of this. But still, too many, especially in the Republican leadership seem unwilling to give an inch. Their overarching concern seems to be getting "primaried" from the right in 2014.
I guess the question is, will the Obama Administration's noble intentions be allowed to wither in legislative limbo? Or will the Republicans come to their senses?
One final item to consider: the sequester-fueled budget "super-cuts" --- a creation of the Congress --- are two weeks shy of kicking in! Mr. McConnell, Mr. Boehner?
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Harrumphing Old White Dudes Always Vote
Unlike most other demographic groups, those old white guys always manage to honor their right to vote. They may devote the shank of their days to hawking and patooeying, polishing and carressing their Buicks, and harrumphing --- cluelessly --- about how the young 'uns have it so easy. No matter. By gum, they're gonna show up to punch that ballot!
This li'l factoid has an impact. In 2010, the last midterm election --- and a census year to boot --- two vital demographic groups stayed home in significant numbers: young voters (18-29) and minorities. These are two of the three key demographic groups most likely to vote Democratic, the other being women.
Here's the data; Young voters represented 18% of those who voted in 2008, as opposed to 11% in 2010. 22% of those who cast their ballots in 2010 were non-white versus 26% in 2008. One more li'l tidbit of datum: 60% of white voters supported Republican congressional candidates in 2010, in contrast to 37% for Democrats.
It's probably a safe bet to assume that the statistical breakdown was similar for state-level elections: gubernatorial and legislative contests. So, because 2010 was a census year, state legislatures --- in most states now dominated by Republicans --- got to rejigger boundaries of congressional districts to favor their candidates.
So, despite the fact that roughly a million more votes nationwide were cast for Democratic candidates, Republicans still managed to retain a significant majority in The House. Recent issue-oriented polls indicate that we are a nation that cherishes humane values. (See previous post). But if the folks who really believe in a caring society stay home during the next midterm election in 2014, their hopes and aspirations won't matter. The Harrumphing Old White Dudes will continue to have their way with us.*
It's not too early to think ahead.
* Oh, by the way, I consider "Harrumphing Old White
Dudes" to be a state of mind that transcends age, gender,
and race (despite my initial, literal description of them).
Among this cast of characters are such "old
fossils" as Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Mitch
McConnell, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Sarah Palin,
Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Allen West ---
as well as those who support(ed) them.
This li'l factoid has an impact. In 2010, the last midterm election --- and a census year to boot --- two vital demographic groups stayed home in significant numbers: young voters (18-29) and minorities. These are two of the three key demographic groups most likely to vote Democratic, the other being women.
Here's the data; Young voters represented 18% of those who voted in 2008, as opposed to 11% in 2010. 22% of those who cast their ballots in 2010 were non-white versus 26% in 2008. One more li'l tidbit of datum: 60% of white voters supported Republican congressional candidates in 2010, in contrast to 37% for Democrats.
It's probably a safe bet to assume that the statistical breakdown was similar for state-level elections: gubernatorial and legislative contests. So, because 2010 was a census year, state legislatures --- in most states now dominated by Republicans --- got to rejigger boundaries of congressional districts to favor their candidates.
So, despite the fact that roughly a million more votes nationwide were cast for Democratic candidates, Republicans still managed to retain a significant majority in The House. Recent issue-oriented polls indicate that we are a nation that cherishes humane values. (See previous post). But if the folks who really believe in a caring society stay home during the next midterm election in 2014, their hopes and aspirations won't matter. The Harrumphing Old White Dudes will continue to have their way with us.*
It's not too early to think ahead.
* Oh, by the way, I consider "Harrumphing Old White
Dudes" to be a state of mind that transcends age, gender,
and race (despite my initial, literal description of them).
Among this cast of characters are such "old
fossils" as Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Mitch
McConnell, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Sarah Palin,
Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Allen West ---
as well as those who support(ed) them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)