Difference between revisions of "Voting Rights Act of 1965"
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
*[[electoral fraud]] | *[[electoral fraud]] | ||
*[[Federal Election Commission]] | *[[Federal Election Commission]] | ||
| + | *[[gerrymandering]] | ||
*[[U.S. congressional elections in 2006]] | *[[U.S. congressional elections in 2006]] | ||
*[[U.S. election irregularities in 2000]] | *[[U.S. election irregularities in 2000]] | ||
Revision as of 10:51, 23 June 2006
Voting on the Voting Rights Act of 1965, up for renewal in 2007, was postponed on June 21, 2006, when House Republican leaders "complained it unfairly singles out nine Southern states for federal oversight," the Associated Press's Laurie Kellman wrote. The bill is H.R. 9. [1]
"The shift came after a private House GOP caucus meeting earlier [in the day] in which several Republicans also balked at extending provisions in the law that require ballots to be printed in more than one language in neighborhoods where there are large numbers of immigrants, said several participants." [2]
"The four-decade-old law enfranchised millions of black voters by ending poll taxes and literacy tests during the height of the civil rights struggle. A vote on renewing it for another 25 years had been scheduled for Wednesday, [June 21st] with both Republican and Democratic leaders behind it. ... The legislation was approved by the Judiciary Committee on a 33-1 vote. But despite leadership support, controversy has shadowed the legislation 40 years after it first prohibited policies that blocked blacks from voting." [3]
"'The speaker's had a standing rule that nothing would be voted on unless there's a majority of the majority,' said Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., who led the objections. 'It was pretty clear at the meeting that the majority of the majority wasn't there.' ... Several Republicans, led by Westmoreland, had worked to allow an amendment that would ease a requirement that nine states win permission from the Justice Department or a federal judge to change their voting rules.
"The amendment's backers say the requirement unfairly singles out and holds accountable nine states that practiced racist voting policies decades ago, based on 1964 voter turnout data: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia." [4]
Related SourceWatch Resources
- e-voting
- electoral fraud
- Federal Election Commission
- gerrymandering
- U.S. congressional elections in 2006
- U.S. election irregularities in 2000
- U.S. election irregularities in 2002
- U.S. election irregularities in 2004
- U.S. presidential election, 2004
- U.S. presidential election, 2004: The Culture War
- U.S. presidential election, 2004: Wedge Issues
- U.S. presidential election, 2008
- undermining elections
- voter outreach
External Links
- "Lynn Westmoreland is the new Jean Schmidt," So Far, So Left Blogspot, May 24, 2006: "Now it's freshman Republican Lynn Westmoreland who gets to spearhead an attack on" the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which is up for renewal in 2007. ref Jean Schmidt
- Laurie Kellman, "House Delays Renewal of Voting Rights Act," Associated Press (Boston Globe), June 21, 2006.
- Joanne Kenen, "Southern lawmakers delay voting rights bill," Washington Post, June 21, 2006.
- Charles Babington, "GOP Rebellion Stops Voting Rights Act. Complaints Include Bilingual Ballots and Scope of Justice Dept. Role in South," Washington Post, June 22, 2006.
- Samantha Levine, "Criticism from Texas Republicans halts renewal of Voting Rights Act. The lawmakers decry pivotal law's extra oversight of states with history of discrimination," Houston Chronicle, June 22, 2006.
- Editorial: "See-no-evil lawmakers," San Francisco Chronicle, June 22, 2006.
- Eugene Robinson, "Bigotry Beneath the Fog," Washington Post, June 23, 2006.
