 |
| Earl Simpson being arrested at his place of employment for "Trespassing." The store owner installed a camera to document police harassment. |
READ MORE...
 |
 |
Showing posts with label racial discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racial discrimination. Show all posts
'Stop & Frisk' and Racist Policing: Cops Arrest Man 56 Times for Trespassing - At His OWN Job - Terrorizing Blacks To Inflate Arrest Stats
READ MORE...
The 'History' of Thanksgiving - Which 'Truth' Should We Tell?: Sweetness and Light - Or, Savagery and Strife?
The 'Real History' of Thanksgiving
Which 'truth' should we tell?
 |
One history tells us that the first Thanksgiving was a celebration of the multiple massacres of Native Americans. |
________________
But then. . .
 |
Another history tells us that the first Thanksgiving was a celebration of love and unity between Native Americans and the Pilgrims. . . |
Detroit Police Officer Humiliates Mentally Ill Black Man: Made Him Dance 'Like a Chimp' - Cops Posted Videos and Pics Degrading Black Men
By Nicole Flatow
A suburban Detroit police officer admitted he asked a mentally ill black man to sing and dance and video recorded the incident.
Videos and and photos with degrading portrayals of black men were submitted earlier this month to the blog, Motor City Muckraker, purportedly from officers who disseminated them to friends and colleagues in the upper class, majority-white Michigan suburb of Grosse Pointe Park. One video portrayed a voice alleged to be an officer asking black men to do humiliating tasks, including “dance like a chimp.” In another incident, an officer allegedly texted a photo of a black man in the back of his trailer with the text, “Gotta love the coloreds.” The journalist, Steve Neavling, told the Huffington Post that he has more than a dozen videos shot by officers, but has not shared most of them because of their “humiliating nature.”
READ MORE...
China, Stop Calling Uyghur Muslims Terrorists
Ethnic Uyghur Muslims are more and more often associated with the term “terrorist” in China. Local authorities and media outlets often define violent incidents in border regions as terrorist activity. This official definition has turned random individual criminal acts into the collective responsibility of an ethnic minority and resulted in the labeling of its members as terrorist suspects.
By Oiwan Lam
The latest officially defined “terrorist case” happened on November 16 2013 in Xinjian Bachu county. Eleven people were killed in a police station, two were local police officers and nine were Muslim Uyghurs from Bachu county.
 |
| Uyghur elders with child. (Photo: Todenhoff) |
The Xinjiang local authorities quickly defined the incident as a violent terrorist attack and claimed that stability was effectively restored as the nine violent assaulters were shot dead. However according to Radio Free Asia, people who surrounded the police station had managed to capture the young attackers alive while the police officers chose to shoot them dead on the spot. As all the witnesses aside from the police are dead, it keeps people wondering what had exactly happened inside the police station.
Chinese dissident Hu Ping raises a number of questions about the incident:
In reply to Hu Ping, IIham Tohti, an Uyghur university professor, stressed the need to revise the Chinese government's ethnic policy:
A few months ago in April, a similar ethnic clash happened in the same Bachu police station and the violence left 21 people dead, including 15 police officers and government officials. The incident was also defined as a terrorist assault.
Against the background of the establishment of a top-level national security committee (NSC), many believe that ethnic minorities in border areas will become the target of anti-terrorist security control. For example, Kai Lei, a media worker from pro-Chinese government newspapers Wenhui Bao, urged the NSC to adopt a hard-handed policy in districts such as Bachu:
Yet the definition of terrorist assault is highly problematic in China as anonymous writer from Uighurbiz.net, “Little grand father_Aike” pointed out. The writer compared two sets of incidents in 2013 to indicate the arbitrary definition of a violent terrorist assault: the June 7 Fujian bus station arson vs. the October 28 Beijing Tiananmen Jeep cash incident, and the August 25 Chengdu hospital assault vs. the November 16 Bachu police station assault.
The arson case in Fujian left 47 dead and 34 injured, and the police said it was committed by an angry and desperate individual and defined as a criminal case. The Beijing case resulting in five dead and 38 injured was defined an organized terrorist attack. Among the dead were the three Uyghur sitting inside the Jeep.
The writer pointed out that the very definition of the crimes has instigated different reactions to the criminals. In the first casex people see it as an individual act of insanity, but in the latter case as an ethnic-based organized terrorist act:
When comparing the Chengdu assault and the Bachu assault, even though the Chengdu one was well planned and specifically targeted at medical workers in a hospital, which resulted in five dead and 11 injured, the case was defined a random act of individuals, while the Bachu case, in which the nine assaulters were shot dead on the spot, was defined as a terrorist act:
He urges authorities to reflect on the ethnic policy and help minorities establish a positive image of the ethnic group:
Reprinted with permission from Global Voices.
George Zimmerman Charged With Aggravated Assault - Held Without Bail: Alleged to have Pointed Shotgun at Girlfriend - Police Seek Search Warrant for Guns
Since his aquittal in the murder of black teen Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman has been called a "ticking time bomb" by the Police Chief of the town where he resided and his estranged wife has expressed doubts about his innocence in the murder of Trayvon Martin.
 |
| Protesters at the Minneapolis, MN rally in response to George Zimmerman's not guilty verdict, July 15, 2013. (Photo: Fibonacci Blue) |
George Zimmerman has been arrested for domestic violence in Orlando, FL according to a report from the Associated Press. Seminole County Sheriff deputies reportedly responded to 911 "disturbance call" at a house. The alleged "domestic dispute" involved a girlfriend who was not Zimmerman's estranged wife.
Zimmerman's girlfriend, Samantha Schiebe, told the 911 dispatcher that Zimmerman broke furniture and pointed a shotgun at her, according to Dennis Lemma, chief deputy with the Seminole County (FL) Sheriff's Office. Zimmerman was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, a felony, other misdemeanor charges and held without bail. A search warrant is being sought to hunt for guns believed to be hidden inside of the home where Zimmerman was arrested.
911 CALL
George Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering teenager Trayvon Martin. He was later involved in a domestic violence dispute with his estranged wife who has revealed doubts about his innocence in the killing of Trayvon Martin. The Police Chief in the Florida town where Zimmerman once resided has called Zimmerman a "ticking time bomb" and another "Sandy Hook" waiting to happen.
George Zimmerman Arrested in Another Domestic Violence Incident
Since his aquittal in the murder of black teen Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman has been called a "ticking time bomb" by the Police Chief of the town where he resided and his estranged wife has expressed doubts about his innocence in the murder of Trayvon Martin.
 |
| Protesters at the Minneapolis, MN rally in response to George Zimmerman's not guilty verdict, July 15, 2013. (Photo: Fibonacci Blue) |
George Zimmerman has been arrested for domestic violence in Orlando, FL according to a report from the Associated Press. Seminole County Sheriff deputies reportedly responded to 911 "disturbance call" at a house. The alleged "domestic dispute" involved a "girlfriend" who was not Zimmerman's estranged wife.
George Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering teenager Trayvon Martin. He was later involved in a domestic violence dispute with his estranged wife who has revealed doubts about his innocence in the killing of Trayvon Martin. The Police Chief in the Florida town where Zimmerman once resided has called Zimmerman a "ticking time bomb" and another "Sandy Hook" waiting to happen.
Black Teen Murdered While Seeking Help After A Car Accident - Was Shot Through A Locked Screen Door
19-Year-Old Died Nov. 2 After Being Shot in the Face - Killer charged with murder and possession of a firearm. Which raises the question: If killer's firearm possession was illegal, why wasn't he arrested on the spot?
A suburban Detroit homeowner who shot a woman on his porch in the middle of the night was charged Friday with second-degree murder in connection with the case, Wayne County prosecutors said.
Theodore P. Wafer, 54, of Dearborn Heights, Mich., also is facing charges of manslaughter and possession of a firearm... Authorities saw no evidence of forced entry on Wafer's home. Renisha McBride allegedly was shot after knocking on the locked front screen door. Evidence suggests that Wafer opened the front door before he fired through the closed and locked screen door, she said.
READ MORE...
 |
| Poster: dignidadrebelde |
A suburban Detroit homeowner who shot a woman on his porch in the middle of the night was charged Friday with second-degree murder in connection with the case, Wayne County prosecutors said.
Theodore P. Wafer, 54, of Dearborn Heights, Mich., also is facing charges of manslaughter and possession of a firearm... Authorities saw no evidence of forced entry on Wafer's home. Renisha McBride allegedly was shot after knocking on the locked front screen door. Evidence suggests that Wafer opened the front door before he fired through the closed and locked screen door, she said.
READ MORE...
Murder and Manslaughter Charges for Man Who Shot Teen Seeking Help After Car Accident
Killer Claimed His Gun Went Off by Accident, His Lawyer Later Said the Killing was "Justified"
By Ronald Jackson
Theodore Wafer will be charged with murder and manslaughter, according to Wayne County Prosecutor Kim Worthy. The 54-year-old Wafer shot dead 19-year-old Renisha McBride in the early morning hours of Nov 2, when she knocked on his door seeking help after a car accident. The incident took place in Dearborn Heights, MI.
Wafer told police he thought Ms. McBride was trying to break into his house and his gun discharged by accident, hitting McBride in the face with a shotgun blast. However, his lawyer later claimed that the killing was "justified."
Wafer was not arrested after the killing. There has been a national outcry over the incident because Wafer had not been arrested, charged, or even named by the police or prosecutor's office until today.
Some have argued that if the shooter had been black and the victim white, the shooter would have been arrested and charged immediately. Wafer is expected to turn himself in Friday afternoon.
 |
| Poster: dignidadrebelde |
Theodore Wafer will be charged with murder and manslaughter, according to Wayne County Prosecutor Kim Worthy. The 54-year-old Wafer shot dead 19-year-old Renisha McBride in the early morning hours of Nov 2, when she knocked on his door seeking help after a car accident. The incident took place in Dearborn Heights, MI.
Wafer told police he thought Ms. McBride was trying to break into his house and his gun discharged by accident, hitting McBride in the face with a shotgun blast. However, his lawyer later claimed that the killing was "justified."
Wafer was not arrested after the killing. There has been a national outcry over the incident because Wafer had not been arrested, charged, or even named by the police or prosecutor's office until today.
Some have argued that if the shooter had been black and the victim white, the shooter would have been arrested and charged immediately. Wafer is expected to turn himself in Friday afternoon.
David Gregory's Curious History of the Tea Party
By
During his interview with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney (11/3/13), NBC Meet the Press host David Gregory offered up this fanciful account of the Tea Party movement's origins during a discussion about internal GOP fights:
Look, the reason there is a Tea Party right now goes back to President Bush. I actually think it goes back to the beginning of a more robust security state after 9/11; the government expands to deal with security. There's also Medicare Part D. There's a lot of government spending, and then there's ultimately the bailouts, which conservatives start to rebel against. And then President Obama continues that.This is the kind of rhetoric Tea Party figures like to trot out when critics note that a movement that claims to be concerned about government spending was sure quiet (or nonexistent) during the Bush years. But Gregory arguably manages to take it one step further by linking the right-wing movement to a critique of the national security state and Medicare Part D.
 |
| NBC Meet the Press Host, David Gregory interviews Mitt Romney. |
Which Tea Party movement is this?
As a refresher: The movement really geared up in the wake of comments by CNBC host Rick Santelli (2/19/09), who was outraged by government plans to offer help to distressed homeowners (i.e., not the Wall Street bailouts). His call for "tea party" protests against policies to help these "losers"–issued just a month after Obama's inauguration–resulted in the first wave of such protests. Glenn Beck, then a host at Fox News Channel, took up the cause too. Some of the most visible examples of Tea Party activism were the "town hall" protests against what would eventually become the Affordable Care Act. The Tea Party "brand" was adopted by many well-known, well-connected figures in the Republican Party, like Dick Armey.
What did they all want? It wasn't always clear; as Steve Rendall and I wrote (Extra!, 5/10), the movement is full of political contradictions that media often failed to explore, but
there's one consistency they ignore in painting Tea Partiers as wholesome adherents to small government, constitutional principles and so on: the movement’s singular and often racialized loathing of Barack Obama.Corporate pundits have spent years coming up with more flattering descriptions of the Tea Party than what they most clearly seem to represent. New York Times columnist Tom Friedman said they "began as a protest against Republicans for being soft on deficits." His colleague David Brooks wrote that the "Tea Parties are right about the unholy alliance between business and government that is polluting the country." Someone should alert the Koch Brothers!
Newsweek's Jon Meacham once wrote that the Tea Party could be good for everyone, since it was about "the recovery of the spirit of the American Founding." Time's Michael Crowley suggested the movement was animated by disgust with Wall Street; they believe that "Washington and Wall Street are in bed together, colluding for power and profit at the expense of the little guy." He also argued that Tea Partiers are about calling out "an elite Washington–New York establishment that lies to the public to cover for policies that enrich the wealthy and strengthen the powerful."
This is a remarkably charitable view of an obviously right-wing movement that began just as soon as a black Democrat took office. That's not to say that all Tea Party activists are motivated by a racialized loathing of Barack Obama; but to suggest that the Tea Party exists to express dissatisfaction with both major parties and the national security state, and that Obama's presidency just so happened to coincide with the rise of this movement, stretches even the most active imagination.
Reprinted with permission from Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting.
US Police Have Killed Over 5,000 Civilians Since 9/11
“A big majority of those killed are Latinos and Black people,” while the police officers are mostly White, says Mike Prysner, one of the local directors of the Los Angeles chapter for ANSWER — an advocacy group that asks the public to Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. “It’s a badge of honor to shoot gang members so [the police] go out and shoot people who look like gang members,” Prysner argued, giving the example of 34-year-old Rigoberto Arceo, who was killed by police on May 11.
READ MORE...
READ MORE...
Killing of Woman Seeking Help After Car Accident Called 'Justified' By Lawyer - After Shooter Claimed Gun Discharged 'Accidentally'
Evidence In Renisha McBride Case Will Show Shooting Was ‘Justified,’ Says Homeowner’s Lawyer (via http://mybeautifullife.me)Lawyer Says Evidence to Be Released From Huffington Post: DETROIT — The lawyer for a man implicated in the shooting of 19-year-old Renisha McBride believes evidence will show her client’s actions were “justified.” McBride died after being…
RELATED STORY
"KNOCKING WHILE BLACK": Renisha McBride Shooter Tells Police that he Discharged his Gun 'Accidentally'
Israel Government Plan for 'Jewish' Negev Town Called 'Racist' by Israeli Rights Organizations
Israeli plan for Jewish Negev town 'racist' (via AFP)An Israeli human rights organisation on Monday accused the government of promoting "racist" policies in its decision to establish a Jewish town in the place of a Bedouin village. The cabinet on Sunday approved the establishment of "two new communities…
VETERANS DAY: The Pacific - The Warriors That HBO Forgot
Veterans Day
Thanks Vets!
Thanks Vets!
Wilfred Jackson: United States Navy - SEABEES
World War II - "The Pacific"
World War II - "The Pacific"
________
The Warriors That HBO Forgot
It took me less than 5 minutes to find these photographs and
accompanying information online. So why were blacks almost
(if not completely) absent from HBO's World War II series "The Pacific"
(produced by Steven Spielberg & Tom Hanks)
and almost every other Hollywood movie
about WW II in "The Pacific?"
accompanying information online. So why were blacks almost
(if not completely) absent from HBO's World War II series "The Pacific"
(produced by Steven Spielberg & Tom Hanks)
and almost every other Hollywood movie
about WW II in "The Pacific?"
This video is dedicated to the black men and women
who served and died in The Pacific during WW II.
Little Coverage of the Wrong Sort of Terror
US journalists have a hard time knowing what to do with terrorism stories when the culprits are not Muslim, even though, in their own country, the vast majority of terrorism is carried out by non-Muslims (Extra!, 8/13).
By
Pavlo Lapshyn was sentenced to 40 years in prison in a British courtroom on October 25 (Guardian, 10/25.) Lapshyn was convicted of stabbing to death 82-year-old grandfather Mohammed Saleem on April 29, as he returned from evening prayers at a Birmingham mosque; and planting at least three bombs targeting Muslims, one that authorities say would have been lethal had a scheduled mosque prayer service not been postponed.
 |
| White supremacist killer Pavlo Lapshyn. |
"I have a racial hatred," Lapshyn told investigators. "I would like to increase racial conflict, because they are not white and I am white."
This story of terrorism hardly registered in US news media. According to the Nexis news database, Mohammed Saleem and Pavlo Lapshyn were mentioned in just 10 US newspaper and news wire stories, most of them brief Associated Press and States News Service wires (e.g., Associated Press, 10/25; States News Service, 19/25). The New York Times was alone among major newspapers, running a detailed report on October 23.
Saleem’s story can be contrasted with that of British Army Sergeant Lee Rigby, murdered by Islamist assailants in a London street a few weeks later. Rigby and his killers, Michael Adebowale and Michael Adebolajo, were mentioned in 570 US newspapers and news wire stories.
 |
LAX shooter, Paul Ciancia, was a racist and homophobe with terrorist intent but was not called a terrorist by big media in America. |
Reprinted with permission from Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting.
How the Supreme Court Decision on the Voting Rights Act is Affecting State Laws
A look at those states where Republicans are using the Supreme Court's recent decision on the Voting Rights Acts to turn back the clock on voting rights.
by Kara Brandeisky and Mike Tigas ProPublica, Nov. 1, 2013.
Last year, we wrote extensively about photo ID laws and the Supreme Court's decision to strike a key section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now, with gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, and the debt ceiling and healthcare debates already shaping the 2014 midterms, we're revisiting voting policies to see which states have enacted tougher restrictions since the Supreme Court ruling in June.
Remind me – what is Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?
Under the Voting Rights Act, states and localities with a history of racial discrimination needed to get permission from the federal government to enact any changes to their voting laws, in a process called "preclearance." As of June 2013, nine states, mostly in the South – Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia – needed to get any new voting laws pre-approved. Some counties and townships in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota and Michigan were also subject to preclearance. Section 5 first applied to states that imposed literacy tests or other unfair devices, and had low voter registration or turnout. Congress later expanded the law to add jurisdictions with sizable minority populations and English-only election materials. States and localities could "bailout," or get off the preclearance list, after 10 years of elections without any problems. Several smaller jurisdictions bailed out over the years, including parts of Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Hawaii, and Colorado. Of course, some of the biggest voting law battles of the 2012 election were in states not covered by Section 5 at all, such as Pennsylvania and Ohio.
What did the Supreme Court strike down in Shelby County v. Holder?
The Supreme Court decided, 5-4, that the preclearance formula was unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment, which gives states the power to regulate elections. The Court ruled that the coverage formula was "based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relation to the present day."
From the decision:
One important technical point: the Supreme Court actually left Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act – the part of the law that describes how preclearance works – intact. Instead, the Court struck down Section 4, which explains which states and localities are subject to preclearance. If Congress amends Section 4, the Justice Department can start enforcing Section 5 again.
Why does this matter?
While literacy tests are a thing of the past, voting rights advocates say that statutes that limit early voting and registration, require voters to show photo ID, and purge voter rolls still disproportionately affect poor and minority voters. The Supreme Court's June 2013 decision also effectively shifted the burden from states to citizens. Before, a state subject to preclearance had to demonstrate that a new voting law was not discriminatory and let voting law experts in the Justice Department evaluate it before it could be implemented. Now it is up to voters to challenge voting laws by filing lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination. But most court cases involving Section 2 have been limited to redistricting, not other controversial voting measures, says Yale University law professor Heather Gerken.
"With redistricting, there's always one very wealthy political party or another who can hire some very good lawyers and go into court and challenge it," Gerken said. "But a lot of the types of things that were challenged under Section 5 were smaller questions, like, ‘Can you change a polling place? Can you shut down early voting hours in ways that might affect the black community?' There are things smaller than redistricting that can fall through the cracks."
What have preclearance states done since the Supreme Court ruling?
NORTH CAROLINA: Two months after the Supreme Court decision, North Carolina passed a number of measures, including strict new photo ID requirements. The law also eliminates same-day voter registration, shortens the early voting period by seven days, and specifies that ballots cast at the wrong polling station will be thrown out. Some changes will be phased in starting in 2014, and the photo ID provision goes into effect in 2016.
The North Carolina NAACP and a civil rights group called the Advancement Project have filed a lawsuit challenging the changes. The Justice Department also filed a suit of its own. But the suits venture into some new legal territory.
"What North Carolina did was definitely at the extreme of practices in this country," Gerken said. "So if anything is vulnerable to a suit, it's likely to be the North Carolina law. But again, the case law was built around redistricting cases. It wasn't built around this kind of work."
TEXAS: Last year, a federal court rejected Texas' voter ID law, calling it "the most stringent in the country." The panel also rejected the state's redistricting maps, finding that they protected white incumbents while altering districts with minority incumbents. But on the very day of the Supreme Court ruling, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the state would "immediately" enact both measures.
The photo ID law requires voters to present an approved form of photo identification, where before they could present mail, utility bills or other proof of voter registration. The Justice Department had refused to approve the law based on the state's findings that Hispanic registered voters were far less likely to have the approved photo IDs. The new law also requires the photo ID presented on voting day to match the state's voter rolls — complicating voting for some married women and others with name changes.
The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against the newly enacted photo ID requirements and joined an ongoing lawsuit against the disputed redistricting maps.
FLORIDA: After the Supreme Court ruling, Florida resumed its plans to remove non-citizens from its voter rolls using the federal SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) database. The Department of Homeland Security database helps government agencies check the immigration statuses of people applying for government benefits like drivers' licenses, housing assistance, or Medicaid. But opponents of Florida's measure say that SAVE data is faulty and not meant for elections, and that using the database to verify voter rolls will disenfranchise eligible voters. (Colorado legislators rejected a bill to purge rolls based on SAVE data for this very reason, but that didn't stop Secretary of State Scott Gessler from moving ahead with the plan.) The Miami Herald found that Florida voters flagged for verification were disproportionately Hispanic, and most turned out to be citizens. The Department of Justice has also said that SAVE is not meant to be "a comprehensive and definitive listing of U.S. citizens," especially since it doesn't include data about people born in the United States.
A nonprofit group has challenged the law, but a federal court dismissed the lawsuit after the Supreme Court ruled that Florida was no longer subject to preclearance. Another group has appealed a similar case to the 11th Circuit.
VIRGINIA: Virginia passed a number of voting laws this spring that seem likely to go into effect in wake of the Supreme Court ruling.
The Virginia legislature passed a photo ID law last year (which the Justice Department approved), but the more recent measure goes further to limit what kinds of voter identification are acceptable. Voters can no longer show utility bills, bank statements, government checks or paychecks before they vote, but they can get an ID for freeif they don't already have one.
The new laws also require the Virginia State Board of Elections to remove ineligible voters by comparing state voter rolls with the SAVE database and other states.The Democratic Party of Virginia has sued the state over the interstate crosschecks, contending that the database has erroneous information and the law will disenfranchise poor, elderly and minority voters, but a federal judge rejected the suit for lack of evidence. As of Oct. 17, the Board of Elections had already purged more than 38,000 voters.
SOUTH CAROLINA: In October 2012, a federal court blocked the implementation of South Carolina's photo ID law until 2013. The court found that although the law was not discriminatory, there was not enough time to implement changes before the 2012 election. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson said the Supreme Court ruling now allows states to "implement reasonable election reforms, such as voter ID laws similar to South Carolina's."
MISSISSIPI: Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann said Mississippi will enact a strict photo ID law by 2014. The state says it will provide free transportation to government offices where voters will be able to obtain free photo IDs.
ALABAMA: Secretary of State Beth Chapman said Alabama would also enact changes to its photo ID law by 2014. Like Virginia, Alabama used to accept other kinds of non-photo identification, such as utility bills and Social Security cards. But the new law requires voters to present photo IDs (the state will also provide free voter IDs to those who don't have them). Legislators passed the measure in 2011, but Alabama stalled in submitting the law for preclearance.
ARIZONA: The Supreme Court issued another significant ruling on voting laws this summer: In Arizona et al. v Intertribal Council of Arizona, Inc. et al., the Court ruled that Arizona, formerly a preclearance state, could not unilaterally require voters to show proof of citizenship before registering to vote in a federal election. But the Court said Arizona could sue the Election Assistance Commission to get the federal voter registration form amended to require proof of citizenship. Now, both Arizona and Kansas have sued the commission.
In case their legal challenges are unsuccessful, the states are setting up two-tiered systems of voter registration, requiring proof of citizenship for state and local races but not federal ones. So far, Kansas has suspended registration for about 17,500 voters until those they submit proof of citizenship.
SOUTH DAKOTA: Four Directions Inc., a Native American voting rights group, has asked the Justice Department to investigate why Secretary of State Jason Grant has so far refused to use federal money to fund satellite voting centers for registration and early voting on some Native American reservations.
What about non-preclearance states?
The 35 states that were not subject to any kind of preclearance were unaffected by the Supreme Court decision. But several of those states have also moved to tighten voting rules this year.
ARKANSAS: This spring, Republican legislators overrode the governor's veto to pass a law requiring voters to show photo IDs. If voters don't have them, they can cast provisional ballots and return with IDs by the Monday after the election. The state will also provide free IDs to people who do not already have them.
IOWA: In late March, Iowa implemented an administrative rule allowing Secretary of State Matt Schultz to begin a voter roll purge using the SAVE database. Activists have sued Schultz in an attempt to stop the purge.
INDIANA: In May, Indiana enacted a law requiring officials to check voter rolls for individuals registered to vote in other states. The advocacy group Project Vote worries that the measure could lead to voter purges.
MONTANA: After Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock vetoed a measure that would have eliminated same-day voter registration, the legislature decided to let the people decide. In 2014, Montana citizens will vote in a referendum on whether to keep same-day registration. Backers of the measure say it will cut down on lines at the polls.
NEBRASKA: This spring, Nebraska shortened early voting by 10 days. Voters will still be able to vote in the 25 days leading up to an election.
NORTH DAKOTA: North Dakota is the only state without voter registration. In April, the state strengthened its voter ID law to no longer allow people without photo ID to vote by affidavit.
TENNESSEE: This spring, Tennessee passed a bill restricting the kinds of IDs that can be used to vote. Previously, voters could show student IDs, out-of-state IDs, library cards, or any other IDs issued by counties or municipalities. Now only photo IDs issued by the state of Tennessee or the federal government are acceptable. The Green Party of Tennessee has sued the state over the law.
So, where does all of this leave the Voting Rights Act?
The Supreme Court left it up to Congress to write new preclearance criteria. In a July hearing, House Republicans showed little interest in rewriting Section 4. But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., says there's actually quiet Republican support for the issue. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., made headlines when he publicly supported restoring the law.
"There is at least one Republican, and you'll find out in the future a lot more, that is committing to putting life in this most important civil rights act that got a stab in the back from the Supreme Court," Sensenbrenner said.
Gerken, the law professor, isn't optimistic that Congress will come up with a new Section 4 formula. But she said there are other actions Congress could take. For example, she has advocated that Congress adopt an "opt-in" approach and allow civil rights groups to file simple complaints for the Justice Department to investigate. Then the agency could halt the implementation of discriminatory laws as necessary.
Yale law professor Travis Crum has also suggested a "bail-in" measure, by which Congress could instead strengthen Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act, letting courts put states under preclearance if their voting laws violate the 14th or 15th amendments.
As part of the Justice Department's lawsuits against Texas and North Carolina, the federal agency has asked the courts to put those states back under preclearance.
This post will be kept up-to-date. Has your state or local government restricted voting rights since June 2013? Tweet at me, email me at kara.brandeisky@propublica.org or leave a comment below.
Reprinted with permission from ProPublica.
by Kara Brandeisky and Mike Tigas ProPublica, Nov. 1, 2013.
Last year, we wrote extensively about photo ID laws and the Supreme Court's decision to strike a key section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now, with gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, and the debt ceiling and healthcare debates already shaping the 2014 midterms, we're revisiting voting policies to see which states have enacted tougher restrictions since the Supreme Court ruling in June.
President Johnson signs Voting Rights Act in 1965, surrounded by elected
officials and Civil Rights leaders. Almost 50 years later, minorities, the
poor, and the elderly are still fighting to maintain full voting rights.
Remind me – what is Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?
Under the Voting Rights Act, states and localities with a history of racial discrimination needed to get permission from the federal government to enact any changes to their voting laws, in a process called "preclearance." As of June 2013, nine states, mostly in the South – Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia – needed to get any new voting laws pre-approved. Some counties and townships in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota and Michigan were also subject to preclearance. Section 5 first applied to states that imposed literacy tests or other unfair devices, and had low voter registration or turnout. Congress later expanded the law to add jurisdictions with sizable minority populations and English-only election materials. States and localities could "bailout," or get off the preclearance list, after 10 years of elections without any problems. Several smaller jurisdictions bailed out over the years, including parts of Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Hawaii, and Colorado. Of course, some of the biggest voting law battles of the 2012 election were in states not covered by Section 5 at all, such as Pennsylvania and Ohio.
What did the Supreme Court strike down in Shelby County v. Holder?
The Supreme Court decided, 5-4, that the preclearance formula was unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment, which gives states the power to regulate elections. The Court ruled that the coverage formula was "based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relation to the present day."
From the decision:
One important technical point: the Supreme Court actually left Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act – the part of the law that describes how preclearance works – intact. Instead, the Court struck down Section 4, which explains which states and localities are subject to preclearance. If Congress amends Section 4, the Justice Department can start enforcing Section 5 again.
Why does this matter?
While literacy tests are a thing of the past, voting rights advocates say that statutes that limit early voting and registration, require voters to show photo ID, and purge voter rolls still disproportionately affect poor and minority voters. The Supreme Court's June 2013 decision also effectively shifted the burden from states to citizens. Before, a state subject to preclearance had to demonstrate that a new voting law was not discriminatory and let voting law experts in the Justice Department evaluate it before it could be implemented. Now it is up to voters to challenge voting laws by filing lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination. But most court cases involving Section 2 have been limited to redistricting, not other controversial voting measures, says Yale University law professor Heather Gerken.
Four leaders of the Civil Rights Movement: From left: Bayard Rustin,
Andrew Young, (N.Y. Cong.William Ryan), James Farmer, and John Lewis
in 1965. John Lewis is now a member of the House Representative
representing Georgia's 5th District, now forced to continue voting rights
fight — thanks to the Supreme Court and the Republican Party.
What have preclearance states done since the Supreme Court ruling?
NORTH CAROLINA: Two months after the Supreme Court decision, North Carolina passed a number of measures, including strict new photo ID requirements. The law also eliminates same-day voter registration, shortens the early voting period by seven days, and specifies that ballots cast at the wrong polling station will be thrown out. Some changes will be phased in starting in 2014, and the photo ID provision goes into effect in 2016.
The North Carolina NAACP and a civil rights group called the Advancement Project have filed a lawsuit challenging the changes. The Justice Department also filed a suit of its own. But the suits venture into some new legal territory.
"What North Carolina did was definitely at the extreme of practices in this country," Gerken said. "So if anything is vulnerable to a suit, it's likely to be the North Carolina law. But again, the case law was built around redistricting cases. It wasn't built around this kind of work."
TEXAS: Last year, a federal court rejected Texas' voter ID law, calling it "the most stringent in the country." The panel also rejected the state's redistricting maps, finding that they protected white incumbents while altering districts with minority incumbents. But on the very day of the Supreme Court ruling, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the state would "immediately" enact both measures.
The photo ID law requires voters to present an approved form of photo identification, where before they could present mail, utility bills or other proof of voter registration. The Justice Department had refused to approve the law based on the state's findings that Hispanic registered voters were far less likely to have the approved photo IDs. The new law also requires the photo ID presented on voting day to match the state's voter rolls — complicating voting for some married women and others with name changes.
The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against the newly enacted photo ID requirements and joined an ongoing lawsuit against the disputed redistricting maps.
FLORIDA: After the Supreme Court ruling, Florida resumed its plans to remove non-citizens from its voter rolls using the federal SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) database. The Department of Homeland Security database helps government agencies check the immigration statuses of people applying for government benefits like drivers' licenses, housing assistance, or Medicaid. But opponents of Florida's measure say that SAVE data is faulty and not meant for elections, and that using the database to verify voter rolls will disenfranchise eligible voters. (Colorado legislators rejected a bill to purge rolls based on SAVE data for this very reason, but that didn't stop Secretary of State Scott Gessler from moving ahead with the plan.) The Miami Herald found that Florida voters flagged for verification were disproportionately Hispanic, and most turned out to be citizens. The Department of Justice has also said that SAVE is not meant to be "a comprehensive and definitive listing of U.S. citizens," especially since it doesn't include data about people born in the United States.
A nonprofit group has challenged the law, but a federal court dismissed the lawsuit after the Supreme Court ruled that Florida was no longer subject to preclearance. Another group has appealed a similar case to the 11th Circuit.
VIRGINIA: Virginia passed a number of voting laws this spring that seem likely to go into effect in wake of the Supreme Court ruling.
The Virginia legislature passed a photo ID law last year (which the Justice Department approved), but the more recent measure goes further to limit what kinds of voter identification are acceptable. Voters can no longer show utility bills, bank statements, government checks or paychecks before they vote, but they can get an ID for freeif they don't already have one.
 |
| Voters wait in long lines in Virginia, Tuesday, Nov 5, 2013. |
SOUTH CAROLINA: In October 2012, a federal court blocked the implementation of South Carolina's photo ID law until 2013. The court found that although the law was not discriminatory, there was not enough time to implement changes before the 2012 election. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson said the Supreme Court ruling now allows states to "implement reasonable election reforms, such as voter ID laws similar to South Carolina's."
MISSISSIPI: Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann said Mississippi will enact a strict photo ID law by 2014. The state says it will provide free transportation to government offices where voters will be able to obtain free photo IDs.
ALABAMA: Secretary of State Beth Chapman said Alabama would also enact changes to its photo ID law by 2014. Like Virginia, Alabama used to accept other kinds of non-photo identification, such as utility bills and Social Security cards. But the new law requires voters to present photo IDs (the state will also provide free voter IDs to those who don't have them). Legislators passed the measure in 2011, but Alabama stalled in submitting the law for preclearance.
ARIZONA: The Supreme Court issued another significant ruling on voting laws this summer: In Arizona et al. v Intertribal Council of Arizona, Inc. et al., the Court ruled that Arizona, formerly a preclearance state, could not unilaterally require voters to show proof of citizenship before registering to vote in a federal election. But the Court said Arizona could sue the Election Assistance Commission to get the federal voter registration form amended to require proof of citizenship. Now, both Arizona and Kansas have sued the commission.
In case their legal challenges are unsuccessful, the states are setting up two-tiered systems of voter registration, requiring proof of citizenship for state and local races but not federal ones. So far, Kansas has suspended registration for about 17,500 voters until those they submit proof of citizenship.
SOUTH DAKOTA: Four Directions Inc., a Native American voting rights group, has asked the Justice Department to investigate why Secretary of State Jason Grant has so far refused to use federal money to fund satellite voting centers for registration and early voting on some Native American reservations.
What about non-preclearance states?
The 35 states that were not subject to any kind of preclearance were unaffected by the Supreme Court decision. But several of those states have also moved to tighten voting rules this year.
ARKANSAS: This spring, Republican legislators overrode the governor's veto to pass a law requiring voters to show photo IDs. If voters don't have them, they can cast provisional ballots and return with IDs by the Monday after the election. The state will also provide free IDs to people who do not already have them.
IOWA: In late March, Iowa implemented an administrative rule allowing Secretary of State Matt Schultz to begin a voter roll purge using the SAVE database. Activists have sued Schultz in an attempt to stop the purge.
INDIANA: In May, Indiana enacted a law requiring officials to check voter rolls for individuals registered to vote in other states. The advocacy group Project Vote worries that the measure could lead to voter purges.
MONTANA: After Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock vetoed a measure that would have eliminated same-day voter registration, the legislature decided to let the people decide. In 2014, Montana citizens will vote in a referendum on whether to keep same-day registration. Backers of the measure say it will cut down on lines at the polls.
NEBRASKA: This spring, Nebraska shortened early voting by 10 days. Voters will still be able to vote in the 25 days leading up to an election.
NORTH DAKOTA: North Dakota is the only state without voter registration. In April, the state strengthened its voter ID law to no longer allow people without photo ID to vote by affidavit.
TENNESSEE: This spring, Tennessee passed a bill restricting the kinds of IDs that can be used to vote. Previously, voters could show student IDs, out-of-state IDs, library cards, or any other IDs issued by counties or municipalities. Now only photo IDs issued by the state of Tennessee or the federal government are acceptable. The Green Party of Tennessee has sued the state over the law.
So, where does all of this leave the Voting Rights Act?
The Supreme Court left it up to Congress to write new preclearance criteria. In a July hearing, House Republicans showed little interest in rewriting Section 4. But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., says there's actually quiet Republican support for the issue. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., made headlines when he publicly supported restoring the law.
"There is at least one Republican, and you'll find out in the future a lot more, that is committing to putting life in this most important civil rights act that got a stab in the back from the Supreme Court," Sensenbrenner said.
Gerken, the law professor, isn't optimistic that Congress will come up with a new Section 4 formula. But she said there are other actions Congress could take. For example, she has advocated that Congress adopt an "opt-in" approach and allow civil rights groups to file simple complaints for the Justice Department to investigate. Then the agency could halt the implementation of discriminatory laws as necessary.
Yale law professor Travis Crum has also suggested a "bail-in" measure, by which Congress could instead strengthen Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act, letting courts put states under preclearance if their voting laws violate the 14th or 15th amendments.
As part of the Justice Department's lawsuits against Texas and North Carolina, the federal agency has asked the courts to put those states back under preclearance.
This post will be kept up-to-date. Has your state or local government restricted voting rights since June 2013? Tweet at me, email me at kara.brandeisky@propublica.org or leave a comment below.
Reprinted with permission from ProPublica.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)