Civil Rights Voters League | CRVL share civil rights stories, action items, and political resources

The DOJ Says that the Florida Voter ID Law May Intentionally Discriminate

Those advocating for the new voter ID laws claim that the point is to protect the sanctity of the voting booth and to ensure that elections are fair. They say that the purpose is to ensure that only those who are lawfully permitted to vote in this country are able to exercise the right. The opponents say that the intent is far different. They say that the proponents are deliberately erecting a barrier to the polls for those who are not likely to vote Republican. This means minorities and students, those who have shown a tendency to vote Democrat in the past.

As has been stated in previous posts on the blog, the laws are primarily for those areas of the country where there has been a history of racial/ethnic discrimination at the polls.

The present administration is, understandably, against the trend of these voter ID laws that are being passed in Republican states, largely ones in the South where voting discrimination has been an issue in the past. Among the recently-passed voter ID laws that are being most hotly contested by the Department of Justice is the one proposed in Florida. The DOJ is of the belief that the Florida voter ID law is deliberately and intentionally discriminatory. They have also said that Florida has not adequately proven that the laws will not significantly diminish the rights of minorities who seek to vote. Florida sued the federal government after the proof was requested.

While the DOJ has not actively fought the laws in other jurisdictions (and has been criticized for not doing so), they are doing so in Florida.

There are several Florida counties that meet the requirements under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act that places with a history of racial discrimination must have voting law changes reviewed by the DOJ or a panel of judges.

The war on Section 5

"One of the big problems with section five is the fact that it is required in some states and not others."

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is the part that is supposed to prevent discriminatory practices at the polls. It has recently come under attack by Republicans in Georgia who have gerrymandered districts ensure that the state remains under their control. While gerrymandering is not a new phenomenon for either side in American politics, it has been suggested that there is a racial undertone to this instance.

Section five of the VRA has also been challenged by South Carolina's voter ID law, which is legislation that many consider to be a deliberate attempt to keep minorities from voting. What has the Department of Justice done to defend section five of the VRA? The answer is, not a lot. Some believe that the DOJ is reluctant to act due a perceived weakness of the law and the likelihood of it being struck down were it to be challenged.

One of the big problems with section five is the fact that it is required in some states and not others. While section two of the law applies to all states and seeks to prevent racial discrimination everywhere, section five applies to those states that have a history of it. Only these states are required to seek the permission of the federal government in order to change their election laws. There are several lawsuits underway seeking to challenge the law. The voting law changes, similar to the Voting ID law in South Carolina are mostly in the southern states.

Many believe that the law’s removal is inevitable.

Sharpton and King to Embark on 2012 Voting Rights Protest March

New voting laws that appear to target minority voters have drawn the attention of the most prominent present-day civil rights leader: Reverend Al Sharpton. Sharpton has joined forces with the son of the civil rights icon Martin Luther King to embark on a five day protest of voting laws which are thought by many to undermine the civil rights fought for and won by American black people in the 1960s.

The protest will take the form of a march from Selma, Alabama, to Montgomery, Alabama. The intention is to draw attention to what Sharpton and King consider to be a violation of minority voting rights. According the Sharpton, as many as five million Americans who were able to vote in 2008 will be prevented from exercising that right in the November elections.

The march will begin at the Edmund Pettus Bridge on March 4 and end up with a March 9 th rally in Montgomery.

The issue being protested is that the laws require forms of government identification like drivers licenses that the protestors say that a large proportion of black voters do not have. The argument is that the laws have been enacted specifically because of this and as a means to unseat President Barack Obama by preventing large numbers of African Americans from voting.

Previous investigations into voter fraud have shown that most actual cases would not have been prevented by the new laws. This new protest march recreates a the historic Selma to Montgomery march of 1965, which was undertaken to gain civil rights for blacks and other minorities.

Jan Brewer's Militia for Capturing Illegal Immigrants

Republican Arizona governor Jan Brewer is well on her way to establishing an armed militia for the express purpose of hunting down immigrants illegally crossing from Mexico. Brewer claims that the militia is essential to controlling illegal immigrants that she says are overrunning her state.

Arizona is apparently unfazed by the reaction across America and the world, to their 2011 SB 1070 law that gives police officers the right to stop and arrest anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. This new law would allow civilians to do the same thing, arming between 150 and 200 of them to go out and patrol the border.

Brewer has said that since the Federal Government is unwilling to protect the border with Mexico, it is up to the citizens of her state to do it themselves. She says that Arizona is in a state of crisis due to its citizens being "terrorized, robbed and murdered" by those coming over from Mexico. She also says that the force will supplement but not replace, conventional law enforcement organizations.

The previous proposed version of the militia had been under the control of the national guard, the latest version places the militia under the control of a commander that is appointed by the Governor. It had also been given $1.9 million in funding, this number has been reduced to $1.4 million along with the implementation of new vetting procedures to control who would be allowed to join the unit.

Civil rights activists and other Arizona politicians are not as enthusiastic about the prospect however, citing the possibility of white supremacists and mentally unstable people joining up to victimize Mexicans. In the SB 10 83 provides immunity to any member of the militia who shoots a border crosser as long as they were acting under a direct order.

Unions vs the GOP Sponsored Right to Work Laws

The Right to Work legislation heavily backed by the GOP is considered to be an attack on unions. The aim of the legislation is to keep workers from having to pay union dues if they do not want to. In the states where Right to Work laws are in effect, workers will not have to pay union dues even if their workplace has a union contract. The backers of the laws say that being forced to pay these dues violates the rights of workers. The most recent state to have enacted these laws was Indiana. Governor Mitch Daniels signed the Right to Work Law on January 23^rd, 2012.

Unions, as may be expected, take a different view of the matter. They see workers who do not pay dues but who reap the rewards of unions negotiating on their behalf, to be “free riders”.

Right to Work laws have been enacted most recently in Indiana where proponents believe that they will help to improve the state’s attractiveness to investors. The claim is that the laws will appeal to investors and eventually result in more jobs. The unions have stated that they will be ineffective for this purpose.

The laws are likely to have a disproportionate effect on African Americans as they are more likely to join a union than workers from any other demographic. African Americans make up 15% of unionized workers in America.

Right to Work laws are seen as similar to the effort by Wisconsin’s governor, Scott Walker, in 2011 that sought to dramatically reduce the ability of public employees to collectively bargain. The unions are presently gearing up for the November elections, promising that the laws will be short lived.

Racial Dog Whistles and the Newt Gingrich Campaign

The use of subtle, racially charged hints is not new to political campaigning. Only recently has the term “dog whistle” become widely used to describe them. This type of voter manipulation in America has been around since the civil rights act of 1964, and the basic concept behind it has always been used in politics.

John McCain is a good example of how racial dog whistles work in American campaign politics. In 2000 John McCain’s campaign was effectively derailed by the suggested possibility of him having a black child. This was asked by anonymous Bush supporters during the South Carolina primary. There was no need to prove anything or to provide concrete facts, there mere suggestion that he may have fathered a black child was enough to destroy his prospects.

Fast forward to this year’s Republican campaign, again in South Carolina. Newt Gingrich refers to President Obama as a “food stamp President”. On the face of it this is basic political name-calling, but in South Carolina the implications of the term run much deeper. In addition to being the state that could simply not stomach the possibility of John McCain having a black child, this is the state that has a statue of segregationist Strom Thurmond in close proximity to its capitol building, which proudly flies the rebel flag.

Gingrich simply tapped into an old racial stereotype held by South Carolina Conservatives, that of black people dipping their hands into the white tax-payer’s pockets. He is simply using one of the older political tricks in the book, showing himself to be a savvy politician who knows how to get voters to like him. There is nothing new there. Perhaps what voters should take away from the story is how well the racial dog whistle still works in 2012.

Holder Bashes Republican Voting Laws on MLK Day

In a speech made on Martin Luther King Day, Attorney General Eric Holder said that the voting rights of minorities are being restricted by some states.

Some states, Holder said, are suing to challenge parts of the voting rights law that Martin Luther King and other civil rights activists fought so hard for. These states have approved new laws will have the effect of making it difficult for minorities to vote. He further stated that while the new laws all claim that America has moved beyond 1965, discrimination against minorities is still all too common across the nation.

Four weeks ago, Holder’s Department of Justice ruled that the voting law in South Carolina discriminated against minorities who lack the forms of identification approved by the government more often than do whites. South Carolina is one of a set of states controlled by the Republicans that have approved these new voting laws. The DOJ used section five of the Voting Rights act to make their ruling, This section deals with states that have a history of discrimination and so require approval before making changes to their voting laws.

Supporters of the new laws justify them by raising the subject of voter fraud even though various studies, including one conducted by the George W. Bush administration, have concluded that voter fraud in the United States is rare.

Opponents view the laws as barely-disguised attempts at voter suppression as minorities are seen as a key voting block for the Democratic Party. It is believed that as many as five million voters across the country would be affected by the new voting changes.

Ron Paul and the Racist Newsletters

Presidential Candidate Ron Paul’s position on race is controversial largely because of certain new-letters. These newsletters were titled The Ron Paul Freedom Report and were associated with a political group set up by Paul and associate Lew Rockwell. Rockwell was said to have edited the newsletters at the time that the racist articles were published. The articles had comments on the L.A Riots that claimed that the only reason that order was restored to Los Angeles when time came for “blacks to pick up their welfare checks”. The same article also laid blame for the riots squarely at the feet of the NAACP, claiming the civil rights group was responsible for inciting the riots. Other comments referred to Martin Luther King Day as “hate whitey day”. Still more racially charged comments included one stating that only 5 percent of blacks have sensible opinions.

The articles were written between 1990 and 1993. A potentially incriminating aspect of Paul’s reaction to the articles is that he never denied writing them until 1996, even after having it brought up by a political opponent. Not until 2001 did Paul state clearly that he had not written the articles.

Since then, Paul has vehemently denied having anything to do with the articles, stating that they are not in agreement with his political principles. He has also stated that Martin Luther King was one of his heroes and that King embodied many of the civil libertarian principles that Paul espouses. Ron Paul’s former associate, Lew Rockwell, also denies having written the articles.

Joe Arpaio Criticized by Department of Justice, Beloved by Republicans

Maricopa County’s infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio has once again ignited the ire of civil rights groups as a Justice Department investigation claims to have found that Arpaio repeatedly ignored the civil rights of his Latino detainees. The investigation, which took three years, found that, among other things, Arpaio ignored hundreds of reports of sexual assaults (including cases of child molestation) in his jails. Arpaio, who is 79 years old, is primarily known for his well-publicized attitude to illegal immigrants and those who are suspected of being illegal immigrants. Other cases involve a Latino being dragged behind a patrol car. Over the years various stories about the Arizona Sheriff have made national and international news. The most well-known of the stories are of Arpaio’s tent city, where inmates were placed in a tent camp in the desert, which the sheriff himself has described as a “concentration camp”. It has been criticized due to the harsh nature of the Phoenix weather.

This most recent investigation along with the resulting DOJ charges, have resulted in Sheriff Arpaio’s officers having their right to detain suspected illegal immigrants suspended. One of the ramifications of this is that they cannot keep holding people who have not been charged with actual crimes.

The assistant Attorney General has said in a a letter of warning to Maricopa County officials, that the deputies and the sheriff have been shown to have engaged in practices that “discriminate against Latinos”.

While Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s popularity has diminished in recent years in the state of Arizona as a whole, the perception of him among Republicans is still positive.

Bank of America's $335 Million Racism Settlement

President Barack Obama’s aggressive pursuit of Bank of America for having discriminated against African American an Hispanic borrowers has yielded some fruit. Bank of America has had to settle a $335 million lawsuit on behalf of its Countrywide arm as a result of its discriminatory policies against minorities. It is the largest one in history over fair lending practices.

Attorney General Eric Holder has stated that the pursuit and resulting settlement has made it clear that the administration will “hold financial institutions accountable”. This statement is made in the face of the Occupy Wall Street protests across the country wherein protesters have been stating that this is exactly what Barack Obama’s administration has failed to do.

The complaint against Countrywide alleges that minority borrowers were steered into subprime mortgages and charged higher interest rates between 2004 and 2008. This happened without regard to the customers’ credit rating. The complaint also alleges that Bank of America was aware of Countrywide’s discriminatory practices and failed to do anything about them.

Bank of America has claimed that the problems with Countrywide were in existence long before they took control of it. They have also stated that they are committed to treating their customers fairly regardless of race.

The Department of Justice has stated that more than 200,000 minority borrowers were affected by Countrywide’s policies and that this occurred in 41 states. In many cases Countrywide’ victims were unaware of what had been perpetrated against them, stated Thomas Perez, head of the DOJ’s civil rights wing.

Pages