Tag Archives: Voting Rights Act

national news, political news

Citizenship test for voters?

An aspect of modern media today is that with so many platforms out there, it’s easy for talking heads — people with lots of opinions about this or that issue — to speak their peace before plenty of people.

The size of their platform grants them some sort of “expert” status.

In fairness, I could add myself to that list of so-called “experts.” I write this blog and offer my opinions to those who care to read them. What they do with these thoughts, well, depends on whether they agree.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck is a Fox News Channel host who, I guess, has a forum to say things that are patently ridiculous. However, because she’s on a network “news” channel, her statements carry some extra weight.

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/22/elisabeth_hasselbeck_it_is_more_meaningful_if_citizens_have_to_take_a_test_before_voting/

Her latest ridiculous rant suggested that citizens should have to pass a citizenship test before they vote or before they graduate from high school.

Hasselbeck endorsed the idea of a citizenship test in a morning discussion on the “Fox and Friends” show she co-hosts. But according to Salon.com, Hasselbeck missed a history lesson of her own.

According to Salon.com: “The problem is one that Fox completely omitted, an argumentative tactic that has served the network well. There actually has been such a test, a so-called literacy test, which was eventually banned by the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The test was theoretically to be given to people of all races, but was disproportionately given to black potential voters in order to disenfranchise them. A few of the tests are available, and the wording of the questions are deliberately confusing and obtuse in such a way that even highly educated people would not necessarily do well.”

As a former colleague of mine is fond of saying — usually in support of right-wingers’ view of constitutional issues — the Constitution doesn’t say a word about requiring such tests as a condition for voting.

Therefore, Hasselbeck has just flunked her own test of civic knowledge.

Uncategorized

JFK a liberal? Not so sure about that

David Greenberg, writing for The New Republic, posits a theory that President John F. Kennedy was a true-blue liberal.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115522/jfk-was-unapologetic-liberal

Interesting, eh?

The president, who was shot to death 50 years ago next week, cut taxes. He stared down the Soviet Union by flexing the nation’s military might. He also, according to Greenberg, believed government could be a force for good, not evil. Kennedy preferred diplomacy over armed conflict, Greenberg asserts, making him more liberal than conservative.

I suppose that’s all true.

Greenberg’s piece, though, doesn’t touch on some other key issues that defines liberals and conservatives.

How about abortion? I don’t recall much discussion over the years since JFK’s death about how he viewed women’s reproductive rights. The president was a practicing Catholic, after all. Even though he made it clear during the 1960 presidential campaign that church doctrine wouldn’t inform his public policy, many politicians before and since JFK’s time have relied on their faith to decide some of these critical matters.

Prayer in school? Did the 35th president oppose school-mandated prayer, which the Supreme Court essentially struck down in 1963?

Environmental protection is another favorite issue for liberals. It wasn’t until 1970 — during the administration of Republican Richard Nixon — that the federal government created the Environmental Protection Agency.

Kennedy did seek to further the cause of civil rights, but he had to be persuaded to do so. His death in Dallas prevented him from enacting the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. That was left to President Lyndon Johnson, whose courage helped the Democratic Party “lose the South,” in the words of his good friend, Sen. Richard Russell, D-Ga.

My own view is that JFK was more of a centrist than a bleeding heart.

Given the extreme views that both parties have adopted in the past two decades, that isn’t such a bad thing.

Uncategorized

AG picks fight with Texas

Well, that’s a big surprise. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the federal government is suing Texas to make sure the state follows federal civil-rights law – and Texas Republicans go ballistic, saying the feds are picking on the Lone Star State.

Someone has to be singled out, yes? If not Texas, then which state feels the heat? Mississippi? Alabama? Georgia?

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/313535-texas-gop-pans-holder-move

Holder has asked a court to require Texas to obtain “pre-clearance” before enacting any state laws governing Texans’ voting rights. It seems Texas is one of those states with some history of denying certain folks full access to voting rights based on their race or ethnicity. The U.S. Supreme Court decided earlier this year that the federal requirement is no longer necessary and has left these decisions up to the states.

The AG says that’s not good enough.

Thus, the Justice Department is taking action to ensure that Texas complies right off the top.

I applaud the attorney general for seeking to guarantee that the rights of full citizenship for all Americans – even those who live in Texas – are protected under federal law.

The Hill said this in reporting the story:

“White House spokesman Josh Earnest defended the move, saying ‘the goal of the administration… is to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans.’  

‘“That includes protecting the voting rights of all Americans who are eligible to vote – that’s the goal here,’ Earnest told reporters aboard Air Force One. ‘I would assume that that would be a goal that would also be supported by congressional Republicans. We’ll see.’”

Members of the state’s congressional delegation, dominated of course by Republicans, see it differently.

“My belief is (the) Voting Rights Act and those laws ought to be applied equally across states, and not played for political games, which is exactly what I see happening here,” U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady said. “Eric Holder (is) just singling us out – just skipped through the alphabet and happened to land on Texas.”

Something tells me the Justice Department doesn’t really care what Texas Republicans – given their intense antipathy toward the president and his administration – think of its voting-rights policy.