Have not read am empirical study but asserting corrupt public officials tend to ally themselves with political groups employing dishonest, illegal and dirty trick seems a truism.
Coming off legal defeats obstructing disfavored citizens from voting, the Republican Party of Wisconsin that used the now-blocked voter ID law as "a mere fig leaf for efforts to disenfranchise voters likely to vote for the political party that does not control the state government," the prediction that dirty tricks including harassment and interference with a voters' effort to vote are coming is the safest bet in politics.
John Peterson has the story.
Showing posts with label Wisconsin voter id lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wisconsin voter id lawsuit. Show all posts
Oct 10, 2014
Richard Posner's Extraordinary Move to Sound the Alarm on GOP Voter Obstruction
Update: Republicans are not so certain about voters; enacting
voter obstruction laws wherever they hold a majority, secure in the
knowledge that federal Republican judges will reside in the Republican
legislatures' "fact-free cocoon in which to lodge the federal
judiciary." (Posner, Frank v. Walker; p. 26)
---
"Posner's dissent includes a devastating response to virtually every false and/or disingenuous rightwing argument/talking point ever put forth in support of Photo ID voting restrictions, describing them as "a mere fig leaf for efforts to disenfranchise voters likely to vote for the political party that does not control the state government." (Brad Friedman)
---
On the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit known for its intellectual bulk, judges such as Easterbrook, Wood and Posner stand out.
What makes the public intellectual Richard Posner stand out more is this academic appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981 has grown as a jurist, and now stands as a bulwark against the oppression the judiciary can inflict upon American citizens.
Posner as a sitting judge has taken the extraordinary step of requesting a rehearing on behalf of the five judges dissenting from Judge Easterbrook’s appalling opinion in Frank v. Walker.
The rehearing failed five-to-five.
The October 10 dissent authored by Posner is scathing and is certain to be noted when voting rights advocates take their consolidated cases to the US Supreme Court where a granting of cert is expected within 90 days.
Notes Posner:
Easterbrook refers to Judge Lynn Adelman, writing in his decision and order issuing a permanent injunction on April 29, 2014:
[O]ne of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, Barry Burden, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, testified that the available empirical evidence indicates that photo ID requirements have no effect on confidence or trust in the electoral process. He described a study conducted by Stephen Ansolabehere and Nathaniel Persily and published in the Harvard Law Review which looked at the relationship between photo ID laws and voter confidence in the electoral process. See Stephen Ansolabehere and Nathaniel Persily, Vote Fraud in the Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Public Opinion in the Challenge to Voter Identification Requirements,121 Harv. L. Rev. 1737, 1756 (2008). Burden explained that this study employed multivariate analysis of survey data and found “zero relationship” between voter ID laws and a person’s level of trust or confidence in the electoral process. (p.18)
No relationship between voter ID laws and public confidence, the main argument advanced by Republicans in defense of their voter obstruction project after the occurrence of in-person voter fraud assertions by the Wisconsin DoJ were conceded not to exist during the 2013 trial in federal court.
This study is dismissed by Easterbrook.
Writes Posner:
"The panel opinion dismisses the Ansolabehere and Persily article on the ground that because it was published in the Harvard Law Review, it was not peer-reviewed. So much for law reviews. (And what about Supreme Court opinions? They’re not peer-reviewed either.)"
Posner goes on, as careful as Easterbrook is reckless in Easterbrook's "fact-free cocoon."
Concludes Posner:
"To conclude, the case against a law requiring a photo ID as a condition of a registered voter’s being permitted to vote that is as strict as Wisconsin’s law is compelling. The law should be invalidated; at the very least, with the court split evenly in so important a case and the panel opinion so riven with weaknesses, the case should be reheard en banc."
---
"Posner's dissent includes a devastating response to virtually every false and/or disingenuous rightwing argument/talking point ever put forth in support of Photo ID voting restrictions, describing them as "a mere fig leaf for efforts to disenfranchise voters likely to vote for the political party that does not control the state government." (Brad Friedman)
---
On the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit known for its intellectual bulk, judges such as Easterbrook, Wood and Posner stand out.
What makes the public intellectual Richard Posner stand out more is this academic appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981 has grown as a jurist, and now stands as a bulwark against the oppression the judiciary can inflict upon American citizens.
Posner as a sitting judge has taken the extraordinary step of requesting a rehearing on behalf of the five judges dissenting from Judge Easterbrook’s appalling opinion in Frank v. Walker.
The rehearing failed five-to-five.
The October 10 dissent authored by Posner is scathing and is certain to be noted when voting rights advocates take their consolidated cases to the US Supreme Court where a granting of cert is expected within 90 days.
Notes Posner:
The Practitioner’s Handbook for Appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit states that 'en banc rehearing is authorized without a party’s invitation. A member of the court may ask for a vote on whether to rehear a case en banc.' I asked for a vote on whether to rehear the appeals en banc. The judges have voted, the vote was a 5 to 5 tie, and as a result rehearing en banc has been denied. We—the five who voted to grant rehearing en banc—believe that the decision to allow the panel’s opinion reversing the district court to stand, without consideration of the case by the full court, is a serious mistake.Posner presents myriad arguments eviscerating the Easterbrook opinion, and as an example notes one bizarre element in Easterbrook's opinion that dismissed social scientific evidence introduced at federal trial last year because the evidence was published in the Harvard Law Review, a fact noted earlier this week by Rick Hasen.
Easterbrook refers to Judge Lynn Adelman, writing in his decision and order issuing a permanent injunction on April 29, 2014:
[O]ne of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, Barry Burden, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, testified that the available empirical evidence indicates that photo ID requirements have no effect on confidence or trust in the electoral process. He described a study conducted by Stephen Ansolabehere and Nathaniel Persily and published in the Harvard Law Review which looked at the relationship between photo ID laws and voter confidence in the electoral process. See Stephen Ansolabehere and Nathaniel Persily, Vote Fraud in the Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Public Opinion in the Challenge to Voter Identification Requirements,121 Harv. L. Rev. 1737, 1756 (2008). Burden explained that this study employed multivariate analysis of survey data and found “zero relationship” between voter ID laws and a person’s level of trust or confidence in the electoral process. (p.18)
No relationship between voter ID laws and public confidence, the main argument advanced by Republicans in defense of their voter obstruction project after the occurrence of in-person voter fraud assertions by the Wisconsin DoJ were conceded not to exist during the 2013 trial in federal court.
This study is dismissed by Easterbrook.
Writes Posner:
"The panel opinion dismisses the Ansolabehere and Persily article on the ground that because it was published in the Harvard Law Review, it was not peer-reviewed. So much for law reviews. (And what about Supreme Court opinions? They’re not peer-reviewed either.)"
Posner goes on, as careful as Easterbrook is reckless in Easterbrook's "fact-free cocoon."
Concludes Posner:
"To conclude, the case against a law requiring a photo ID as a condition of a registered voter’s being permitted to vote that is as strict as Wisconsin’s law is compelling. The law should be invalidated; at the very least, with the court split evenly in so important a case and the panel opinion so riven with weaknesses, the case should be reheard en banc."
No-Voter ID Ruling Is Bodyshot to Scott Walker, Win for Wisconsin Voters
NO VOTER ID NEEDED to VOTE
Update II: Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen won't clarify statement asserting Wisconsin will "have voter ID on election day," (Hall, Wisconsin State Journal) mostly likely because the corrupt partisan is already bordering on the edge of a process for a contempt citation.
Update: Despite the six-to-three decision by the US Supreme Court blocking voter ID in Wisconsin, Wisconsin's corrupt attorney general, J.B. Van Hollen, says "We will be exploring alternatives to address the Court's concern and have voter ID on election day." (Bolin, WKOW) One wonders if Van Hollen actually read the Court's order reinstating the "permanent injunction" of Wisconsin's photo voter ID law.
---
Constitutional scholars and voting rights attorneys contacted the last few weeks described the Sept. 12 order (and the supporting appellate opinions) reinstating (for 27 days it turns out) Wisconsin's photo voter ID law as disingenuous, unconscionable and unconstitutional.
The legal case against courts' changing election law close to (indeed after Wisconsin's election had begun) is a "no-brainer" (Hasen) and air-tight.
So why would Scott Walker and Wisconsin Attorney General go to extraordinary lengths to get a judicial imprimatur to implement the Voter ID law after our election had begun?
Because, as Scott Walker through Van Hollen's DoJ, conceded in the federal trial last year some 300,000 Wisconsin citizens lack the restrictive range of photo voter IDs needed to vote.
Enough of those 300,000 voters don't vote and Scott Walker wins reelection.
Walker and the Republicans likely will not pay a price for blocking registered voters from voting, unless the targeted voters follow the advice of a friend from Door county: Never give up.
Most people are not students of constitutional rights and winning constitutional rights from the majority has always been a struggle; Republicans are hostile to the civil rights movement, and this writer has seen the reaction of white citizens to the sight of a black man voting: Distaste and hostility.
Wisconsin election bureaucracies are too passive and timid to stand up and state the facts about the barriers imposed against voters, to advocate for voters.
Judge Frank Easterbrook of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has shown his true colors, and made up facts out of whole cloth in his deplorable work on behalf of the Republican Party in his hastily released opinion earlier this week.
A man of Easterbrook's gifts employs them for corrupt purposes, unforgivable.
Rick Hasen cautions this morning that Wisconsin should not be too excited that the Court "did the right thing now in the Wisconsin case. But don’t expect them to continue doing the right thing. The Chief [John Roberts] and Justice Kennedy will very likely be with today’s Wisconsin dissenters on the merits down the line."
There is no expectation that privileged elites will keep doing the right thing, and there never has been.
---
For more reaction, here are comments from the ACLU and the Advancement Project, working for the many plaintiffs in Ruthelle Frank v. Scott Walker.
From Dale Ho, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project: "Today's order puts the brakes on the last-minute disruption and voter chaos created by this law going into effect so close to the election. It will help safeguard the vote for thousands of Wisconsinites as this case makes its way through the courts."
From Advancement Project Senior Attorney and Director of Voter Protection, Katherine Culliton-González: "While there is zero evidence of voter fraud, Wisconsin’s voter ID law would have risked disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of registered voters if it were allowed to take effect. The Supreme Court was absolutely correct in refusing to fast-track restricting access to the ballot in the upcoming election. Voting is the one time when we are all equal. Whether you’re young or old, rich or poor, Black, White, Latino, Asian or Native American – when we vote, we all have the same say. But this is not the end of the fight. We will keep working to ensure that this law is permanently enjoined, so that all voters can continue to have a voice in our democracy."
Update II: Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen won't clarify statement asserting Wisconsin will "have voter ID on election day," (Hall, Wisconsin State Journal) mostly likely because the corrupt partisan is already bordering on the edge of a process for a contempt citation.
Update: Despite the six-to-three decision by the US Supreme Court blocking voter ID in Wisconsin, Wisconsin's corrupt attorney general, J.B. Van Hollen, says "We will be exploring alternatives to address the Court's concern and have voter ID on election day." (Bolin, WKOW) One wonders if Van Hollen actually read the Court's order reinstating the "permanent injunction" of Wisconsin's photo voter ID law.
---
Constitutional scholars and voting rights attorneys contacted the last few weeks described the Sept. 12 order (and the supporting appellate opinions) reinstating (for 27 days it turns out) Wisconsin's photo voter ID law as disingenuous, unconscionable and unconstitutional.
The legal case against courts' changing election law close to (indeed after Wisconsin's election had begun) is a "no-brainer" (Hasen) and air-tight.
So why would Scott Walker and Wisconsin Attorney General go to extraordinary lengths to get a judicial imprimatur to implement the Voter ID law after our election had begun?
Because, as Scott Walker through Van Hollen's DoJ, conceded in the federal trial last year some 300,000 Wisconsin citizens lack the restrictive range of photo voter IDs needed to vote.
Enough of those 300,000 voters don't vote and Scott Walker wins reelection.
Walker and the Republicans likely will not pay a price for blocking registered voters from voting, unless the targeted voters follow the advice of a friend from Door county: Never give up.
Most people are not students of constitutional rights and winning constitutional rights from the majority has always been a struggle; Republicans are hostile to the civil rights movement, and this writer has seen the reaction of white citizens to the sight of a black man voting: Distaste and hostility.
Wisconsin election bureaucracies are too passive and timid to stand up and state the facts about the barriers imposed against voters, to advocate for voters.
Judge Frank Easterbrook of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has shown his true colors, and made up facts out of whole cloth in his deplorable work on behalf of the Republican Party in his hastily released opinion earlier this week.
A man of Easterbrook's gifts employs them for corrupt purposes, unforgivable.
Rick Hasen cautions this morning that Wisconsin should not be too excited that the Court "did the right thing now in the Wisconsin case. But don’t expect them to continue doing the right thing. The Chief [John Roberts] and Justice Kennedy will very likely be with today’s Wisconsin dissenters on the merits down the line."
There is no expectation that privileged elites will keep doing the right thing, and there never has been.
---
For more reaction, here are comments from the ACLU and the Advancement Project, working for the many plaintiffs in Ruthelle Frank v. Scott Walker.
From Dale Ho, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project: "Today's order puts the brakes on the last-minute disruption and voter chaos created by this law going into effect so close to the election. It will help safeguard the vote for thousands of Wisconsinites as this case makes its way through the courts."
Advancement
Project Senior Attorney and Director of Voter Protection, Katherine
Culliton-González. - See more at:
http://www.advancementproject.org/news/entry/wisconsin-voter-id-law-halted-as-supreme-court-blocks-appeals-court-order#sthash.Xq8O3DBV.dpuf
From Advancement Project Senior Attorney and Director of Voter Protection, Katherine Culliton-González: "While there is zero evidence of voter fraud, Wisconsin’s voter ID law would have risked disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of registered voters if it were allowed to take effect. The Supreme Court was absolutely correct in refusing to fast-track restricting access to the ballot in the upcoming election. Voting is the one time when we are all equal. Whether you’re young or old, rich or poor, Black, White, Latino, Asian or Native American – when we vote, we all have the same say. But this is not the end of the fight. We will keep working to ensure that this law is permanently enjoined, so that all voters can continue to have a voice in our democracy."
Advancement
Project Senior Attorney and Director of Voter Protection, Katherine
Culliton-González. - See more at:
http://www.advancementproject.org/news/entry/wisconsin-voter-id-law-halted-as-supreme-court-blocks-appeals-court-order#sthash.Xq8O3DBV.dpuf
Feb 21, 2014
Wisconsin Women Fight for Right to Vote at Supreme Court
 |
| The Wisconsin Republican Party's new banner - Corrupt, centralized, authoritarian, statist and bigoted regime |
It doesn't. In fact, it unequivocally says the opposite. The right to vote belongs to all Wisconsin citizens who are qualified electors, not just the fortunate majority for whom Act 23 poses little obstacle at the polls."
- Judge Richard Niess. Decision and Order Granting Summary Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction of Wisconsin Voter ID law on March 12, 2012
---
Even as Ohio, Wisconsin, and other GOP-controlled states advance bills to make voting more difficult, the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin and allies head to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to fight for the right to vote against a voter obstruction law, Act 23 or the Photo Voter ID.
"We are confident that we have a strong case based on clear language in the state constitution, and we are proud that because of the injunctions, no citizen was disenfranchised by the voter law in five elections in 2012 and 2012," said Melanie G. Raney, president of the League.
The Wisconsin Constitution, Article III, Section 1 reads: "Every United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district," an expansive guarantee to vote that has been under attack since Governor Scott Walker and the Republicans assumed control of the executive and legislative branches of Wisconsin government in 2011.
Wisconsin's Voter ID law remains enjoined by Wisconsin state courts. The state cases to be heard are League of Women Voters of Wisconsin v. Walker and Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker.
Arguments as scheduled to be heard in the ornate Supreme Court room in the Madison state capitol at 9:45 A.M.; February 25. Court room doors open at 9:00 A.M.
WisconsinEye is tentatively scheduled to live stream the arguments on its website online, and on Charter Cable Channel 995 and Time Warner Channel 363.
A holding that Wisconsin's Voter ID law—that effectively denies the franchise to vote for many Wisconsin is constitutional were it not enjoined—would be a spectacular ruling that would bring outrage from the legal and civil rights communities now under political and legal assault.
The League case features a circuit court opinion that Act 23 is unconstitutional on its face, a ruling overturned by a state appellate panel in an opinion written by Judge Brian Blanchard. Voting advocates see this as no bad harbinger.
"(I)n a lengthy footnote, Judge Blanchard distinguished the (League facial challenge) case from another challenge to the law, filed by the NAACP and the immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera, that provides more extensive evidence that a voter ID requirement would "severely burden a significant number of qualified voters but is not reasonably necessitated or designed to deter fraud or otherwise effect an important government interest," notes Brendan Fisher at PRWatch.
Blanchard's opinion has been roundly criticized and likely will not figure into the legal resolution of the case, though Republicans often cite the opinion.
An increasingly partisan and Republican Legislative Reference Bureau improperly notes the League appellate opinion in added partisan spin in a half-baked annotation of the Wisconsin government's online state constitution's Suffrage section.
Even the published text of Wisconsin's Constitution is not safe from the Republicans' efforts to sanitize public documents of perceived anti-GOP bias. In this instance, the plain language of Wisconsin's expansive Suffrage (voting) guarantees.
The state cases are being heard as two federal cases are under deliberation in federal court.
A post-trial brief requesting a federal injunction has been filed after the trial of two consolidated cases arguing violations of the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act.
So even if a radical anti-voting ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court were to occur, it is likely that a federal injunction will be granted after the November 2013 federal trial that was a judicial rout of anti-voting forces.
"The credible evidence convincingly proved that Act 23 will impose harsh and widespread burdens on voters. Virtually all of the factual testimony - of Plaintiffs, other voters, non-parties who provide assistance to voters, as well as Defendants and state employees called adversely by Plaintiffs - went essentially unchallenged by Defendants. All this evidence compels one conclusion: Act 23 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ("VRA"), 42 U.S.C. 1973, and the Fourteenth and Twenty -Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and must be enjoined."
Frank v. Walker Post-trial brief challenging Wisconsin Voter ID Law. Act 23—passed with unanimous GOP support, unanimous Democratic opposition and unanimous opposition from civil rights and voting rights citizen groups.
In federal court last November, the ACLU and pro-voting attorneys were legal masters. The ACLU website describes the stakes:
"The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit charging that Wisconsin’s voter ID law is unconstitutional and will deprive citizens of their most fundamental constitutional right – the right to vote. Voter ID laws are the most common type of voter suppression legislation moving through state legislatures across the country as part of a nationwide attack on the right to vote."
Nov 14, 2013
Voting Rights Repair Act Is Not Going Happen in 2013
Updated - Congress really sucks.
Politicians are regarded by the American people whom they represent as almost pathologically dishonest, corrupt and incompetent.
Here is Wisconsin, we seem to grow a more noxious breed.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) is a case in point. Sensenbrenner and two white Republicans from northeastern and east-central Wisconsin opposed the Martin Luther King, Jr. federal holiday legislation in 1983 in an ode to the white racist constituencies populating Wisconsin.
Wrote Fox News political analyst, Juan Williams in September, a few short months after the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder:
End of the year. That what's Sensenbrenner said. Wow, the RNC must really like the Voting Rights Act.
Williams, whose gushing piece is housed at Sensenbrenner's congressional website, is impressed.
He should not be.
Now, there is word that Sensenbrenner is working with the NAACP on a new formulation of Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act eviscerated by Shelby County v. Holder in June, working hand-in-hand with the likes of Hilary Shelton, Washington Bureau Director of NAACP, a giant of a civil rights worker.
But drafting, introducing and passing restorative Voting Right Act legislation in the House in 2013 is not going to happen.
Republican House Speaker John Boehner has scheduled only a handful of legislative days for the rest of the year, to no objection from Sensenbrenner, giving his members of Congress some more long paid vacations.
In any event there is no way the House is going to lift its collective finger on repairing the GOP justices' damage to the Voting Rights Act, and there is no way Sensenbrenner is going to do anything beyond lip service when introduction occurs.
This is the same Sensenbrenner who is a major supporter of GOP voter obstruction laws and his office said Sensenbrenner can't comment on Wisconsin's very own state voter obstruction law now on federal trial "as it is a state law," the precise type of law the Voting Rights Act was designed to stop.
In August 2013, Sensenbrenner had a change of heart on commenting on state voter obstruction laws after Attorney General Holder said he was going to challenge Texas' onerous Photo Voter ID law under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act: Sensenbrenner.
Sensenbrenner was the chair of House Committee on the Judiciary from 2001-2007 when the Voting Right Act came up for reauthorization, and it was virtually assured passage, facing opposition only from southern racist Republicans.
In 2005-06, Sensenbrenner was chair of the House Judiciary Committee so he likes to preen that he was the champion of the renewal of the various sections of the Voting Rights Act that passed 390-33 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate and, history should remember, was signed into law by President George W. Bush.
In fact, Bush did one hell of a job of conjuring LBJ in the White House, and as noted by Gary May and Joseph Morgan Kousser cajoled Congress into passing a 25-year reauthorization in the Republican-controlled Congress.
Writes May:
So, House Judiciary Committee Sensenbrenner was going to defy Bush and Rove on the Voting Rights Act reauthorization of 2006? Right.
Sensenbrenner is no champion of the Voting Rights Act. Sensenbrenner is a fraud of the worst kind, in this writer's harsh opinion. Not withstanding Sensenbrenner negotiating with the NAACP this Autumn, no chance will he cross his party's leadership and the Tea Party.
On a final note, to give you an idea of the utter incompetence of Congress, after culling through legislative databases looking for legislation, I called Rep. John Lewis' office asking the person answering the phone if he could transfer me to someone who could confirm no bill had been introduced repairing Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. The kid did not know what the Voting Rights Act is.
I talked to a staffer as House Judiciary Committee posing the same question. I received another, "I don't know."
Several other phone calls yielded similar protestations of ignorance of whether the crown jewel of the civil rights movement may have had a bill introduced to repair the obscene act committed by the five GOP partisans on the U.S. Supreme Court.
I don't care for the Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court and corrupt members of Congress, but at least they are not as fracking dumb as staffers in Congress.
As for Sensenbrenner, action and passed legislation do speak louder than words.
Politicians are regarded by the American people whom they represent as almost pathologically dishonest, corrupt and incompetent.
Here is Wisconsin, we seem to grow a more noxious breed.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) is a case in point. Sensenbrenner and two white Republicans from northeastern and east-central Wisconsin opposed the Martin Luther King, Jr. federal holiday legislation in 1983 in an ode to the white racist constituencies populating Wisconsin.
Wrote Fox News political analyst, Juan Williams in September, a few short months after the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder:
The big surprise at the Republican National Committee’s lunch celebrating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington was the loud ovation for an elderly white conservative.
The tall, 70-year-old Congressman hobbled to the front of the room with a cane. He had to be helped up the stairs to the stage. But once he reached the microphone, his call for Congress to restore the full power of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) had the crowd scrambling to get to their feet and applaud him.
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) defied political stereotypes and several other Republicans when he announced an end-of-the-year deadline for reviving the pre-clearance provision of the VRA.
“I am committed to restoring the Voting Rights Act as an effective tool to prevent discrimination,” said Sensenbrenner to repeated cheers. He was chairman of the House Judiciary Committee when a bipartisan group approved reauthorization of the VRA in 2006.
“This is something that has to be done by the end of the year so that a revised and constitutional Voting Rights Act is in place by the 2014 elections — both the primaries and general election,” Sensenbrenner told his largely black Republican audience.
End of the year. That what's Sensenbrenner said. Wow, the RNC must really like the Voting Rights Act.
Williams, whose gushing piece is housed at Sensenbrenner's congressional website, is impressed.
He should not be.
Now, there is word that Sensenbrenner is working with the NAACP on a new formulation of Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act eviscerated by Shelby County v. Holder in June, working hand-in-hand with the likes of Hilary Shelton, Washington Bureau Director of NAACP, a giant of a civil rights worker.
But drafting, introducing and passing restorative Voting Right Act legislation in the House in 2013 is not going to happen.
Republican House Speaker John Boehner has scheduled only a handful of legislative days for the rest of the year, to no objection from Sensenbrenner, giving his members of Congress some more long paid vacations.
In any event there is no way the House is going to lift its collective finger on repairing the GOP justices' damage to the Voting Rights Act, and there is no way Sensenbrenner is going to do anything beyond lip service when introduction occurs.
This is the same Sensenbrenner who is a major supporter of GOP voter obstruction laws and his office said Sensenbrenner can't comment on Wisconsin's very own state voter obstruction law now on federal trial "as it is a state law," the precise type of law the Voting Rights Act was designed to stop.
In August 2013, Sensenbrenner had a change of heart on commenting on state voter obstruction laws after Attorney General Holder said he was going to challenge Texas' onerous Photo Voter ID law under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act: Sensenbrenner.
Sensenbrenner was the chair of House Committee on the Judiciary from 2001-2007 when the Voting Right Act came up for reauthorization, and it was virtually assured passage, facing opposition only from southern racist Republicans.
In 2005-06, Sensenbrenner was chair of the House Judiciary Committee so he likes to preen that he was the champion of the renewal of the various sections of the Voting Rights Act that passed 390-33 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate and, history should remember, was signed into law by President George W. Bush.
In fact, Bush did one hell of a job of conjuring LBJ in the White House, and as noted by Gary May and Joseph Morgan Kousser cajoled Congress into passing a 25-year reauthorization in the Republican-controlled Congress.
Writes May:
(D)uring his second term Bush found it necessary to court black voters. The president's slow response to the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, which hurt blacks disproportionally and revealed again the presence of widespread poverty in the South, damaged Bush's standing. In an attempt to recoup his political fortunes as congressional elections approached in 2006, Bush turned to the black community. On a trip to Memphis visited the Loraine Motel and stood on the balcony where Martin Luther King was assassinated in 1968. He also agreed to address the NAACP's annual convention, which he had ignored for six years. There Bush was received coolly but won a standing ovation when he expressed his support for the Voting Rights Act, urging congress to enact it then, one year before it was due to expire. This was not simply rhetoric. Behind the scenes Bush's staff encouraged Republicans, who now controlled both houses of Congress, to extend the Act. And this time the Republican congressional leadership in both the House and Senate were receptive to such appeals because if you weren't a southerner, there was no political payoff for attacking the now-iconic Voting Right Act. (pp 273-274)
So, House Judiciary Committee Sensenbrenner was going to defy Bush and Rove on the Voting Rights Act reauthorization of 2006? Right.
Sensenbrenner is no champion of the Voting Rights Act. Sensenbrenner is a fraud of the worst kind, in this writer's harsh opinion. Not withstanding Sensenbrenner negotiating with the NAACP this Autumn, no chance will he cross his party's leadership and the Tea Party.
On a final note, to give you an idea of the utter incompetence of Congress, after culling through legislative databases looking for legislation, I called Rep. John Lewis' office asking the person answering the phone if he could transfer me to someone who could confirm no bill had been introduced repairing Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. The kid did not know what the Voting Rights Act is.
I talked to a staffer as House Judiciary Committee posing the same question. I received another, "I don't know."
Several other phone calls yielded similar protestations of ignorance of whether the crown jewel of the civil rights movement may have had a bill introduced to repair the obscene act committed by the five GOP partisans on the U.S. Supreme Court.
I don't care for the Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court and corrupt members of Congress, but at least they are not as fracking dumb as staffers in Congress.
As for Sensenbrenner, action and passed legislation do speak louder than words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)