Boulevard

House Approves Voting Rights Act

July 14, 2006, The New York Times

After Challenges, House Approves Renewal of Voting Act
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ

WASHINGTON, July 13 — The House voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to renew expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act after supporters of it defeated challenges mounted by conservative opponents.
The 390-to-33 vote on the landmark civil rights act capped a day of impassioned debate that heightened the politically charged atmosphere surrounding race and ethnicity, already aggravated by the recent fight in Congress over immigration.
In urging adoption of the act, Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, recalled marching on Bloody Sunday, a turning point in the movement for black voting rights in 1965, when the police in Selma, Ala., beat 600 civil rights demonstrators.
“I gave blood,” Mr. Lewis said, his voice rising, as he stood alongside photographs of the clash. “Some of my colleagues gave their very lives.”
“Yes, we’ve made some progress; we have come a distance,” he added. “The sad truth is, discrimination still exists. That’s why we still need the Voting Rights Act, and we must not go back to the dark past.”
For weeks, the outcome of the battle to extend the act had been in doubt. Republican leaders had planned a vote in June. But they abruptly canceled it after conservative lawmakers objected to several provisions of the act, including one that requires the Justice Department to review any proposed changes to voting procedures in states covered by the law, most of them in the South. They said the provisions were unnecessary.
The rebellion was an embarrassment for the Republican leadership. In early May, House and Senate leaders of both parties assembled on the steps of the Capitol to pledge their support for the act and celebrate what they described as its imminent approval. President Bush had also thrown his support behind it.
To mollify those conservatives, House leaders agreed to allow them to offer four amendments on Thursday, including one that would have required the Justice Department to demonstrate why the voting procedures in certain states should still be under federal oversight.
Representative Phil Gingrey, Republican of Georgia, argued that his state, for one, had made great strides in voting rights for minorities. “A lot has changed in 40-plus years,” Mr. Gingrey said. “We should have a law that fits the world in 2006.”
But in the end, Republicans joined with Democrats to defeat the amendments, allowing both parties to cast themselves as champions of minority voters.
“This legislation proves our unbending commitment to voting rights,” said Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
The focus now shifts to the Senate, where the Judiciary Committee is expected to take up the Voting Rights Act next week.
Senate Democrats urged quick passage.
“For two months, we have wasted precious time as the Republican leadership played to its conservative base,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader. “There are only 21 legislative days left in this Congress, and the time to act is now.”‘
President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law in August 1965 after a string of violence in Southern states surrounding efforts to ensure that blacks were afforded full rights to vote.
The law instituted a nationwide prohibition against voting discrimination based on race, eliminated poll taxes and literacy tests and put added safeguards in regions where discrimination had been especially pronounced.
Those included the requirement for the Justice Department to review any proposed changes to voting procedures to determine whether they would be discriminatory. That “preclearance” requirement would be retained for the nine states entirely covered by the law, most of them in the South, and parts of seven others.
While critics of that requirement say it is now outdated, supporters of the act said the history of discrimination in those particular states justified their status. Beyond that, they argued that leaders who believed their states or localities should be exempt from the requirements could apply to “bail out” through a federal review.
On the floor Thursday, many Democrats, as well as Republicans, denounced the amendments offered by conservatives as an effort to derail renewal of the act. Democrats had warned from the start that they would vote against the act if any of the amendments were tacked on to it.
“Their goal has been one thing and one thing only: to kill the Voting Rights Act,” said Representative David Scott, Democrat of Georgia.
Another provision of the act that drew fire from conservatives requires bilingual ballots in political jurisdictions with a high number of citizens who have difficulty with English. Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, offered an amendment that would have eliminated it.
Mr. King and his supporters argued that naturalized citizens should have had to prove English proficiency as part of their citizenship test. In the end the amendment, which would have allowed local voting officials to provide language assistance at the polls, was defeated 238 to 185.
“This is multiculturalism at its worst,” Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, said, referring to bilingual ballots. “When we come from various ethnic groups and races, what unites us? It’s our language, the English language. We’re hurting America by making it easier for people not to learn English.”

posted by J. Boulevard @ 10:33 AM