Common Cause - Holding Power ResponsibleCommon Cause - Holding Power Responsible

Topics
Our Issues
Money in Politics
Election Reform
Media and Democracy
Ethics in Government
Government Accountability
Press Center
Research Center
Register to Vote

Sign Up and join the Community - click here

Research

Voting Rights Act Hearing

By Matt Caruso
Posted on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 02:56:50 PM EST

Hey everyone - I'm Matt, a Common Cause intern. I wanted to blog today about a hearing I attended at the Senate.

This morning I attended the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing regarding the renewal of section 203 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA). Most of the VRA is permanent, with sections 5 and 203 expiring in August 2007. Section 203 of the VRA requires that regions with high levels of foreign language speaking citizens provide bilingual ballots.

The hearing panel included political activists that support or oppose the renewal of section 203. The most interesting panel member was Deborah Wright of the Los Angeles Registrar-Recorders office, who offered neither recommendation nor opposition for renewal; however, she testified that section 203 is effective and that the costs of multi-lingual ballots are reasonable. Linda Chavez, a political activist and frequent guest on Fox News, opposed renewal by tying section 203 to the immigration debate. She inferred that a bilingual ballot aids illegal immigrants. Senator Cornyn (R-TX) echoed this sentiment. Chavez also claimed that section 203 is not constitutional though she did not provide why, exactly, section 203 is unconstitutional. Senator Specter (R-PA), the committee chairman, closed the hearing by promising that the issue will be resolved soon.

Per U.S. law, naturalization requires a fifth grade reading level in English. Senator Feinstein (D-CA) said today that ballot propositions are often wordy and contain legal language. Ballot propositions and referenda are common in states like California and Arizona where there are also high levels of Spanish speaking citizens. Ballot propositions are difficult enough for one proficient in English to read, let alone one at a fifth grade reading level. Senator Kennedy (D-MA) said at the hearing today that "voting is a fundamental right" and that learning English is essential to being a citizen in this country. However, if 203 is not renewed then wordy ballot propositions and confusing ballots will deprive citizens of their voting rights.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act is effectively the realization of 1870's Amendment 15. The Fifteenth Amendment provides that Congress may prohibit racial discrimination by "appropriate legislation." The U.S. Supreme Court has deemed the VRA, and its amended provisions that include section 203, appropriate legislation. The Voting Rights Act in its current form must be renewed.


Tags: VRA, voting rights act, billingual ballots, Senate Judiciary Committee, 15th Amendment (all tags)


Display:

Voting Rights Act Hearing :: 3 Comments

VRA Vote

Latest word is that the Voting Rights Act will come to the House floor next week, possible Wed., June 21.  Rule may allow some amendments.

by Ed Davis on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 04:25:44 PM EST


Great Article Matt

Matt, you will make a great regular CC staff member, after you finish your internship. You very deftly slanted this article to the left--Ed "The Democrat" Davis Im sure is quite proud. First you emphasize this comment:

 "The most interesting panel member was Deborah Wright of the Los Angeles Registrar-Recorders office, who offered neither recommendation nor opposition for renewal; however, she testified that section 203 is effective and that the costs of multi-lingual ballots are reasonable."

That seems like a very unbiased person, that Deborah, until you realize that she is a top aide to disreputable Conny McCormack.

Furthermore, you mention:

Linda Chavez, a political activist and frequent guest on Fox News....

Well, what would your reason be to mention she is a frequent guest on, of all news stations the "evil conservative" Fox News. Could it be to point out that she is the "bad gal" in this case and we should oppose her beliefs. Do you bother to mention some consider her a civil rights leader and is head of the Center for Equal Opportunity, of course not!!

Then you go on to allot Senator Feinstein (D-CA)and Senator Kennedy (D-MA), a complete paragraph to give their reasons why section 203, is a great idea. But give almost nil to the Republicans in the article.

With this kind of one-sided article, I am sure the rest of the Liberal staff are patting you on the back and congradulating you for a job well done.    

by Nadersupporter on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 02:11:52 AM EST


Re: Great Article Matt

Nadersupporter, I am congratulating Matt on a job well done -- he attending the hearing, paid close attention, and then came back here and reported what went on.  I hope he blogs more in the future.

For the life of me, I really can't understand what the problem is with reporting what Democratic Senators say at a committee hearing.  You don't make note of the fact that Matt also mentions Republican Senators Cornyn and Specter...if he doesn't talk about their statements more extensively, maybe it's because they didn't say much.  Or, and more likely, because what they said didn't have much bearing on the point of Matt's post, which is this: Section 203 of the VRA, along with the VRA as a whole, should be reauthorized, because it increases peoples' ability to understand what they're voting on, and therefore improves democracy.

by Kirstin Ellison on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 10:27:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account just by filling out the form below. It's quick and free.


contact us | volunteer/intern programs | employment opportunities | site map | privacy policy