Through the weekend and into this morning there were many editorials on voting rights. The U.S. House's failure to vote on Voting Rights Act renewal (H.R. 9) last Wednesday spurred debate on op-ed pages throughout the country. I found most of the voting rights coverage frustrating. The debate and commentary over voting rights issues is generally being viewed through political rather than substantive goggles. Granted, infighting and electoral significance drive media coverage of politics. Nevertheless, it disappoints me that editorials on voting rights mostly lack substance. The focus is generally significance for the November elections or President Bush's approval rating. Thankfully, there has been some substance in editorials.
This morning's Atlanta Journal Constitution has an editorial by Julian Bond. He writes that Rep. Westmoreland's (R-GA) argument that the VRA should apply to all states and not just the states with a history of racial discrimination is erroneous because Westmoreland knows that nationalizing the VRA would likely render the Act unconstitutional. Westmoreland is spearheading the hijack of VRA renewal on the heels of the Georgia State Legislature's passing of the photo ID law for voting. If section 5 of the VRA, the provision requiring Justice Department clearance for mostly Southern states regarding changes in voting procedures, is not renewed then the ways and means of racial discrimination will return without obstacle.
Cynthia Tucker in the Baltimore Sun writes that Georgia's photo ID law is aimed at disenfranchising blacks who do not drive cars. The law was amended that the state would provide photo IDs to voters free of charge; however, the IDs have yet to be issued. Tucker writes:
What Georgia Republicans really wanted to do was bar a small group of voters who tend to be rural, isolated, poor and predominantly black. According to many studies, those voters are less likely to own a car and, therefore, less likely to have a driver's license. They are also more likely to vote for Democrats.
It is no coincidence that Georgia Republicans in the U.S. House are responsible for delaying the renewal vote.
Eugene Kane in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel dispels false notions about the VRA, then makes a case against photo IDs writing that young African-Americans and Latinos would be disenfranchised. However, the editorial, as with most editorials over the weekend, focuses on political consequences.
If Republicans wanted to discourage more blacks and Latinos from voting for their side of the aisle, they couldn't come up with a better strategy than stopping renewal of the Voting Rights Act.
Another article focusing on politics is an editorial by Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post. He writes that the failure to vote last Wednesday was due to the Republicans attempt to mask their real intentions.
Decades ago the Republican Party built its "solid South" with thinly disguised, and sometimes blatant, appeals to white racist voters who felt threatened by blacks. Now Republicans seem to have decided to paint Latinos as the new menace and buenos dias as a mortal threat.
While making a good case against Rep. Westmoreland and company, Robinson is wrong to lump all "Republicans" together as many support the VRA. His article reads as an argument against Republicans rather than an argument for VRA renewal, which is the argument that the country needs.
The Voting Rights Act in its current form should be renewed because it has been proven that Justice Department approval in covered districts has halted racial discrimination. Section 5 of the VRA also deters schemes to disenfranchise minority voters. These are important issues that affect Americans. Unfortunately, the focus is too often the characteristics of the debate, not the substance.
