Wade Henderson is the executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
Two weeks ago, when the House was set to vote on renewal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and extend coverage of three key protections, a small band of Republican obstructionist derailed the process.
This surprised many who recall the rare bicameral, bipartisan introduction of the bill to renew the law in May.
The handful of renegades—like Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia—are from states that continue to have the most egregious voting rights violations. That these representatives bucked both their party leadership and President Bush over renewal, highlights the weakened stance of House leadership and the recalcitrancy of these members.
But you don’t have to look far back in history to uncover the legacy of disenfranchisement they stand for and the challenge they present to the Republican leadership as the House again schedules a vote on the bill today.
When the Voting Rights Act was first being considered in 1965, Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, the Minority Leader, was faced with similar retrogressives.
Back then, Southern opponents argued that the voting rights act was unconstitutional because it superseded a state's right to set up its own voting criteria. Dirksen countered with his own constitutional argument about the consent of the governed: "How then shall there be government by the people if some of the people cannot speak?"
Opponents then tried to alter the bill’s main provisions by proposing amendments. It’s a tactic resurrected by GOP foes today as they try to weaken the bill with two amendments, both of which previously failed in committee.
The House opponents of the bill complain that the VRA unfairly singles out nine Southern states—states with documented histories of discrimination—for federal oversight. They charge that the requirement is too burdensome and outmoded after 40 years in operation. Some, like Westmoreland, point to the number of African-American legislators and lawmakers—“See, it works”—as a sign that the law now needs to be changed.
But any jurisdiction that no longer discriminates can easily get out of Justice Department oversight. Every jurisdiction that has petitioned to be released from federal oversight since 1982 has had their request granted after they’ve proven that they no longer discriminate.
Other opponents object to the provision that requires ballots to be printed in several languages and interpreters be provided in states and counties where large numbers of citizens speak limited English—an attempt to conflate the debate over immigration with the Voting Rights Act.
But there are always a few who would block progress by standing in the way of the nation’s commitment to equality for all its citizens.
Today when the House again takes up the vote on what many consider the most effective civil rights law in the land, its members should consider who they want to be identified with: people like Westmoreland or with that voice of equality from four decades ago, Dirksen, who said: ". . . the right to vote is still an issue in this free country. There has to be a real remedy. There has to be something durable and worthwhile. This cannot go on forever, this denial of the right to vote by ruses and devices and tests and whatever the mind can contrive to either make it very difficult or to make it impossible to vote."
No longer is the nation faced with overt attempts to keep minorities from voting. Yet substantial evidence shows there are still—in the words of Dirksen —“ruses,” “devices’ and “whatever the mind can contrive” to keep some Americans from voting. That is why the House and the Senate need to quickly vote to renew this law.
