Voting Rights Act
Amendment Stirs Debate
By AP from the
NYTimes on the Web, July 13, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Ghosts of the
civil rights movement haunted a House debate Thursday over whether to renew the
1965 Voting Rights Act as opponents complained that it punishes Southern states
for racism they say they've overcome.
''By passing this rewrite of the Voting Rights Act, Congress is declaring from
on high that states with voting problems 40 years ago can simply never be
forgiven,'' said Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., one of several lawmakers
pressing for changes to the law to ease its requirements on Southern states.
Supporters of the renewing the law without change said the pain of racial
struggle -- and racist voting practices -- is still felt today.
The House planned to vote later Thursday on renewing the law after deciding what
to do about changes proposed by a group of conservative Republicans
Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., displayed photos of civil rights activists, including
himself, who were beaten by Alabama state troopers in 1965 as they marched from
Selma to Montgomery in support of voting rights.
''I have a concussion. I almost died. I gave blood; some of my
colleagues gave their very lives,'' Lewis shouted from the House floor, while
the Rev. Jesse Jackson, another veteran of the civil rights movement, looked on
from the gallery.
''Yes, we've made some progress; we have come a distance,'' Lewis 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.''
The very debate over changes to the act is testament to the influence of
Southern conservatives, even over their own GOP leaders who had hoped to pass
the renewal as a fresh appeal for support from minorities on Election Day.
With rare bipartisan support among leaders of the House and Senate, the renewal
was widely expected to sail through Congress and on to the White House for
President Bush's signature.
Republican leaders, however, were forced to cancel a House vote last month when
conservatives rebelled during a closed meeting against provisions they say
single out Southern states for federal oversight despite the civil rights
progress they've made in recent years.
Unable to satisfy the dissenters and eager to pass the bill this week,
Republican leaders announced late Wednesday they would allow the House to
consider amendments, none of which was expected to pass.
The amendments include proposals to extend the act for a decade, rather than the
25 years in the bill; require the Justice Department to prove why certain states
and localities should stay on the list of those who need federal approval for
changes to voting rules; and change the requirements for how states and
localities qualify for that list.
''A lot has changed in 40-plus years,'' said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga. ''We
should have a law that fits the world in 2006.''
Another amendment would strike requirements in the law that ballots in districts
with large populations of non-English speakers be printed in other languages.
''What unites us? It's our language, the English language,'' said Rep.
Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Without the amendment, the act is ''hurting
America by making it easier not to learn English.''
Democrats made clear early in the day they would vote against the renewal if any
of the amendments were added.
''Any one of them would be a weakening of the Voting Rights Act,'' said
Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California.
The White House also weighed in during the debate, saying in a statement that
the Bush administration ''supports the intent'' of the renewal. The statement
did not take a position on the amendments proposed by lawmakers who represent
the GOP's conservative base.
Their objections to the renewal already were being echoed by some Senate
colleagues from the same states.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., noted that the act doesn't expire until next year.
''It's 13 months away and we're creating a political situation that doesn't need
to be created,'' Coburn said in an interview. He said changes such as
those proposed by the House amendments need time for consideration.
Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., called lawmakers who want to loosen the
requirements in the law ''ideological soul mates'' of lawmakers who opposed the
1964 Civil Rights Act.
''For them, this is not a debate about fairness, it is about ideology.
Ideology has no place in today's debate,'' Hastings said. ''We should do
this not for the partisan benefit but because, as John Kennedy said, it is
right.''
The bill is HR-9.
|
