Rebellion Stalls
Extension
of Voting Rights Act
By CARL HULSE,
NYTimes on the Web, June 22, 2006
WASHINGTON, June 21 -- House
Republican leaders abruptly canceled a planned vote to renew the Voting Rights
Act on Wednesday after a rebellion by lawmakers who said the civil rights
measure unfairly singled out Southern states and unnecessarily required ballots
to be printed in foreign languages.
The reversal represented a significant embarrassment for the party leadership,
which had promised a vote to extend the act, the 1965 law that is credited with
ending rampant discrimination at the polls and electing black officeholders
throughout the South. Early last month, House and Senate leaders of both
parties gathered on the steps of the Capitol in a rare bipartisan moment to
celebrate its imminent approval.
But just hours before the vote was to occur Wednesday, lawmakers critical of the
bill mutinied in a closed morning meeting of House Republicans, raising
sufficient objections to prompt the leadership to pull the bill indefinitely.
Several lawmakers said it was uncertain whether a majority of Republicans would
back the legislation without the changes sought by critics, and under the House
leadership's informal rules no bill can reach a vote without the support of a
majority of the Republicans.
"A lot of it looks as if these are some old boys from the South who are trying
to do away with it," said Representative Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, who said
it would be unfair to keep Georgia under the confines of the law when his state
has cleaned up its voting rights record. "But these old boys are trying to
make it constitutional enough that it will withstand the scrutiny of the Supreme
Court."
Despite the resistance, the Republican leadership issued a statement pledging to
move ahead quickly with a vote once Republicans were given additional time to
work out their differences.
"While the bill will not be considered today, the House G.O.P. leadership is
committed to passing the Voting Rights Act legislation as soon as possible," the
leadership said in the statement.
Democrats and civil rights groups expressed strong disappointment in the change
of plans, particularly given what appeared to be a bipartisan consensus to push
ahead before major elements of the law expire in the middle of next year.
The renewal would be for 25 years.
"We fear that pulling the bill could send the wrong message about whether the
bill enjoys broad bipartisan support and that delaying consideration until after
the July 4 recess could give those with partisan intentions space and time to
politicize the issue," said Representative Melvin Watt, a North Carolina
Democrat who is the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Democrats said they were holding their political fire to some degree in the
interests of winning passage of the measure, but they predicted it could become
a significant political issue if the fight dragged on too long.
The delay marked the second time in days that House Republicans had pulled back
on legislation. On Tuesday, the leadership announced it would hold
hearings this summer on immigration policy before trying to negotiate
legislation that differs from the Senate.
President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law in August 1965
after a string of violence in Southern states resulting from deep resistance to
voting by blacks. 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 a requirement for the Justice Department to
review any proposed changes to voting procedures to judge if 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.
But Mr. Westmoreland and other Southern Republicans said their states have made
great strides in voting access for members of minority groups, while some of the
most recent irregularities have taken place in places exempt from the
requirement.
"The hanging chads down in Florida, that jurisdiction is not covered," he said.
Advocates of the act say the history of discrimination in the covered states
justifies their special status and that leaders who believe their jurisdictions
should be exempt can apply to "bail out" through a federal review.
"The fact of the matter is that you have a small group of members who have
hijacked this bill, and many of these individuals represent states that have
been in violation for a long time," said Nancy M. Zirkin, deputy director of the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. "We believe these individuals do
not want the Voting Rights Act reauthorized."
The Republican leadership of the House and the Senate decided earlier this year
to proceed speedily with the renewal to put to rest fears that Republicans
intended to let it expire next year, and to try to make political inroads with
minority groups. If the act is allowed to expire, Democrats will almost
certainly accuse Republicans of trying to turn the clock back on civil rights.
But Southern lawmakers, mainly from Georgia and Texas, continued to push their
objections, with some suggesting the House hold off action pending a Supreme
Court ruling on a Texas redistricting case.
A new problem arose as some Republicans, already caught up in a fight over
immigration policy, began raising questions about a requirement for bilingual
ballots in cases where political jurisdictions meet a certain threshold for
citizens who struggle with English.
Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, has pushed a proposal to
eliminate that plan, arguing that naturalized citizens should have had to prove
English proficiency as part of their citizenship test and that American-born
speakers of other languages are entitled to assistance at the polls.
"There is no need to print ballots in any language other than English," Mr. King
said Wednesday.
But the leadership did not allow him to offer the provision, angering some
Republicans. Lawmakers and aides said that Representative F. James
Sensenbrenner Jr., the Wisconsin Republican who is the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, also left Wednesday's meeting without answering questions about the
bill, angering others. In the resulting tumult, the leadership decided to
delay the vote.
|
