Vermont senator Bernie Sanders wrote a piece for the Huffington Post (where else?) about voting rights yesterday. In it, Sanders decries the terrible damage that has been done to the Voting Rights Act and Congress' failure to remedy that problem. It is an instructive view into the mind of a man who wants to be president.
Let's focus on one aspect of what Sanders discusses, the Court decision that struck out the special limitations on a few states when it came to election laws. In 1965, there were a number of states that Congress decided needed to be required to federal clearance before they could change their election laws. Almost all of these states were in the South and they had laws which promoted racial discrimination in voting. In general, Congress is not allowed to treat certain states different from others, but if it meets certain strict tests, it can do so. One of those tests is that Congress must have clear evidence of the need for differential treatment. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that conditions of fifty years earlier no longer supplied a basis for Congress to treat states differently from one another when it came to voting rights. The Court made clear, however, that if Congress had evidence of current discrimination, it could again impose stricter requirements on certain states. The Court also left in place the section of the Voting Rights Act that authorizes the courts to adjudicate claims of discriminatory practices in voting and to strike down any such discriminatory practice.
Sanders' take on that ruling is this: " In 2013 [the Supreme Court] struck another blow, when it overturned a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. That made it very difficult to step in and enforce voters' rights under the Act."
It was as if Sanders never bothered to read what the Supreme Court said and never considered the established law under the Constitution. Sanders offers no evidence that any state is guilty of discrimination in voting. That's because there is none to offer. Oh, Bernie does talk about the requirement for a photo ID in order to vote, but that has already been ruled proper and not discriminatory by our courts. Sanders has nothing else. No wonder then that it is difficult to "enforce voters' rights under the Act." You cannot prove discrimination if there is no evidence that shows any such discrimination.
What we see in Sanders is another politician who seems to think that just because he says something, he has accomplished something. We've had almost seven years of a president who values words over deeds. We just cannot afford another term with a leader who just talks.
Let's focus on one aspect of what Sanders discusses, the Court decision that struck out the special limitations on a few states when it came to election laws. In 1965, there were a number of states that Congress decided needed to be required to federal clearance before they could change their election laws. Almost all of these states were in the South and they had laws which promoted racial discrimination in voting. In general, Congress is not allowed to treat certain states different from others, but if it meets certain strict tests, it can do so. One of those tests is that Congress must have clear evidence of the need for differential treatment. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that conditions of fifty years earlier no longer supplied a basis for Congress to treat states differently from one another when it came to voting rights. The Court made clear, however, that if Congress had evidence of current discrimination, it could again impose stricter requirements on certain states. The Court also left in place the section of the Voting Rights Act that authorizes the courts to adjudicate claims of discriminatory practices in voting and to strike down any such discriminatory practice.
Sanders' take on that ruling is this: " In 2013 [the Supreme Court] struck another blow, when it overturned a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. That made it very difficult to step in and enforce voters' rights under the Act."
It was as if Sanders never bothered to read what the Supreme Court said and never considered the established law under the Constitution. Sanders offers no evidence that any state is guilty of discrimination in voting. That's because there is none to offer. Oh, Bernie does talk about the requirement for a photo ID in order to vote, but that has already been ruled proper and not discriminatory by our courts. Sanders has nothing else. No wonder then that it is difficult to "enforce voters' rights under the Act." You cannot prove discrimination if there is no evidence that shows any such discrimination.
What we see in Sanders is another politician who seems to think that just because he says something, he has accomplished something. We've had almost seven years of a president who values words over deeds. We just cannot afford another term with a leader who just talks.
No comments:
Post a Comment