The Voting Rights Act and Your Political Afterlife, is before you now…


With Chief Justice John Roberts’ highly legalistic interpretation of the Voting Rights Act and in which he found Section Four to be unconstitutional, deferred his Ambition Agenda to totally eliminate the Voting Rights Act for all time, i.e., the New Deal.  To wit, his ambition, not to seek public office but an “appointment” to public office would eventually permit him to achieve this ‘watermark’ legacy for making white votes contain more ‘value’ that does the brown vote.  And yet, the ramifications for such a decision, comes at us in a multiplicity of ways and which effects everyone, not just “minorities” at the ballot box.


And Adele Stan, one of America’s exemplary Journalists, writing for RH Reality Check, has this to say and where she combines the Voting Rights Act with ‘standing tall’ for the impermissibility of eliminating abortion services/facilities for not only the “needy” but to low-income women facing a bleak future of consequential poverty for having one too many children, even when married.


In yesterday’s article and titled, “How the Voting Rights Act Gave Us Wendy Davis’ Filibuster” speaks volumes to those of us here in theSonoranDesert, and in particular, theArizona’s State Legislature to make voting even more difficult.  In short, Governor Jan Brewer, like Texas Governor Rick Perry continues to advocate discrimination while both are in a current state of denial.  And yet, Republican efforts premised on “denial, deflection and diversion” continue apace, given that more litigation via Section 2 will require consummate vigilance from a multitude of political activists and citizen-journalists as well as the attendant fundraising skill set necessary to address the financial costs associated with these anticipated legal challenges.


“Were it not for the VRA—and, specifically, the section of the act struck down by the Court—Wendy Davis’ historic filibuster of the draconian anti-abortion bill, SB 5, would have never taken place. That’s because, without Section 4 of the VRA, a redrawing of herFort Worthlegislative district by the GOP-controlled legislature would have robbed her of her seat in the state senate in 2012.”


And Stan goes on to quote to quote MSNBC’s Zachary Roth explaining:


“The GOP plan radically changed the demographic makeup ofDavis’ district, among others, moving tens of thousands of Black and Hispanic votes into neighboring districts.  In fact, 94 precincts that were over 70%  minority, Republicans cut out 48 (see map of District 10 here).  In the new map, Blacks and Hispanics were placed in separate districts from each other and were outnumbered by the white conservative majority, which tends to vote Republican.


“Davis and her constituents had one recourse, The Voting Rights.  Under Section Five of the landmark civil-rights law, election changes made in certain areas with a history of discrimination—includingTexasand most other southern states-can be blocked by the federal government if they might reduce the voting power of minorities.


“SoDavischallenged the GOP redistricting under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, based on her state’s place on the list in Section 4 that required “preclearance” by the federal government of changes to voting rules.Texas’ place on that list was well-earned, like the other nine states designated therein, because of its long history of disenfranchising voters of color.


“Daviswon the challenge, and was allowed to run from her district as previously constituted, eking out yet another narrow win over her Republican challenger.

Now that Section 4—that list of nine states and jurisdictions within seven others that were subject to federal review of voting rules—has been struck down by the Supreme Court on the laughable logic that racial discrimination against voters has been pretty much fixed, Section 5, which allows those alleging disenfranchisement in the Section 4 jurisdictions to submit their complaints for federal review, is rendered moot unless Congress acts to arrive at a new formula for scrutiny. No one expects that to happen.”


As for those of us, i.e., “minority” voters, this “problem” is now sitting on our doorstep and for the ultimate decision that is ours alone to make.  And Stan adds more to our political predicament:


“You’d be forgiven for seeing, if you did, the Roberts decision on VRA as a strike at the heart of the progressive coalition—because it is. Not only does it create the conditions for cementing the double-power-smashing-whammies of race and gender for African-American and other women of color; it acts as a growth hormone for white, male power. Its effect will be to consolidate power among political entities that seek to roll back the individual rights of all who are not white, male, and heterosexual.


“Groups like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law will have their hands full, because without Section 4, states and other jurisdiction no longer have an incentive to avoid gaming the system for white or right-wing control, and each infraction will have to be litigated on behalf of the disenfranchised—people who traditionally lack the money and access to power to do so.

“If you think the right’s attempts to suppress the vote were egregious in 2012, just wait until the next election. Better yet, don’t wait, because your constitutional guarantees will rely on the investment of all in the progressive coalition to stem a growing tide of efforts designed to make some votes more equal than others.”


In identical fashion with a tad of criminal stupidity, Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer, the ever-penchant Texas Governor Rick Perry has called the state legislature into a Special Session to address “abortion” come Monday next.  Please be so advised!

Note:  Originally Posted on the Web Site of the Chicano Veterans Organization.