Rep. John Lewis Confronts Rep. Paul Broun Over Voting Rights Act

Roger Hale May 10, 2012 at 07:09 pm

It's sad that Broun backed down. Lewis has been around too long and should retire. The Civil Rights Act has outlived its usefulness and should be retired as well.

Rebecca McCarthy (Editor) May 10, 2012 at 08:04 pm

Dear Mr. Hale,
I think his constituents disagree. They keep redrawing his district, and he continues to be re-elected. Thank you for your comment.

Chuck Jackson May 10, 2012 at 08:45 pm

John Lewis, in all honesty, lives off what he and others did in the past, bless his little heart. However, that was 50 years ago. If the issue had been the act to provide ID to vote (IDs are a lot of things), the same words would have come out of his mouth. In 2012, he should SUPPORT voter ID reform to protect what he did in the 50s and 60s because it helps to equally protects his vote and my vote from being errased by a fraud. Its time he come of off the "me and my people" arguement because his people are the people in his district that voted for him, the ones that voted against him and the ones that did not vote at all!

Laurie Anderson May 11, 2012 at 02:18 pm

John Lewis is a champion of the disenfranchised, of all colors and races, just as he has always been. The fact is that there is a voter suppression effort underway in many states, under the guise of "voter fraud" that is intended to deliberately marginalize those who are poorer, have fewer resources, who are less inclined to vote for the Republicans. No one can track what voter fraud occurs with absentee voting because a different identification system is in place. To have an effective democracy, a country needs the participation of ALL OF ITS CITIZENS, just as John Lewis said in his comments.

Count Raoul May 11, 2012 at 03:26 pm

Another third rail. I live in Lewis's district and feel free to comment. He is a one issue congressman. He rarely if ever speaks on any subject other than racially charged ones. Maybe that's ok. The Voter's Right's Act is a slap in the face of the State of Georgia. That it is still the law of the land after almost 50 years is an insult to the men and women of Georgia who are still considered conspirators while most other states are considered blameless.

Jimmy Orr May 11, 2012 at 04:06 pm

Paul Broun will become my Congressman January, 2013. If he backs down this easily I will not be a happy camper with him representing me in the House of Representatives. I agree with Roger Hale that the Civil Rights Act has long outlived its usefulness. It is time for those the Act was enacted to protect to either fish or cut bait. Show a valid ID and you vote. It is as simple as that. Funding for federal oversight of voting laws in Georgia shouild be eliminated. Congressman Broun, man up, reintroduce your amendment.

Mr James Smart May 11, 2012 at 09:53 pm

As long as there are "racists" and "closet Racists" who would disinfranchise poor and people of color because of race; and use voting to do so, the voting rights acts must stand.Sadly in 2012 VOTING must "Still" be monitored by the Federal Government.
Rep. Brouns amendment is very troubling at worst and quite an unintelligent at best given the State of Georgias continual "bad" history of voting shenanigans. Shame, Shame, Shame Mr Broun, shame on you.

Count Raoul May 11, 2012 at 10:34 pm

In the 50 years since the VRA was passed, we are to presume that only nine states have local politicians who might possibly want to play with districts or gerrrymandering in order to keep a certain group of people under-represented. Many other counties in many other states are included, but only those eight southern states and Arizona are covered from border to border. Cook County, Illinois is not included and neither is Washington, DC or Boston. What's the chance there are individuals there determined to keep power where it is? Manhattan and Brooklyn are on the list. Damn Yankee vote stealers! How does it feel to be considered so likely to cheat that you are damned for another 20+ years? Many don't know, but I do, that the last law passed during Reconstruction, a law determined to punish the South for the Civil War, was repealed in 1952. Were we still hostile in 1951?

Rebecca McCarthy (Editor) May 12, 2012 at 12:16 am

Count, the Moore's Ford lynching happened in 1949, which isn't too long before 1951. So I would say, and this is my opinion, that yes, in 1951, white folks were still very hostile in 1951. Unfortunately.

Count Raoul May 12, 2012 at 02:56 am

Your timeline is correct. My question was whether the South was still hostile to the North in 1951. That was rougly 86 years after Appomatox but we were still being asked to pay a tariff on finished textiles headed north of Virginia. That's right, an interstate tariff on southern goods as a punishment for the Civil War. Repealed in 1952.

Ryan Smith (Editor) May 12, 2012 at 06:14 am

Count,
Having lived in both places, I'd have to say there are many enclaves in the South that are still hostile to the North in 2012. In a small Southern town in which I once lived, I was a local government reporter. During the last election I covered there, an incumbent county commissioner who was supremely qualified and had indisputably done his job beyond all expectation was defeated by a challenger who was frankly a joke: totally unqualified, ill-prepared, and uninterested in learning the job once he had it. The electorate's chief complaint about the incumbent they voted out: He was a Yankee transplant. I heard that time and time again. Very few people actually complained about his job performance, which was frankly unassailable (and I say that as a reporter who is generally pretty harsh with elected officials). He was simply born on the wrong side of the Mason-Dixon line. He never made a big thing of that, never crowed about "How we did things up North," and he'd lived in the county for about 15 years. Not long enough, apparently. I'm a Kentuckian born and bred, and I've lived in Georgia, Florida and both Carolinas, so I'm a fan of the South. But I can't pretend there aren't enclaves -- not the entire South, just enclaves -- that seem to think the Civil War is still going on. However, full agreement that a Reconstruction-era tariff still in force in 1951 is pretty ridiculous.

Count Raoul May 12, 2012 at 01:30 pm

Interesting anecdote Ryan, and I'm sure it is true. But the subject at hand is the State of Georgia being required to ask a three judge panel in DC for permission to move a polling place or change the font on a ballot. It's humiliating. And how did this county commissioner get elected in the first place? Wouldn't the rednecks have known better when he was first running?

Ryan Smith (Editor) May 12, 2012 at 04:16 pm

Count,
Regarding the commissioner, as I recall he ran unopposed in his primary and against a Democrat in the general -- and in that particular county, Democrats were the one group less likely to get elected than Yankees. In the next election, the local GOP made darn sure to throw its weight behind a primary challenger, who then ran unopposed in the general. As far as the VRA goes, considering that when Georgia attempted to implement ID match and "citizenship test" laws in 2008, the system was riddled with errors that disproportionately affected minorities and resulted in thousands of eligible voters being wrongly flagged, I don't particularly care how humiliated the state government is. When it proves it can run an election without disenfranchising voters -- whether by design or simple incompetence -- then the VRA might have outlived its usefulness. My only problem with the VRA is the idea of individual pre-clearance jurisdictions; as you quite rightly pointed out, it's naive to assume that only a few states would want to gerrymander certain groups into political impotence. In other words, if Georgia has to deal with pre-clearance, so should Massachussetts.