ACSBlog

  • August 10, 2015

    by Jim Thompson

    Manny Fernandez at The New York Times writes about the success of Texans for Public Justice, a public policy group dedicated to fighting political corruption in Texas. The group was founded by Craig McDonald, who provided the keynote address at the 2013 Texas ACS Regional Convening.

    In The Los Angeles Times, Paige St. John reports that California will be the first state in the nation to provide sex reassignment surgery for a transgender inmate.

    Dylan Walsh at The Atlantic explores the collateral consequences attached to juvenile criminal sentences.

    At The American Prospect, Rachel M. Cohen discusses the growing movement to restore voting rights to former prisoners. 

  • August 10, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Tram Nguyen, Co-Executive Director, New Virginia Majority

    *This post is part of ACSblog’s symposium regarding the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    The principle of our democracy rests on the idea that each person has a vote that is cast and counted equally, regardless of who they are or where they come from. Fifty years ago, brave women and men marched across a now infamous bridge in Selma, Alabama, facing violence and risking death, asking only for that simple and fundamental right to vote. Today access to the ballot box is being threatened across the country and the struggle to defend our right to vote is still real.

    Since the Shelby decision eviscerated the protections of the Voting Rights Act for which they fought, emboldened state legislatures across the country, particularly those that were previously covered under pre-clearance requirements, are passing more and more laws making it harder for citizens to vote.

    For years, we in Virginia have been fighting against attacks on our voting rights. Prior to the Shelby decision, we could at least count on the Department of Justice to review proposed voting changes, and we could challenge the laws before they were enacted. Now we are forced to challenge voting restrictions in the courts after they’ve taken effect, which can not only be a costly and lengthy process, but many voters already will have been unable to cast a ballot as a consequence.

    Given the current voting rights landscape, civil rights advocates are getting more creative about how to protect voters from the most negative impacts of such restrictive laws. Across the country, many are looking at ways to work with secretaries of state and other election officials as they adopt regulations to implement these new laws.

    For example, Virginia’s new voter photo ID law went into effect in 2014 without being subject to any sort of review. While the law was passed in 2013, an enactment clause delayed implementation until July 1, 2014, which gave voting rights stakeholders over a year to work with the State Board of Elections on specific regulations. We worked with the State Board of Elections under two different administrations – Governor Bob McDonnell (R) and Governor Terry McAuliffe (D), and ultimately the final regulations had bipartisan support.

  • August 7, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Atiba R. Ellis, Professor of Law, West Virginia University College of Law. Twitter: @atibaellis

    *This post is part of ACSblog’s symposium regarding the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    The cornerstone of our democratic republic is the right to vote. The vote allows “We the People” ultimate say over government. The vote allows “We the People” to reject big-money-funded misinformation, the erosion of fundamental rights, and the degradation of public policy. As the Supreme Court has said for over a century, the right to vote is the most fundamental political right because it is “preservative of all other rights.” 

    To be effective at these (admittedly lofty) goals, we also have to recognize that the diversity of our electorate matters. For government to be legitimate, all citizens should be able to participate. Arbitrary bars to political participation raise questions of the validity of representative bodies. History has shown that in the absence of broad enfranchisement, government only acts for the unrepresentative majority. That majority can (and does) marginalize the minority when it comes to the minority’s status as equal citizens. This describes the majoritarian racial domination that defined the Jim Crow era of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the “VRA”), which we celebrate in this symposium, is the Constitution’s weapon against this racial domination.

    This state of racial domination had its roots in Reconstruction. The Reconstruction-era Congress, as I note here, sought specifically to protect the vote of freed slaves. The Republican majority in Congress of the late 1860s feared that terrorist tactics and legalized mischief would dissuade African Americans (an important Republican voting bloc) from the franchise. This Congress passed, and the states ratified, the Fifteenth Amendment that constitutionalized the idea of a right to vote free of racial discrimination.

    But the Reconstruction Congress’s fears came true in the century that followed. Even with the Fifteenth Amendment, our constitutional structure nonetheless relies heavily on states to define and administer the qualifications for voting. The Jim Crow period was created by a the southern states betraying the Fifteenth Amendment through race-neutral yet nonetheless disempowering tactics like poll taxes and literacy tests that crushed black political power.

    Thus, by the time the VRA was passed in 1965 to address these concerns, the democratic legitimacy of the United States was openly questioned. Two Americas existed—a white male America with full civil and political power and a black America where two-thirds of African Americans had been discouraged, dissuaded, and terrorized out of the vote.

  • August 7, 2015

    by Jim Thompson

    The Editorial Board of The New York Times discusses continued barriers to voting rights 50 years after the Voting Rights Act was first passed.

    In The New York Times, the Associated Press reports that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has struck a Texas voter ID law.

    In The Los Angeles Times, Rep. John Lewis and Sen. Patrick Leahy urge Congress to take the steps necessary to remedy the wrongdoings of Shelby County v. Holder.  

    Ari Berman in The New York Times details a history of opposition to the Voting Rights Act and urges Congress to pass the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015 before thousands are disenfranchised in the 2016 presidential election.  

    Paul Rosenberg at Salon interviews Ari Berman about the Republican Party’s stance on voting rights and the longstanding, devastating effects of Bush v. Gore

    In USA Today, Gregory Korte covers President Obama’s speech on the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act in which he tasks Congress with the responsibility of restoring lost provisions of the Act.  

  • August 7, 2015
    Guest Post

    by J. Gerald Hebert and Nate Blevins. Mr. Hebert is the Executive Director and Director of Litigation at The Campaign Legal Center. Mr. Blevins is a Fellow at the Campaign Legal Center. The Campaign Legal Center partners with ACS for the Voting Rights Institute.

    *This post is part of ACSblog’s symposium regarding the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    Barely a page into his majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, Chief Justice John Roberts makes a claim that in any other context would seem unremarkable, even obvious: "Voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that."

    The Chief Justice was at least half right: The overwhelming evidence indicating that "voting discrimination still exists" is beyond debate. What's unclear, however, is whether "no one doubts" such discrimination still exists. In fact, the Chief himself seems to doubt it quite a bit.

    In Shelby, the Court's task should have been straightforward. In the past, the Justices had held consistently that "Congress may use any rational means to effectuate the constitutional prohibition of racial discrimination in voting." As a result, all the Court needed to decide was whether the Voting Rights Act’s Section 4 preclearance formula (as applied through Section 5) was a "rational means" of enforcing the guarantees of the Fifteenth Amendment. Indeed, the Court had little difficulty making that determination prior to Shelby County: It upheld the Voting Rights Act's preclearance regime first in South Carolina v. Katzenbach in 1966 and affirmed it again 14 years later in City of Rome v. U.S. Both times, it rejected claims that the VRA exceeded Congress's power to enforce voting rights, going so far as to call the choice to extend the VRA "unassailable" and "plainly a constitutional method of enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment."

    So, what changed? How did the Court go from treating the VRA's constitutionality as "plain" and "unassailable" to having, as the majority put it in Shelby, "no choice but to declare [the preclearance provisions] unconstitutional"?