Official! ALABAMA Is RACIST CAPITAL Of The U.S.! Louisiana & Mississippi Are Real Close!
sainthelens
Obama racists on these posts, speculate no more.
These ill- and non-educated gun- and religion-hugging fools are where
you'd expect -- in the big three "REALLY RACIST" states listed, plus,
where else?
Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina,
and Virginia.
These places that benightedly brag about their being homes to staunch
Americans are in reality bastions of ANTI-AMERICAN prejudice and
bigotry.
So when you see the anti-Barack posts that proliferate minute-by-
minute on these .politics groups, you can be fairly sure the poster is
unabashedly anti-American.
--------------------
"High Court to Weigh Relevance Of Voting Law in Obama Era"
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 1, 2009; A01
AUSTIN -- America's next great battle over civil rights could hardly
have a less controversial flash point: the benign decision to move the
neighborhood polling place from Jack Stueber's garage to the local
elementary school.
But because Stueber's garage is in Texas, and because Texas once
systematically discriminated against its black and Latino citizens,
and because Congress wants to make sure that it never does again,
elections in the handsome neighborhood called Canyon Creek are a
federal issue.
The Supreme Court will consider this month whether the neighborhood's
tiny utility board should continue to be among the states and local
governments that bear the Voting Rights Act's heaviest burden -- pre-
clearance by federal authorities for even the smallest changes in
election laws and procedures -- and whether Congress exceeded its
authority in 2006 by extending the restrictions for 25 years.
Each time the court has reviewed the law since it was first passed 44
years ago, it has agreed with Congress that the restrictions are
warranted. But this time around, a question hangs over the case that
is not found in law books:
Is a law conceived in the time of Jim Crow still relevant in the age
of Barack Obama?
This has become a theme of the conservative activists who are
challenging the law.
President Obama's election "stands as a remarkable testament to the
tremendous progress this country has made in terms of racial equality
and voting rights," the Pacific Legal Foundation and others said in a
brief filed with the court.
To John Payton, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational
Fund, it is a nonsensical argument.
"If you believe either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would have
beaten John McCain, one way or the other I guess we would have
abolished gender discrimination or ended racial discrimination,"
Payton said. "If only there had been a black woman, I guess we could
have gotten rid of both."
Gregory S. Coleman, the soft-spoken Austin lawyer and activist who is
the lead attorney in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1
v. Holder, said he is not arguing that discrimination has been
eliminated, only that government officials in one part of the country
should not be presumed to discriminate, while officials in another are
not.
"Nothing disappoints me more than to pick up media accounts about our
case and to read that we're trying to do away with the Voting Rights
Act," Coleman said in a recent interview in his downtown Austin
office. "That's not what this case is about. This case is about making
sure that the Voting Rights Act stands for the broad principles that
we all have to treat each other as individuals."
The case has pitted civil rights groups that say the act's Section 5
restrictions have been the single most important factor in the advance
of minority electoral power against conservative activists who say
they transfer a "scarlet letter" of distrust to generations of people
who have never discriminated.
The polarized views about America's current racial landscape are
directed at a court that is itself splintered over questions of race
and government's responsibility.
In a decision last month that reduced the protections of another
section of the Voting Rights Act, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's
plurality opinion reflected the divide.
"Some commentators suggest that racially polarized voting is waning --
as evidenced by, for example, the election of minority candidates
where a majority of voters are white," Kennedy wrote. ". . . Still,
racial discrimination and racially polarized voting are not ancient
history."
At the same time, Kennedy warned that if the act were used to
"entrench racial differences," that could defeat the purpose of a
"statute meant to hasten the waning of racism in American politics."
The Voting Rights Act was enacted at a time when literacy tests, poll
taxes and other schemes were routinely used to frustrate the
constitutional guarantees of equal protection and voting rights for
all. Its Section 5 "pre-clearance" requirements, which compel the
Justice Department or a court to sign off on any changes to voting
procedures, were intended to last five years.
Instead, the law was expanded to include "language minorities," and
its duration was extended four times, most recently in 2006 by
overwhelming congressional majorities. It covers all of Alabama,
Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina,
Texas and Virginia, and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New
Hampshire, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota.
Coleman, a former Texas solicitor general who testified at the time
against reauthorization, said Congress avoided the question of where
discrimination exists today and simply reimposed the restrictions on
the same governments found guilty in the 1960s and '70s.
"To base the conclusion that Section 5 is still needed and where it is
needed based on 40-year-old presidential election returns is something
that should at least give one pause," he said.
Payton said the congressional record is replete with examples of
intentional discrimination in those jurisdictions, as well as a
multitude of planned actions that were thwarted because the Justice
Department was able to stop them.
And Obama's victory showed that racial polarization is more extreme in
the states listed in the act than elsewhere. Columbia Law School
professor Nathaniel Persily's research showed that in some of the
states, Obama "did worse among white voters than the Democratic
nominee four years earlier . . . despite a nationwide Democratic
swing."
Coleman, a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, is a passionate
advocate on the issue of race. He is co-counsel on another case before
the court this month, one involving white firefighters in New Haven,
Conn., who say the city's efforts to increase diversity discriminated
against them.
Coleman had been the Texas utility district's lawyer on a tax issue,
and he told the board that with help from the Project on Fair
Representation, he would represent it for no cost in contesting its
inclusion under Section 5.
Board President Bill Ferguson acknowledges that the Justice Department
has never denied any election-change request it has made -- the last
was in 2004 -- and that the annualized cost to the district of
complying is only $223.
But he was surprised to learn that the federal government had to
approve his utility board's election in the first place -- there has
never been an allegation of discrimination in the neighborhood, whose
combined black and Latino population is about 7 percent.
"It didn't seem right that we were somehow different from the rest of
the country," he said.
There is not much of an effort by other states and jurisdictions to
have Section 5 declared unconstitutional.
Travis County, where Austin is located, opposed the utility board's
effort, saying in a brief that the provision is "an invaluable tool
the county uses -- still uses -- every election cycle to help tamp
down or eliminate the insidious influence of racial discrimination."
The state of Texas has taken no position.
A three-judge panel in Washington ruled unanimously that the utility
district did not meet the law's definition of the kinds of
jurisdictions that could "bail out" from the provision by showing they
had not discriminated. And it said Congress was operating within its
authority to reauthorize the restrictions.
Ferguson acknowledges that the issue has become somewhat controversial
in the neighborhood. Chris Bowers won a seat on the utility board
because he opposes the lawsuit. "It was a favor to Coleman, and I
don't see any benefit to the district," Bowers said.
"Ideologically, I think the Voting Rights Act is a good thing, and I
would err on the side of giving Congress the power to enforce it."
He and Ferguson agree that most residents don't care much about the
issue, and those who do are about equally divided.
Ferguson and three others on the board voted to keep the lawsuit
going, although he worries that it could be misinterpreted.
"We don't want to be seen like we're racist or against voting rights
or anything," he said.
And whether or not the suit is successful, Ferguson said, the utility
district may not be subject to the provisions of the Voting Rights Act
much longer.
If all goes according to plan, he said, the board is going to pay off
the bonds that paid for the sewers that laid the foundation for Canyon
Creek, fix up the neighborhood park and turn it over to the city of
Austin, and go out of business.
[Research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033104425.html
ZerkonXXXX
> These ill- and non-educated gun- and religion-hugging fools are where
> you'd expect -- in the big three "REALLY RACIST" states listed, plus,
> where else?
>
> Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and
> Virginia.
With this, I am trying to understand the difference between those 'really
racist' and the above statement.
stermen
FREE USPS PRIORITY MAIL! BONUS SOFTWARE! CASHBACK!
Click to go
HELLO ALL AND WELCOME TO OUR BUY IT NOW FOR A BRAND NEW, 100% AUTHENTIC AND
SEALED APPLE IPOD TOUCH! ,
8GB MODEL!! This is the latest and greatest from Apple and the 2ND
Generation of this wonderful iPod!
As well, this is eligible for live.com's cashback. You can get this iPod for
about $186!
Please email us if you need assistance on getting the cashback rebate.
Click to go
"sainthelens" <perry...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:e728f384-9b25-4f93...@r28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...