Talk:Voting Rights Act

I don't think this Act was such a great idea. If someone can't read, how can they be expected to make an informed decision when they choose a candidate? Andy5 11:33, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

In 1996, the VRA was effectively nullified by the U.S. Supreme Court, by its refusal to overturn a lower court decision in LaRouche vs. Fowler. The Democratic National Committee had refused to recognize delegates won by candidate Lyndon LaRouche in state primary elections during the 1992 Presidential campaign, once again using the "private club" argument to assert that the party would not recognize LaRouche's candidacy. LaRouche and elected Democrats from around the U.S. filed suit against Democratic National Committee head Donald Fowler, charging that the D.N.C. acts were in violation of the VRA. A lower court accepted the "private club" argument, and the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, allowed the decision to stand.

I know that in principle it seems like a nifty thing to make sure people are educated when they vote. But who decides who is educated and by what standards? Tales of blacks being accused of not being "literate" if they could not take a test in latin to vote are not false; I've personally met some of the victims of this "literary test" and other eyewitnesses (both black and white) and it has been documented to have occured in the South. That is why have that law.

Are there any third parties that argeee the VRA was "effectively nullified"? Can you point to any law books that speak of "LaRouche vs Fowler" as a significant turning point in the history of the VRA? AndyL

You can examine the transcript of the oral arguments, which was an external link to the article last time I checked. Also, here are excerpts from the Amicus Curiae (http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/1996/fowler_amicus.html) brief, submitted by a long list of Democrats, led by former U.S. Congressman James Mann of Greenville, S.C. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:23, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because Andy persists in deleting the link to the oral arguments, I will include it here:

• Unedited excerpts from the transcript of LaRouche vs. Fowler (oral arguments) (http://www.larouchespeaks.net/pages/fowlerdoc.html)

That is not what I asked for. Can you point to any legal texts, articles in law journals etc that point to the LaRouche case as at all significant in the history of the VRA? That the ruling was at all considered a *legal precendent*? You argue that the ruling in LaRouche made the VRA essentially null. Well then there should be some legal experts who agree with that assessement. Who are they? Can you find anyting that's NOT on a LaRouche run website, ie anything from an independent source, that holds that this case is of *any* importance? AndyL

Au contraire, Andy, that is what you asked for: third parties that agree that the VRA was "effectively nullified." Most, if not all of them, are attorneys, and what makes it all the more interesting, many of them were involved in the original struggle to pass the VRA (see Amelia Boynton Robinson, if you haven't deleted that article yet).

"Among the 39 state legislators, are the leadership of black caucuses in nine states, the president of Alabama's New South Coalition, and the vice-president of the Alabama Democratic Coalition. National and state leaders of the nation's two major civil rights organizations--the NAACP and the SCLC--have signed on, as have prominent members of the African-American Lawyers Association, and the National Black Women's Caucus. In sum, the leadership of black Democrats in the United States is well represented."

As far as legal texts of articles in law journals, I don't know -- but the link I provided to the transcript of the oral arguments makes clear, that the parties arguing the case had no illusions about what was going on.--Herschelkrustofsky 20:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

An additional reference: commentary (http://www.larouchespeaks.net/extravaganza/John%20Gilliam-Price%20Testimony.html) by John Gilliam-Price, national spokesperson for the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, based in Baltimore, Maryland.--Herschelkrustofsky 06:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

An amicus curiae brief is one thing, it's an immediate intervention into a case and will make claims about the case's importance whether valid or not. A better test of a case's importance is its subsequent impact and commentary in law journals and law books afterwards, particularly the use of the case as a legal precedent. Indeed, whether the case is considered a legal precedent *after the fact* is the litmus test for its importance. So can you please give me some evidence that the LaRouche case has been considered a precedent by judges or legal scholars in the period since the ruling?AndyL 15:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It was not the law schools nor the academic community that fought to pass the VRA; it was the Civil Rights Activists and Democrats of conscience, and I find their views on this matter most relevant. Also, as I said, the transcript of the oral arguments speaks for itself.--Herschelkrustofsky 01:13, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In a stunning revalation (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=13), President Bush told congressional black caucus he ‘didn’t know anything about’ Voting Rights Act renewal, and that he would deal with it when it came up.

RawStory story not quite what it appears. Please see my post today on BOPnews (http://www.bopnews.com/archives/002797.html#2797) for clarification, per Rep. Charles Rangel's office.--Ellen Dana Nagler