[Summit] racism and voter ID- Federal Appeals Court rules otherwise

[Jim Kelley]

Mark,
Doesn't the Justice Department follow the policies of the administration in power as it is now? 

The electoral process is inherently political and pushed by all parties but is guided by the constitution. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 enfranchised a large segment of the population by making elections free-er and fairer.

 I think disenfranchisement in the sense of less than fair elections is more insidious now (or perhaps we have removed the obvious impediments and are now able to examine core elements). Some example come to mind: gerrymandering (hopefully Q18 will help with this--but just in City Wards), campaign financing, single lever voting, transparency and facts about what interests candidates truly represent and ballot question detail. I'm sure there are many more (voter identification may be Relatively minor).

I hope that Political Scientists will continue to research these things and make recommendations so action can occur. Is there a Nobel Prize in Political Science? There probably should be.
Poly Sci is not my field and I certainly defer to the experts

PS , I'm not very knowledgeable about this but wasn't Saul Alinsky more about methods of implementing dogma of groups he agreed with rather than abhoring it?
Jim Kelley

-----Original Message-----
From: "Mark E. Santow" <msantow at umassd.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:01:36 
To: John Bazik<jsb at cs.brown.edu>
Cc: Summit Neighborhood e-mail<summit at sna.providence.ri.us>; Jim Kelley<jim-kelley2 at cox.net>
Subject: Re: [Summit] racism and voter ID- Federal Appeals Court	rules
	otherwise

it should be pointed out that courts across the nation (including in PA) have put a halt to the implementation of these laws, though unfortunately not everywhere. Given the complete lack of evidence of 'voter fraud' of any consequence (and the Bush Justice Department looked hard for it for years, and was motivated to do so), it is hard to see any rationale for such laws other than partisanship. 

And partisanship comes into play, because it is very clear to whom such impediments to voting are most likely to apply. Poll taxes, which were once ubiquitous in the Jim Crow South, were facially neutral with regard to race too. But even back then the federal courts were able (eventually) to see through the ruse. One would hope that on this particular issue -- the franchise -- we would be especially careful about who is excluded, and who isn't. After all, the United States has only had universal suffrage since 1965. Perhaps we should try it for a bit longer. 


Mark Santow 
Associate Professor and Chair, History 
University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth 

Blog: http://www.chantsdemocratic.blogspot.com/ 
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/alinskylives 


" Dogma is the enemy of human freedom...The human spirit glows from that small inner doubt of whether we are right, while those who believe with complete certainty that they possess the right are dark inside and darken the world with cruelty, pain, and injustice." 


Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, 1971 
----- Original Message -----

From: "John Bazik" <jsb at cs.brown.edu> 
To: "Jim Kelley" <jim-kelley2 at cox.net> 
Cc: "Summit Neighborhood e-mail" <summit at sna.providence.ri.us> 
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 10:35:11 AM 
Subject: Re: [Summit] racism and voter ID- Federal Appeals Court rules otherwise 

Or, hear it from the horse's mouth. What motivates these laws? 
PA House Republican leader Mike Turzai can tell you: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8 

John 

_______________________________________________ 
Summit mailing list 
Summit at sna.providence.ri.us 
http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us 
SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/ 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachments/20121016/a9bacacb/attachment.htm>