Attending the Voting Rights Act Ceremony at the White House

I tapped the following into my PDA this morning (Thursday, July 27) when I attended the ceremony for the signing of the bill extending particular provisions of the Voting Rights Act on the south lawn of the White House, and edited it later on in the day. UPDATE: I later discovered that the day before Bush signed the law, nine of ten Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee, including chair Arlen Specter, signed a report questioning the constitutionality of a renewed Voting Rights Act. They reportedly submitted the report into the legislative record without showing Democrats, and Dems claim that the report was submitted to increase the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will invalidate or cut back the renewed Voting Rights Act. So much for “We Are the World.” More on the last minute report is here.  

I'm at the signing of the renewal of the Voting Rights Act.  Like too many things in my life, I made it here just in time at 8:57 am (we were warned officials would close the gates at 9:00 am).  

There are about 400 people here.  Perhaps 40% (maybe even half) are African American, and the rest are Asian-American, Latino, or white.  I see a lot of friends from the Hill, the academy, the civil rights community, and other arenas.  Despite the fact that the sun is not yet at full blast, we are all sticky from the humidity and the heat.  

Those with red tickets get to sit in the white lawn chairs inside the ropes, while those of us with blue tickets are to stand outside of the ropes (I don't know if that's just coincidence, or if the colors for insiders and outsiders are switched when a Democrat sits in the White House).  Red ticket holders include dignitaries like Don King, Juan Williams, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Martin Luther King III, while blue ticket holders seem to be Hill staffers and others of us who are not household names.  A group of twenty-something kids (I don't see any who are people of color) manage the crowds and enforce this separation.

A friend and fellow blue ticket holder tells me that he's looking for a red ticket, but I'm not on a similar quest.  The Washington phenomena of getting into the VIP reception, section, or whatever it happens to be is common, but I'm not into playing it (not that I haven't found my way into an occasional Congressional Black Caucus legislative weekend reception when I was in law school).    

The military band has taken a break, and I ask the conductor if they'll play "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" today.  He responds, "Great song, but it's not on our list today."  I guess it is a bit much to expect that the White House military band will take requests, but the song would have been very appropriate for the signing of renewal of important provisions of the Voting Rights Act.  I wonder how often the playlist is connected to the substance of the ceremony.

Over the next 10 minutes, about 50 members of Congress wander onstage, including Senators Clinton, Leahy, Spector, Reid, Frist, and Kennedy, as well as Representatives Conyers, Watt, Pelosi, Scott, Rush, Rangel, and Kilpatrick.  They mount a grandstand behind the presidential podium.

At about 9:25, perhaps to fill empty seats, those of us with blue tickets are allowed inside the ropes, and we scramble in like mice picking up crumbs.  I feel a bit hypocritical as I enter the red section.  I quickly grab a seat in the back row.  

At about 9:40, George W. Bush comes out.  He's on the stage surrounded by members of Congress, and they are looking out toward the Washington Monument, while we're looking at them toward the south side of the White House.  

President Bush starts talking from the presidential podium and is comfortable (perhaps the address to the NAACP was a warm up).  He acknowledges Julian Bond, the King family, the Hamer family, Bruce Gordon, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Mayor Anthony Williams, and others.  Bush gives a special acknowledgment to SCLC's Rev. Joseph Lowery (at Coretta Scott King's funeral, Lowery criticized the war in Iraq), saying something like "I've got the mike today . . . ."  Most laugh--his timing is very good.

So, after acknowledgments and brief remarks about history, the President walks over to a table and signs the act into law.  He shakes a few congressional hands and wanders back into the White House.  

Those of us left mingle and catch up with one another.  Really interesting faces in the crowd.  A lot of smiles.  People are taking pictures with folks like Al Sharpton and Martin Luther King III.  The group is casual and relaxed, and a feeling of joy among people who don't see too much victory these days.  I catch a glimpse of Karl Rove shaking hands and patting backs--he seems comfortable with this diverse group.  

The whole thing is surreal.  Despite the diverse backgrounds, all (Democrats and Republicans) were on the same page in supporting the Voting Rights Act.  I'm reminded of Ice Cube's song "It Was a Good Day," an upbeat song about a peaceful day in an urban environment.  

After about 15 minutes, the twenty-something kids managing the crowds direct us to start moving toward the gate.  The fairy tale is over.



Display:


Signing Statement? (none / 0)

Did Bush issue a signing statement after he wandered back into the White House?


by BBCWatcher on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 08:39:17 AM EST

Signing statements (none / 0)

Great question BBC- It would be very interesting to know if there's a signing statement. Since many repugs were against reauthorizing the VRA, I think there's a very good chance he issured one.

How do we find out?


by mpower1952 on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 09:10:16 AM EST

Re: Signing statements (none / 0)

Answered my own question by googling.

http://coherentbabble.com/signingstateme nts/signstateann.htm

No signing statement yet.


by mpower1952 on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 09:13:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What's Specter's angle? (none / 0)

I'm having trouble parsing the Specter oops, too late! report: most GOP MCs, and the wised-up section of the party generally, think the VRA renewal was, on balance, a good thing for the party, in that

  1. VRA gerrymanders boosted GOP House numbers (though I'm not clear how the expiry of §5 would have affected existing gerrymanders); and

  2. renewal was a fig-leaf that might keep some black voters on the GOP bus (they were supposedly crucial in OH in 04, I seem to recall).

Perhaps it's just GOP MCs blowing off steam - the VRA is hardly congenial legislation to many.

Since Specter's involved, I wonder whether it's a private joke at the expense of Mr Signing Statement - being an ex post facto two cents and all.

I'm fairly clear that one thing it's not is pandering to the social conservative base. The old sentiments that juiced the Southern Caucus and its fight to preserve Jim Crow seem long to have disappeared. Or at least become expressed rather more subtly.

(Pity for them they didn't explain subtle to Bull Connor back in 63 - but that's long been water under the Edmund Pettus Bridge...)


by skeptic06 on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 09:34:57 AM EST

Thanks for the descriptive recounting (none / 0)

of the presidential signing of the VRA yesterday, Spencer!! Your descriptions made me feel like I was right there with you.

I caught a few minutes of your interview with Joe Madison while commuting to work today. Apparently, it was a repeat, but the little that I caught of it, Joe and you covered some important topics like suppression of the vote through barriers to voter registration and incumbent protection through redistricting. As with your C-SPAN appearance, you did a great job of explaining the issues!!

Ok, now that I've buttered you up, when are you going to cover my question about section 2 of the VRA? Here's the question again in case you forgot:

If you could, during your series of posts here, please give us a brief synopsis of section 2 as well as section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/7/12/2 14054/047/2#2

I'm eagerly awaiting your post especially on Section 2. You got to keep this GW alum happy  you know!! ;) I'm just messing with you, but seriously, I'm still interested in reading your section 2 analysis. Even though I haven't commented on your posts, I really enjoy having you post here and thanks again to the MyDD crew for inviting Spencer to come here to post!!

thanks...

ademption


by ademption on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 12:16:00 PM EST

Sections 5 & 2 (3.00 / 1)

Ademption:

This is just off of the top of my head, rather than a research memo.

Section 5 is largely an administrative process in which covered jurisdictions submit all changes to election law to federal officials (either the Justice Dept. or a 3-judge panel in DC) and show that they are "not retrogressive"--or don't put voters of color in a worse political position than they were before.  

Section 2 allows for private plaintiffs or the Justice Department to bring a lawsuit asserting that any law (not just an election change) has the effect of depriving minority voters of an equal opportunity to elect their candidate.  The most developed Section 2 jurisprudence has occured with regard to redistricting, in which the Supreme Court has required plaintiffs show that minorities are sufficiently numerous and cohesive to elect their candidate of choice in a compact district.  Because most of the cases have focused on redistricting, judges are largely confused when it comes to applying Section 2 to other contexts.  

The advantage of Section 5 is coverage and expense.  A state might pay about $450 per submission in paralegal time per submission, whereas a Section 2 lawsuit might cost over a million dollars.

By preventing problems before they occur, Section 5 adds efficiencies, and because officials in covered jurisdictions know that every change will be reviewed, Section 5 deters a lot of bad activity.  

Despite the efficiency of Section 5, litigation is still needed in certain situations.  Whereas Section 5 only blocks new discriminatory voting proposals, lawsuits allow plaintiffs to challenge any election procedure that is unfair to voters of color (even one that's been on the books for 100 years).  While the Section 5 review process is administered by the government, litigation provides a forum for average citizens to protect their voting rights.  The targeted Section 5 review process serves as an important complement to litigation, deterring and blocking discriminatory election changes, preventing unnecessary lawsuits, and ensuring that limited litigation and judicial resources are used most efficiently.  


by Spencer Overton on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 11:16:07 PM EST

Thanks Spencer (none / 0)

I think I had the hardest time figuring out the dilution of vote analysis.

When my class began talking about Thornburg v Gingles, I just became so confused. Then the 90s came along and the whole analysis went way over my head!!

Again thanks for taking the time to give me a quick overview of section 2 and section 5.

I'm going to get your book today.  Your postings here have really garnered my interest about the book!!


by ademption on Sun Jul 30, 2006 at 12:30:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.