Barack Obama won the Presidency, but voting patterns in the Deep South suggest that race remains a major factor in American political life. As part of a brief in the Northwest Austin case, Professor Nathaniel Persily, of Columbia Law School, shows how poorly Obama did with white Democrats in those states. According to Persily’s analysis of the 2008 returns, Obama received forty-seven per cent of the white vote in states that are not covered under Section 5 but won only twenty-six per cent of the white vote in covered states. “Barack Obama actually did worse among whites than John Kerry in several of the covered jurisdictions, despite the nationwide Democratic swing,” Persily writes. Race seems like the best explanation for this difference.Maybe there are just more conservatives in Southern states than in other states. And just because McCain might have done better than Bush in 2004 in some of those states isn't proof of racism either. That is to argue that Bush and McCain are perfectly exchangeable people. I know the Democrats tried to argue that in the election and mostly succeeded, but that doesn't make it true. One difference that might have made an impact in some of these locations is McCain's record as a heroic POW. Or the presence of Sarah Palin on the ticket. It seems quite simplistic to argue that Obama did worse than Kerry in those locations so therefore there must be something racist going on. And even if people didn't vote for Obama because of racism, that doesn't mean that there is something explicitly racist in how they are conducting the votes in these states. These are locations that have elected black Congressmen, mayors, and state legislators. Who knows what the Supreme Court will do in this case, but I hope they work from better logic than simply arguing based on election returns or by assuming that any regulations to eliminate voter fraud have racism at their core as Toobin would seem to prefer.
Banner ad
Monday, February 23, 2009
Jeffrey Toobin: voting Republican indicates racism
The Supreme Court is going to hear a case this term about whether states that were determined in 1965 in the Voting Rights Act to need preclearance for any change they made in their voting regulations, even for moving a voting site to a bigger location. Jeffrey Toobin argues in the New Yorker, that more than 40 years later, we need to keep those preclearance provisions in place. His proof? Southern states voted less for Barack Obama than other states.
Labels:
Civil Rights
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
I did not vote for Obama. Should I turn myself in to the Dept. of Justice? snaggletoothie
Is it racism that Obama received almost all of the African American votes in this country?
The ravages of Conservative Reading Comprehension Disorder on this country's political discourse are indeed severe and distressing. I am sorry to see yet another example.
The article did not say that the persistence of racist vote supression was proved by voting Republican. It was proved by (a) the stark disparity in voting patterns between areas covered by the Voting Rights Act and those not covered by it, even within the same states, and (b) the persistence of obvious and overt anti-minority vote suppression tactics in bordering states not covered by the Act. Note also that it is the petitioners themselves who cited the election of Barack Obama (resulting from nation-wide voting patterns) as evidence of the lack of vote suppression, so it is surely legitimate to examine the details of his victory as it relates to the functions of the Act. Given that minority voter suppression seems to occur in certain parts of the country whereever the Voting Rights Act is not in force, there is little reason to remove it from those areas even deeper South where it is currently working effectively.
Regarding so-called "fraud prevention" regulations, as Toobin correctly points out, there is no evidence of widespread, let alone systematic, fraud, while the enforcement provisions imposed by Republicans invariably differentially discourage or hamper voting by minorities or the poor. You can be sure that whenever the GOP targets low-income and non-white voters, it's not an accident.
Is the problem really my lack of reading comprehension? I think that the problem is more that there is a lefty or two spewing BS that there is no reason to accept.
Of course there is "the stark disparity in voting patterns" between an area that Obama lost and other areas. But there are often stark disparities between areas in the same state for any number of reasons. If you don't like that, try harder next election. But strangely enough, what causes one candidate to win in one area is exactly what causes her to lose in the other area.
And when a lefty tells me something was, "obvious and overt" I see no reason to believe it without voluminous and minute documentation that has been widely reviewed by many on many sides of the issue. Basically you should go peddle your obvious and overt BS elsewhere.
My sense is that KTK and Toobin have extreme difficulty tolerating any threat to ideological purity. And it is unfortunate that the democratic elements of our political system are under assault from enemies of the democratic ethos.
Toobin takes a giant leap (almost as giant as Keith's) and finds latent racism in anyone who opposes extension of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), when even Persily says, "Race SEEMS like the best explanation for the difference [emphasis added]." for Obama's lower vote tallies in some areas. This Liberal Jump to Conclusions is, indeed, severe and distressing.
Persily has taken several variables from what must be literally dozens and purported to extract a scientific result without controlling them all. As such, his results are only his "best guess." Kerry and Obama are different men, and as Betsy pointed out, so are Bush and McCain. Kerry never told Joe the Plumber on national TV that he was going to take Joe's money and spread the wealth around to everyone else. Kerry's VP choice never told voters it was their patriotic duty to pay high taxes. It doesn't take a racist to know which candidate to vote against when they see candidates say thngs like that on You Tube nightly.
Mr. Keith's links suggest we ought not be concerned about voter fraud because it is not "systematic" or yet proven "widespread." However, his own NYTimes link from 2007 indicates there had been 86 convictions for it that year, and we know the Bush administration was not pushing voter fraud enforcement. How many more cases went undetected? Simply because there was little attention paid to it does not mean it was not occurring, possibly at alarming rates. Who knows?
Mr. Keith does not mention the fact that ACORN is under investigation in more than a dozen states for voter registration fraud and that several of its "collectors" have been convicted of fraudulent activities, which is reason enough for voter fraud prevention measures. ACORN's methods of hamperng state agency voter verification have been cited in all major news sources, so they won't be noted here again. The courts in Michigan ruled Voter ID (picture) as valid. If ACORN and Obama have nothing to hide, why do they oppose it?
Finally, Toobin and Mr. Keith suggest the VRA should be renewed in southern states for no other reason than voting patterns in other states seem to have irregularities. Typical leftist methodology. Punish everybody for what the few are doing wrong, even though there is no actual proof that even the few are doing something wrong. Treat 'em like 3rd graders; if one throws a spitball and the teacher can't figure out which kid did it, keep the whole class in at recess.
I would go even further than bachbone. If I choose to vote by race, that is still my right. No voting rights act will change that. If it could, as Skay mentioned, we could extend the Voting Rights Act to the cities.
What both Keith and Tobin ignore is that the Voting Rights Act is designed to prevent discrimination in the right to vote, not in the actual vote. Since, neither can point to any such discrimination, there is no need for the Voting Rights Act except that the act makes both "feel good".
Rick
Chris,
don't you see *any* irony in your statement "My sense is that KTK and Toobin have extreme difficulty tolerating any threat to ideological purity"?
You are showing exactly the difficulty that you are criticizing Keith for. And expressing it in a puerile way, I might add, not a way likely to lead to considered discourse. Surely you can do better.
Say what?
"But there are often stark disparities between areas in the same state for any number of reasons"
Granted. However, if the evidence shows that one of the reasons is GOP voter suppression tactics, then that is unacceptable. Anyone who prefers democracy to dictatorship should be arguing against GOP voter suppression, not for it.
The problem in my state is Democrat VOTER FRAUD,
"if the evidence shows that one of the reasons is GOP voter suppression tactics, then that is unacceptable."Sure, but in the meantime why don't we deal with the voting crimes we have evidence of? Let's have a drive to have fewer imaginary people registered. We could start with the names made up by ACORN workers over a drink at their local pub. Especially since the terms of their parole or work release would usually forbid hanging out in bars.
Can you link to some examples of widespread or significant voter fraud in your state?
Because all the evidence I have seen suggests that voter suppression by the GOP is a far more serious problem. There are very, very few instances of voter fraud.
But please do link to a news story that shows there is factual basis for your belief. I think you will have trouble finding one. You live in Southern California, right?
"why don't we deal with the voting crimes" ?
What voting crimes are those, Chris? Who cares if "Mickey Mouse" gets registered, if "Mickey Mouse" never shows up to vote? And that indeed does seem to be the case - a few extra possibly-fake names get registered, but no one is then voting under those names.
The authoritarian right makes a big deal out of a tiny amount of registration fraud. But it is completely silent on the topic that this almost never leads to a single fraudulent vote.
Either you didn't know that, and you are being played. Or you did know that, and you are trying to play others. Don't believe me? Link to news reports of fraudulent votes that are as widespread as, say, GOP voter suppression outrages.
Since you want to tackle the bigger problem first, which would that be?
Hey, m.o.d., as you must know this kind of thing doesn't happen much or maybe at all in California since the Dems have a comfortable majority here they will spend the money elsewhere.
Jaw Bone, your slimey remark that I'm either being played or am playing others shows you're too trollish to be taken serious and I'm not going to play your perverse games.
The Wall Street Journal says, "We wish this were an aberration, but allegations of fraud have tainted Acorn voter drives across the country. Acorn workers have been convicted in Wisconsin and Colorado, and investigations are still under way in Ohio, Tennessee and Pennsylvania." link is http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009189
Pajamasmedia says, "Further igniting the voter fraud/voter registration debate was the news that a national community organizing group is being investigated in at least 14 states and several swing states for massive irregularities. This news would make headlines anyway, but what made it worse was that Barack Obama was a key player in this organization, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, in the past. Obama trained its local leaders, represented the organization in court, and worked to funnel funds to the organization. The Obama campaign also donated $800,000 this year to an ACORN affiliate." link is http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-complete-guide-to-acorn-voter-fraud/
KMBC says, "The Kansas City Election Board told KMBC they found suspicious forms, such as seven applications from one person and an application for a dead man.
"There is some motive behind it -- this is not accidental," said Ray James with the Kansas City Election Board." link http://www.kmbc.com/politics/10214492/detail.html
There have been accusations of vote suppression here but no proof. I bet you don't even have any proof of voter suppression in California.
Why is it that Jaw Bone and MOD are asking for citations of voter registration fraud yet then don't reciprocate and provide the counter examples of claimed Republican voter suppression? The Democrats will always be at a public relations disadvantage here as it is much easier to prove registration fraud, as many ACORN workers in Kansas and Washington have found, then it is to prove voter suppression. These voter suppresion charges are generally as reliable as the baby in the microwave legends because these stories easy to repeat by the gullible but impossible to prove.
Just as I thought. There is no evidence whatever of widespread voting fraud. There is evidence of trivial amounts of registration fraud. A few lazy registrars "write in" some names to avoid work. No one later votes under those lazy names.
The Rush crowd makes a huge din about tiny amounts of registration fraud, and tries desperately to "bait and switch", equating that to voting fraud.
When you ask for evidence of widespread voter fraud, they don't come up with any, because there isn't any widespread voter fraud. But hey, you'd never no it from the noise. We just exposed another fraud here.
When these lefties say 'voter suppression' they often mean that the oppressive man asked for ID (but how would anyone have ID for the imaginary person who somehow got registered). The rest of the time they mean the vote didn't go their way. As evidenced by the lack evidence and unwillingness to even discuss why they won't support their accusations. When pressed for evidence they either throw out another baseless accusation or rephrase a previous baseless accusation.
With the lefties you have to keep one eye on the Orwellian doublespeak translation.
The evidence for GOP-incited voter suppression was presented at the start of this thread.
Please read the article cited by Betsy
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2009/03/02/090302taco_talk_toobin
As it clearly states:
"the Republican Party has made an institutional commitment to eradicate the nonexistent problem of voter fraud by imposing identification requirements that are obviously aimed at limiting the numbers of voters from demographic groups that favor Democrats."
Now where is your evidence of widespread or systemic voter fraud? There isn't any evidence, because there isn't any widespread or systemic voter fraud. So why do Repubs keep beating a drum about a non-existent problem? Because it provides cover for the real goal - voter suppression.
This is disgusting.
I see what the problem is. When I ask for evidence I mean give me some particular facts that support what you have said, e.g., on this date such and such a person was arrested for that and subsequently convicted. But Mr. Bill B. thinks that quoting an unsupported, biased opinion is evidence. Nowhere in Toobin's short article or in the comments is one objective fact stated that would approach being proof of Toobin's biased opinion.
To sum up, to most evidence is objective facts, but Mr. Bill thinks he can surround some words with quotes, claim it is proof, huff about his disgust and abracadabra he's created proof ex nihilo. Sorry you're short any and all evidence. The only thing you have proven is that you don't quite understand what is being discussed here and you probably have never learned how to engage in reasoned discussion.
So we're still lacking evidence from the other side. But they seem to disappear one by one as they realize they nothing but opinion and emotion to offer.
No, Chris M., all you need do is follow "Bill B./Jaw Bone/M.O.D.'s" examples and retort, "I don't accept your evidence." or "That was cherry picked evidence."
"Reasoned discussion" is not what his game is about. Broken records go click, click, click...ad infinitum.
I see what the libs are saying:
The Republican effort to reduce the chance of voter fraud is the "voter suppression" they're referring to.
How neat how that works out. They cheat, we cry foul, and we're the one's being unfair.
It becomes scary because most lawyers and judges are lefties. And they usually lack any appreciation of America's great constitutional system. Yet they are often extremely clever and mentally agile. And they use their power in the system and their endless supply of pseudo-arguments to pervert and destroy the system.
So where is the evidence of systemic voting fraud? Please show me.
You won't, because there isn't any evidence of widespread fraudulent voting.
Here's a promise: if you can honestly demonstrate evidence of widespread voting fraud, I will be first in line campaigning to stop it. You won't be able to do that, because regressive claims are a lie.
Bill as I said you won't and can't give evidence of voter suppression. So here you are with the same accusation rephrased. You're still short of evidence for your side of the issue; not really up to the level of short since you still have not given ANY evidence at all. Go get some proof of your baseless, biased contentions and this will finally reach the level of an actual discussion.
Or you could just admit you have no evidence but only a string of annoying, baseless and pointless time consuming accusations. Admit you're just being argumentative and counter-productive. Purge yourself and begin a journey to truth.
Post a Comment