By John L. Micek
If you get into an argument with a Republican about the GOP’s lamentable support for voting rights and its fractured relationship with Black Americans, it won’t be long before your rhetorical sparring partner bellows “Robert Byrd” at you and declares the argument over.
The logic here, if it even can be called that, is that because Byrd, the wizened former U.S. senator from West Virginia who has been dead for more than a decade, was once a member of the Ku Klux Klan, then Democrats cannot be true supporters of civil rights and Black Americans. This political original sin is further compounded, they will tell you, by the fact that such southern Democrats as the late Arkansas Gov. Orval Fabus led the charge against school desegregation in the late 1950s.
This analysis leaves out the fact that Byrd had a well-documented change of heart later in life, and that the so-called “southern strategy” Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater employed in the 1960s lured racist whites into the Republican fold, where they have remained ever since.
A half-century later, a Trumpified Republican Party that’s left the legacy of Abraham Lincoln far behind, is still flipping Democrats the Byrd as it stands steadfastly in the way of the voting rights legislation that’s now slowly and torturously making its way through Congress.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer wants to hold a vote on two bills, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, ahead of Monday’s nationwide Martin Luther King Day holiday. To do that, Democrats will have to reach an internal consensus as they debate whether to change the Senate rules to lift the 60-vote threshold to advance legislation.
With some Democrats opposing the rules change, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, along with President Joe Biden, are pushing hard for it. The Senate is divided 50-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris wielding the tie-breaking vote.
In a speech in Atlanta on Tuesday, Biden laid out the historic stakes of failing to pass nationwide voting protections as Republican-controlled legislatures across the country, including Pennsylvania, have moved to restrict access to the polls.
“I think the threat to our democracy is so great that we must find a way to pass this voting rights bill,” Biden said. “Debate them, vote, let the majority prevail and if that bare minimum is blocked, we have no option but to change the Senate rules including getting rid of the filibuster.”
This week, Republicans opposing the bill made, as Vice News reports, a preposterous argument against the two bills, claiming that because so many voters turned out in 2020, that there’s no problem with access to the polls, and the protections embedded in the legislation aren’t necessary.
While it’s true that voters turned out in droves two years ago, this ahistorical argument once again conveniently leaves out all the actions that Republicans have taken since then.
At least 19 states have passed 34 laws restricting voting access, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. Analyses have shown that turnout increased in states that made it easier to vote, and that there’s no threat to the integrity of elections as a result.
“Simply put, tightening rules to prevent astronomically rare events of fraud is likely to cause far more harm than good,” Douglas R. Hess, a political science professor at Grinnell College in Iowa, wrote in a March 2021 analysis published by The Conversation. “The 2020 general election demonstrated that policies expanding access to the ballot – including ones targeted for elimination by some bills that states are considering this spring – can be implemented securely, even under highly stressful conditions.”
Only one Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, has voted to permit consideration of a renewed voting rights act. And not a single Republican — including Murkowski — voted to take up the Freedom to Vote Act.
But, in 2006, the “Voting Rights Act passed 390 to 33 in the House of Representatives and 98 to zero in the Senate with votes from 16 current, sitting Republicans in this United States Senate. Sixteen of them voted to extend it,” Biden said this week.
On Tuesday, Biden forcefully framed the case for passing the bills this way: “Do you want to be on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?”
History will judge the GOP based on its final answer.
An award-winning political journalist, John L. Micek is Editor-in-Chief of The Pennsylvania Capital-Star in Harrisburg, Pa. Email him at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter @ByJohnLMicek.
Reader Interactions
Comments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Dennis says
It’s all political crap! First they cried Russia, Russia till that fell apart. Then it was racist, racist, till that also fell apart. Now it’s voting restrictions, the end of democracy. That’s all crap too. More people voted last election than ever before. Demand of voter ID is not suppressing. Hell, you need ID for everything and about 80% of voters think it’s a great idea. The democrats are against it, why. Illegals and dead people won’t be able to vote. Fair, secure elections are what the American citizens and republicans want, unlike the democrats. The democratic lies are caving in on them. God save America from Pelosi and Biden. America does not want socialism.
LetsBeReal says
Great comment Dennis and true. Could not of said it any better.
Toto says
If they, and you in particular, don’t want socialism stop accepting social security and Medicare for starters. Did you accept a stimulus check? Stop blowing hot air out your back end!
Fredrick says
You are correct @Dennis. It is all smoke and mirrors and just words to cause division. That is all the left has anymore. The true Dem party died long long ago. They are no longer the balance that our system needs. They are the divider and controlled by extremists and supported by so called “journalists” who no longer report news and let people make their own decisions, but cannot even be non political or biased in a news story. Everything the report becomes an editorial / opinion piece. No balance in their “reporting”. None…..
A.j says
God save America from the Lying Trumpers. The nonthinking Repubs.
Voter says
Do you realize that it costs $25 for voter ID in Florida? The average income of ~$52,000 in Florida is lower compared to the US of $66,700, but the cost of living in Florida is higher than the average cost of living in the US, so to have to pay for VOTER ID is equivalent to a POLL TAX for the poor and struggling voters. This POLL TAX constitutes VOTER SUPPRESSION and RESTRICTIONS of our POOR POPULATION. Following the 2019 election, Florida’s legislature put into effect a whole bunch of new rules that will make it more difficult for people to vote. WHY? There was no problem with the 2019 election. The reasoning: Voter Fraud-there was very little voter fraud except by some Republican residents of the VILLAGES. Check the following site out: https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud?fbclid=IwAR3Z_c4cl40R8LniZfuIT5CIuxKP1wz9vB0vmsPpec9CUnMLBQt7sDFPuGQ
LetsBeReal says
Cost of living in Florida. Overall, Florida is pretty middle-of-the-road when it comes to cost of living. It ranks as the 31st cheapest state. https://www.insure.com/cost-of-living-by-state.html
Eligibility for Free Non-Driver ID https://dmv.dc.gov/service/eligibility-free-non-driver-id
The Heritage Foundation’s election fraud database has been around for four years. With the addition of our latest batch of cases, we are up to 1,285 proven instances of voter fraud.
This is not a partisan issue. Heritage has documented elections overturned or elected officials removed on account of fraud that involved both Democrats and Republican.
Pierre Tristam says
LetsBeReal should live up to his/her handle. The Heritage “database” referred to has been discredited. As a Brennan Center for Justice assessment found when the database was a 749 “cases,” “Only 105 cases come within the past five years, and 488 within the past 10 years. Thirty-two cases are from the 1980s and 1990s. Indicative of its overreach, the database even includes a case from 1948 (when Harry S. Truman beat Thomas Dewey) and a case from 1972 (when Richard Nixon defeated George McGovern).” As the report notes, the time span covers some 3 billion votes in federal elections alone, and billions more when state and local elections are included. So even assuming there were 10,000 instances of fraud (which, of course, there aren’t), the effect would be statistically invisible. “In reviewing decades of cases and billions of votes cast, the Heritage Foundation has identified just 10 cases involving in-person impersonation fraud at the polls (fewer than the number of members on the President’s Commission). Heritage thus confirms what extensive prior research has shown — it is more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning than
impersonate another voter at the polls.”
Again: do not use this site to spread disinformation.
LetsBeReal says
Brennan Center has a history of cherry-picking data that aligns with pre-determined conclusions that voter integrity measures, such as requiring a photo ID to vote, are actually efforts to disfranchise specific voting blocs. The Brennan Center appears to ignore or severely downplay data that are inconvenient for its theses.
For example, in November 2006, the Brennan Center published a widely cited report, “Citizens Without Proof,” in which it claimed that 21 million adult Americans lack a photo ID, including 25 percent of black Americans. Election scholars with the Heritage Foundation evaluated the report and concluded that “[b]y eschewing many of the traditional scientific methods of data collection and analysis, the authors of the Brennan Center study appear to have pursued results that advance a particular political agenda rather than the truth about voter identification.”
Timothy Patrick Welch says
So…
With all do respect.
Who many incidents of voter fraud would warrant a process review.
Pierre Tristam says
When we have more proven cases of voter fraud in year than we do, say, gun deaths, let’s talk. Until then, let’s not play the bogus fraud card.
The dude says
Maybe when the provable instances of voter fraud become statistically significant.
Thus far, of the only provable instances brought forth from last year’s elections the vast majority seem to be voters for the orange stain.
And what would color the Republicans decisions to challenge, say… just certain counties in certain swing states that just happen to be swing states the orange stain lost?
The entire premise would laughable it weren’t such a serious matter affecting the rule of law and our Constitution.
Timothy Patrick Welch says
These are forms of Voter ID in Florida:
Florida driver’s license
Florida identification card issued by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles
United States passport
Debit or credit card
Military identification
Student identification
Retirement center identification
Neighborhood association identification
Public assistance identification
Veteran health identification card issued by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs
License to carry a concealed weapon or firearm issued pursuant to s. 790.06
Employee identification card issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the Federal Government, the state, a county, or a municipality.
Heathen Lady says
America has always been part socialist, part capitalist.
America does not want FASCISM!
The dude says
Privatize the profits… socialize the losses.
That’s America for you you.
Dennis C Rathsam says
Biden want facial recignition to axcess your taxes… But not no voting!!!!
A.j says
The Repubs want Jim Crow again. Look at the voting restrictions placed on people of color since Trump was voted out of office. Give me a break, the Repubs will carry people of color back to the 50,s. We as people of color will loose what we shed blood to get. The cops will kill us at will. Need I say anymore.
What Else Is New says
Bless your heart, Dennis. Read all the news! 2020 was an almost flawless election, save for the three Republicans who voted for their dead relative. Even DearSantis declared Florida a successful vote. Including Florida, there are 19 states making it harder to vote sans the ID thing. You know this to be true. Forget writing to Senators Scott and Rubio. They either do not answer, or when replying they do not address your concern. Forget trying to appeal to the voter sensitive Florida legislators. They follow D’s path to autocracy.
LetsBeReal says
Flashback: 2005 Schumer Claimed Eliminating the Filibuster Would Be ‘A Doomsday for Democracy’
President Biden is merely the latest prominent Democrat to support changing Senate rules and eliminating the filibuster — despite backing the procedure many times since 2005, including as recently as this past July.
A.j says
Trump said election had a lot of voter fraud. All the states he won no voter fraud, figure that one out. The states he lost were full of fraud. Look at the chaos after he lost. He really say the election was taken from him. The only voter fraud I hear about is from the Repubs. not the Dems. Hillary lost in 2016, I never heard her or the Dems. say the election was taken from them.
Timothy Patrick Welch says
Never give up your Individual rights to the state.
And never give up your States rights to the Federal Government.
And never give up your Countries Freedom to a One World Government.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”.
Ray W. says
There are significant differences between FlaglerLive comments posted by partisans and those posted by zealous advocates. Both partisans and zealous advocates post comments to further particular positions. While zealous advocacy and partisanship share this and other similarities, Timothy Patrick Welch’s comment exemplifies the differences between the two forms of communication.
When Timothy Patrick Welch argues that one should never surrender individual rights to the State, can it be argued that, as a partisan, he is intentionally leaving out necessary considerations in the name of partisanship? For example, an accused who faces a burglary with an armed battery charge faces the possibility of a life prison sentence if convicted at trial. If the State were to offer a 15-year prison sentence, should the accused accept the partisan view of never giving up his individual rights to a trial, to call witnesses to testify on his behalf, to remain silent, to possess guns, among other rights that are surrendered upon a plea? A zealous advocate, knowing the potential of conviction after reviewing all of the evidence, might advise the accused to accept the plea offer and surrender all necessary individual rights to limit the damage of a life prison sentence. Timothy Patrick Welch, as a partisan, would advise that the accused go to trial, because of his all-or-nothing stance on this point. Partisanship allows nothing else.
Timothy Patrick Welch argues that no individual state should ever surrender its rights to the federal government, without even acknowledging that states do not have rights. Look closely at both the federal Constitution and Florida’s constitution. Each acknowledges that individuals possess rights and that states and the federal government possess powers delegated to each entity, with other powers reserved to the opposing entity, and the rest on all political powers reserved to the people. It cannot be overstated that many of our founding fathers argued against including individual rights in the language of the proposed Constitution, mainly because they believed that citizens in the future would argue that such a list was all-inclusive and that no other individual rights could be added in the future. An additional argument against Timothy Patrick Welch’s position is that our founding fathers, when they included a check and balance against every delegated power, understood that both the various state governments and the federal government were to zealously protect their powers from intrusion from all other government entities. Thus, while Timothy Patrick Welch is right when he argues that the State should never surrender its power to the federal government, he is wrong because he does not also point out that the federal government should never surrender its power to any State government, and that federal courts are delegated the power to settle any dispute between the two governments. A partisan will never accept this argument. A zealous advocate will always give advice based on both sides of the argument.
Timothy Patrick Welch argues that our federal government should never surrender its freedom to a “One World Government.” First of all, there has never been such a thing as a One World Government. Yes, there was a one world government movement in various countries shortly after WWII, but it never was anything more than a fledgling movement, hoping for the spark that would spread across the world; it never happened. Second, Timothy Patrick Welch’s position gives short shrift to the realpolitik position taken by various American governments over the vast majority of the 20th century. Yes, Kissinger can be properly viewed as having presided over particularly deadly policies that dominated our foreign policy for decades, but realpolitik has qualities that remain important. Without American leadership, NATO, SEATO, the EU, and other multinational efforts would be far less effective in opposing totalitarian and communist governments throughout the world, to our detriment. I read a Washington Post editorial column written by Kissinger upon the death of Singapore’s first Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Lew, after Singapore was granted independence by the Malaysian government in the mid-60’s. Lee visited the United States to speak at the U.N. Assembly. He also visited Harvard’s School of Government, now named the Kennedy School of Government. As I recall the editorial, Lee gathered in a room filled with leading professors for an informal conversation about communist influences in the southeast Asian theater. The conversation, according to Kissinger, devolved into a debate about whether LBJ was a sociopath or a psychopath. Lee interjected, stating that the professors made him sick. Lee presided over a fledgling government split by partisans between Malay nationalists, ethnic Chinese nationalists and ethnic Chinese communists. Lee knew his exceedingly poor city-state lacked the resources needed to stem the communist spread, what with Vietnam being only 500 miles away. He needed a strong and united American government to project stability in the region in order for his own government to survive. Today, that exceedingly poor country now boasts perhaps the highest per capita GDP in the world. Kissinger’s form of realpolitik, while deadly when used in his hands, is still a form of union with other countries to achieve a larger goal. Realpolitik is abused today, but involvement in NATO, engaging in trade agreements, forming alliances and standing by them, all pose risks to American freedoms alongside the potential gains. A partisan might argue against ever entering into such alliances or agreements. Some partisans now argue that we should step aside in the present Ukraine/Russian Federation conflict, despite legislation guaranteeing our aid to the Ukraine. A zealous advocate would consider all options and offer advice based on the perceived best option.
As to Timothy Patrick Welch’s fourth point, about Liberty, this quote is attributed the Benjamin Franklin, who served as America’s first ambassador to France, joined later by John Adams. Yes, Franklin advocated for trade agreements with France, yet he zealously protected American interests in the rich fishing grounds off Cape Cod, argued for privileged American shipping access to French ports and for giving up privileges to French shipping interests. Yes, Benjamin Franklin argued in favor of trade concessions with France. When he agreed to limit American trade freedoms in exchange for favorable trade concessions, was Franklin a partisan or a zealous advocate?
Can it be argued that partisanship of the type commonly fostered by Timothy Patrick Welch relies on dogma and pre-decided positions, whereas zealous advocacy relies on reason and choice?