BREAKING: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Voting Rights Law

CLICK HERE TO FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER!

Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Voting Rights Law

By a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has struck down a key provision of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act that establishes a formula to identify states that may require extra scrutiny by the Justice Department regarding voting procedures.

The decision focuses on Section 4 of the Act.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts writes that the decision "in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2. We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions."

Legal scholar Jeffrey Toobin tells CNN that the court has effectively said "times have changed so much that the formula [for deciding which states are more prone to discriminate] is invalid."

And by striking Section 4, he said, "in practice, the other section of the law – Section 5 — is dormant."

As the AP explains it, the Supreme Court has essentially decided that Section 5 of the act — the part that requires certain states with a history of discrimination to have changes to any voting procedures approved by the federal government — cannot be enforced until Congress "comes up with a new way of determining which states and localities require federal monitoring of elections."

The case, known as Shelby County v. Holder, focused on Section 5 of the act, which was renewed by Congress in 2006 for a period of 25 years. The petitioner, Shelby County, Ala., argued that Section 5 of the VRA subjects them to a double standard and infringes on state sovereignty. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that Congress exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing equal protection and the Fifteenth Amendment covering voting rights and therefore violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the constitution – both of which deal with state's rights.

Attorney General Eric Holder had argued that the restrictions, which cover nine southern states including Alabama and numerous counties in five other states, were necessary to keep them from returning to discriminatory practices.

Update at 10:58 a.m. ET. Who Should Decide?:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan.

Essentially, Ginsburg argued that it was Congress' job — not the Court's — to decide when Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is no longer justifiable.

"With overwhelming support in both Houses, Congress concluded that, for two prime reasons, [Section 5] should continue in force, unabated," Ginsburg writes. "First, continuance would facilitate completion of the impressive gains thus far made; and second, continuance would guard against back­ sliding. Those assessments were well within Congress' province to make and should elicit this Court's unstinting approbation."

Update at 10:43 a.m. ET. Outdated Data:

On Morning Edition, NPR's Carrie Johnson explains that the court focused in on the formula that determines which states and districts have a history of discrimination.

That formula, the court said, was based on "outdated data" from the 1960s and 1970s, so Congress needs to rework it.

Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a concurring opinion, except, he said, he would have also done away with Section 5.

He quotes the majority opinion saying "our nation has changed," and the conditions that justified Section 5 of the act "no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions." He adds:

"By leaving the inevitable conclusion unstated, the Court needlessly prolongs the demise of that provision. For the reasons stated in the Court's opinion, I would find [Section 5] unconstitutional."

This was nothing more than an end run around Section 5. The Supreme Court effectively killed the Voting Rights Act of 65 and they know it. Congressional members of the GOP will never make a good faith effort to come up with a new formula. By doing nothing, the GOP march of voter suppression will continue, aided and abetted by the Supreme Court. Democracy, where art thou? 

Simply  This is a sad day for America but a great day for the racial arsonists! 

GOOD NEWS: Pennsylvania Voter ID has been DENIED! Sent back!

CLICK HERE TO FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER!

Pennsylvania Voter ID…DENIED Sent back!

Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Sent Back By State Supreme Court To Lower Court For Reconsideration

In a potentially significant victory for Democrats, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated a lower court's decision to uphold the states's restrictive new voter ID law on Tuesday, and asked the judge to consider enjoining it instead.

The law, passed by a Republican legislature and governor, requires voters to have specific, state-issued photo ID -- a move that opponents say could disenfranchise tens of thousands of people, most of them minorities, students and the elderly.

"We are not satisfied with a mere predictive judgment based primarily on the assurances of government officials," the court wrote of arguments that voters would not be disenfranchised by the law.

The court ruled 4-2, with two dissenting justices saying it should have blocked the law outright. One justice accused the court of "punting" and said she would have "no part in it."

The state Supreme Court sent the case back to the Commonwealth Court judge, but with instructions that seemed almost designed to force him to enjoin the law. Given the fact that there are less than two months until the election, the justices wrote, "the most judicious remedy, in such a circumstance, is the entry of a preliminary injunction, which may moot further controversy as the constitutional impediments dissipate."

The judge was instructed "to consider whether the procedures being used for deployment" of ID cards comports with the law as written -- which the court itself made clear was not the case. "The Department of State has realized, and the Commonwealth parties have candidly conceded, that the Law is not being implemented according to its terms," the justices wrote.

The justices, for instance, noted in their decision that while the law called for voters to be granted state-issued ID simply upon an affirmation, "as implementation of the Law has proceeded, PennDOT -- apparently for good reason -- has refused to allow such liberal access."

If those procedures are not being followed, or if the judge was "not still convinced ... that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth’s implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the upcoming election" then he would be "obliged to enter a preliminary injunction," the higher court wrote.

The court agreed that the short timeframe of the law's implementation just months before Election Day presented a potential constitutional issue, but noted that even the appelants agreed that such a law could be implemented.

The two Democratic justices who were most outspoken during last week's oral arguments both dissented from the majority opinion, saying the high court should have issued an injunction itself.

Justice Seamus P. McCaffery wrote in his dissent:

I was elected by the people of our Commonwealth, by Republicans, Democrats, Independents and others, as was every single Justice on this esteemed Court. I cannot now be a party to the potential disenfranchisement of even one otherwise qualified elector, including potentially many elderly and possibly disabled veterans who fought for the rights of every American to exercise their fundamental American right to vote. While I have no argument with the requirement that all Pennsylvania voters, at some reasonable point in the future, will have to present photo identification before they may cast their ballots, it is clear to me that the reason for the urgency of implementing Act 18 prior to the November 2012 election is purely political. That has been made abundantly clear by the House Majority Leader. I cannot in good conscience participate in a decision that so clearly has the effect of allowing politics to trump the solemn oath that I swore to uphold our Constitution. That Constitution has made the right to vote a right verging on the sacred, and that right should never be trampled by partisan politics.

McCaffery was referring to a declaration in June by Pennsylvania's GOP House majority leader, Mike Turzai, that the voter ID law "is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."

Justice Debra McCloskey Todd wrote in her dissent, "By remanding to the Commonwealth Court, at this late date, and at this most critical civic moment, in my view, this Court abdicates its duty to emphatically decide a legal controversy vitally important to the citizens of this Commonwealth. The eyes of the nation are upon us, and this Court has chosen to punt rather than to act. I will have no part of it."

The decision gave Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson until Oct. 2 to file his new opinion.

"Today’s decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is a big step in the right direction for the Commonwealth's voters," said Penda D. Hair, co-director of the Advancement Project, one of the groups that sued to overturn the law. "The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court, stating in strong terms that the state’s restrictive voter ID must be stopped in time for the fall elections unless the lower court finds that ‘there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the ID requirement.'"

Opponents of the law saw the battle turning in their favor, though not yet won, with the burden of proof now being on the state rather than the plaintiffs. "It's only a victory in the sense that it vacates the adverse result below," said David Gersch, the attorney for the plaintiffs. "But the court has gotten us at least part way there, and we're very appreciative of that … We don't believe that the Commonwealth can make the showing that the Supreme Court says has to be made."

Here is the ruling here;

[J-114-2012] 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT

VIVIETTE APPLEWHITE; WILOLA SHINHOLSTER LEE; GROVER

FREELAND; GLORIA CUTTINO; NADINE MARSH; DOROTHY BARKSDALE; BEA BOOKLER; JOYCE BLOCK; HENRIETTA KAY DICKERSON; DEVRA MIREL

(“ASHER”) SCHOR; THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PENNSYLVANIA; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE

ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED 

PEOPLE; PENNSYLVANIA STATE

CONFERENCE; HOMELESS ADVOCACY PROJECT

v.

THE COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA; THOMAS W.

CORBETT, IN HIS CAPACITY AS 

GOVERNOR; CAROLE AICHELE, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH

APPEAL OF:  VIVIETTE APPLEWHITE; WILOLA SHINHOLSTER LEE; GLORIA CUTTINO; NADINE MARSH; BEA

BOOKLER; JOYCE BLOCK; HENRIETTA KAY DICKERSON; DEVRA MIREL

(“ASHER”) SCHOR; THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PENNSYLVANIA; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE

ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED 

PEOPLE, PENNSYLVANIA STATE

CONFERENCE; HOMELESS ADVOCACY PROJECT

:  No. 71 MAP 2012 

:

:  Appeal from the Order of the 

: Commonwealth Court dated 8/15/12 at 

: No. 330 MD 2012, denying Appellant's 

: Application for Preliminary Injunction 

:

:

:  ARGUED:  September 13, 2012 

:

ORDER 

PER CURIAM DECIDED:   September 18, 2012

Before  this  Court  is  a  direct  appeal  from  a  single-judge  order  of  the 

Commonwealth Court denying preliminary injunctive relief to various individuals and 

organizations who filed a Petition for Review challenging the constitutional validity of Act 

18 of 2012, also known as the Voter ID Law.  Appellate courts review an order granting or denying a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion.  See Summit Towne Ctr., Inc. v. Shoe Show of Rocky Mount, Inc., 828 A.2d 995, 1000 (Pa. 2003). 

The Declaration of Rights set forth in the Pennsylvania Constitution prescribes that elections must be free and equal and “no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.”  PA. CONST. art. 1, § 5. The parties to this litigation have agreed that the right to vote in Pennsylvania, as vested in eligible, qualified voters, is a fundamental one. 

The Voter ID Law was signed into law by the Governor of Pennsylvania in March of this year.  For the General Election this November, and for succeeding elections, the legislation generally requires presentation of a photo identification card as a prerequisite to the casting of ballots by most registered voters. 

In this regard, the Law contemplates that the primary form of photo identification 

to be used by voters is a Department of Transportation (PennDOT) driver’s license or 

the non-driver equivalent provided under Section 1510(b) of the Vehicle Code, 75 

Pa.C.S. § 1510(b).  See N.T. at 770-71.  Furthermore, the Law specifically requires that 

- notwithstanding provisions of Section 1510(b) relating to the issuance and content of the cards - PennDOT shall issue them at no cost: 

to any registered elector who has made application therefor and has 

included with the completed application a statement signed by the elector 

[J-114-2012] - 2 

declaring under oath or affirmation that the elector does not possess proof 

of identification . . . and requires proof of identification for voting purposes. 

Act of Mar. 14, 2012, P.L. 195, No. 18, § 2; see 25 P.S. § 2626(b).  As such, the Law 

establishes a policy of liberal access to Section 1510(b) identification cards. 

However, as implementation of the Law has proceeded, PennDOT - apparently for good reason - has refused to allow such liberal access.  Instead, the Department continues to vet applicants for Section 1510(b) cards through an identification process that Commonwealth officials appear to acknowledge is a rigorous one.  See N.T. at 690, 994.  Generally, the process requires the applicant to present a birth certificate with a raised seal (or a document considered to be an equivalent), a social security card, and two forms of documentation showing current residency.  See N.T. at 467, 690, 793.1 The reason why PennDOT will not implement the Law as written is that the Section 1510(b) driver’s license equivalent is a secure form of identification, which may be used, for example, to board commercial aircraft.  See N.T. at 699-700, 728-30, 780. 

The Department of State has realized, and the Commonwealth parties have candidly conceded, that the Law is not being implemented according to its terms.  See, e.g., N.T. at 1010 (testimony of the Secretary of the Commonwealth that “[t]he law does not require those kinds of - the kind of identification that is now required by PennDOT for PennDOT IDs, and it’s the Homeland Security issues”).  Furthermore, both state agencies involved appreciate that some registered voters have been and will be unable to comply with the requirements maintained by PennDOT to obtain an identification card under Section 1510(b).  See  N.T. at 713 (testimony from a deputy secretary for PennDOT that “at the end of the day there will be people who will not be able to qualify for a driver’s license or a PennDOT ID card”), 749, 772, 810, 995.  It is also clear to 

1 Applicants whose information is already in PennDOT’s database may be exempted from these requirements.  See N.T. at 466. 

[J-114-2012] - 3 

state officials that, if the Law is enforced in a manner that prevents qualified and eligible electors from voting, the integrity of the upcoming General Election will be impaired. See, e.g., N.T. at 480. 

Faced with the above circumstances and the present litigation asserting that the 

Law will impinge on the right of suffrage, representatives of the state agencies have 

testified under oath that they are in the process of implementing several remedial 

measures on an expedited basis.  Of these, the primary avenue lies in the issuance of a 

new, non-secure Department of State identification card, which is to be made available 

at  PennDOT  driver  license  centers.    However,  preparations  for  the  issuance  of 

Department of State identification cards were still underway as of the time of the 

evidentiary hearing in the Commonwealth Court in this case, and the cards were not 

slated to be made available until approximately two months before the November 

election.  N.T. at 534, 555, 706, 784, 993.  Moreover, still contrary to the Law’s liberal 

access requirement, applicants for a Department of State identification card may be 

initially  vetted  through  the  rigorous  application  process  for  a  secure  PennDOT 

identification card before being considered for a Department of State card, the latter of 

which is considered to be only a “safety net.”  N.T. at 709, 711, 791-95 (testimony from 

the  Commissioner  of  the  Bureau  of  Commissions,  Elections  and  Legislation  that 

applicants who are unable to procure a PennDOT identification card will be given a 

telephone number to contact the Department of State to begin the process of obtaining 

the alternative card); see also N.T. at 993. 

In  the  above  landscape,  Appellants  have  asserted  a  facial  constitutional 

challenge to the Law and seek to preliminarily enjoin its implementation.  They contend, 

most particularly, that a number of qualified members of the Pennsylvania voting public 

will be disenfranchised in the upcoming General Election, because - given their 

[J-114-2012] - 4 

personal circumstances and the limitations associated with the infrastructure through 

which the Commonwealth is issuing identification cards - these voters will not have had 

an adequate opportunity to become educated about the Law’s requirements and obtain 

the necessary identification cards.  While there is a debate over the number of affected 

voters, given the substantial overlap between voter rolls and PennDOT’s existing ID 

driver/cardholder database, it is readily understood that a minority of the population is 

affected by the access issue.  Nevertheless, there is little disagreement with Appellants’ 

observation that  the population  involved  includes members  of  some  of  the most 

vulnerable segments of our society (the elderly, disabled members of our community, 

and the financially disadvantaged). 

On its review, the Commonwealth Court has made a predictive judgment that the Commonwealth’s efforts to educate the voting public, coupled with the remedial efforts being  made  to  compensate  for  the  constraints  on  the  issuance  of  a  PennDOT identification   card,  will   ultimately   be  sufficient  to   forestall   the   possibility   of disenfranchisement.  This judgment runs through the Commonwealth Court’s opinion, touching on all material elements of the legal analysis by which the court determined that Appellants are not entitled to the relief they seek. 

As a final element of the background, at oral argument before this Court, counsel for  Appellants  acknowledged  that  there  is  no  constitutional  impediment  to  the Commonwealth’s implementation of a voter identification requirement, at least in the abstract.  Given reasonable voter education efforts, reasonably available means for procuring identification, and reasonable time allowed for implementation, the Appellants apparently would accept that the State may require the presentation of an identification card as a precondition to casting a ballot.  The gravamen of their challenge at this juncture lies solely in the implementation. 

[J-114-2012] - 5 

Upon review, we find that the disconnect between what the Law prescribes and 

how  it  is  being  implemented  has  created  a  number  of  conceptual  difficulties  in 

addressing the legal issues raised.  Initially, the focus on short-term implementation, 

which has become necessary given that critical terms of the statute have themselves 

become irrelevant, is in tension with the framing of Appellants’ challenge to the Law as 

a facial one (or one contesting the Law’s application across the widest range of 

circumstances).  In this regard, however, we agree with Appellants’ essential position 

that if a statute violates constitutional norms in the short term, a facial challenge may be 

sustainable even though the statute might validly be enforced at some time in the future. 

Indeed, the most judicious remedy, in such a circumstance, is the entry of a preliminary 

injunction,  which  may  moot  further  controversy  as  the  constitutional  impediments 

dissipate. 

Overall, we are confronted with an ambitious effort on the part of the General 

Assembly to bring the new identification procedure into effect within a relatively short 

timeframe and an implementation process which has by no means been seamless in 

light of the serious operational constraints faced by the executive branch.  Given this 

state of affairs, we are not satisfied with a mere predictive judgment based primarily on 

the assurances of government officials, even though we have no doubt they are 

proceeding in good faith. 

Thus, we will return the matter to the Commonwealth Court to make a present 

assessment of the actual availability of the alternate identification cards on a developed 

record in light of the experience since the time the cards became available.  In this 

regard, the court is to consider whether the procedures being used for deployment of 

the cards comport with the requirement of liberal access which the General Assembly 

attached to the issuance of PennDOT identification cards.  If they do not, or if the 

[J-114-2012] - 6 

Commonwealth Court is not still convinced in its predictive judgment that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth’s implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the upcoming election, that court is obliged to enter a preliminary injunction. 

Accordingly, the order of the Commonwealth Court is VACATED, and the matter 

is returned to the Commonwealth Court for further proceedings consistent with this 

Order.  The Commonwealth Court is to file its supplemental opinion on or before 

October 2, 2012.  Any further appeals will be administered on an expedited basis. 

Jurisdiction is relinquished. 

Madame Justice Todd files a Dissenting Statement which Mr. Justice McCaffery

joins.

PEOPLE GET OUT AND VOTE DO NOT BE INTIMIDATED FOLKS DIED FOR YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE...USE IT!

The GOP Wants a part of The Voting Rights Act STRUCK DOWN!

CLICK HERE TO FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER!

GOP Attorneys General Target Voting Rights Act, Ask Supreme Court To Strike Down Key Section

Several Republican state attorneys general called a key provision of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional and asked the Supreme Court to strike it down.

The officials from Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas submitted a brief in a closely watched case arguing that the law oversteps federal authority and places an unfair burden on certain states.

The case at issue involves a plan to reshape a district in Shelby County, Ala., a largely white suburb of Birmingham. The new district maps led to the sole black council member in one of the county's towns losing his seat. But the Justice Department blocked the certification of the voting results, and the town eventually redrew its districts. The black council member later re-won his seat.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, certain states and jurisdictions with a history of disenfranchising voters must seek federal approval, called preclearance, before they can change their voting rules. The law was considered one of the great achievements of the civil rights movement, as it blocked states and towns from using tactics like poll taxes and literacy tests that were meant to keep blacks from voting.

But the officials contended in their brief that the areas that must submit to preclearance -- "covered jurisdictions" -- are unfairly singled out and that many of their regions have higher minority turnout than many places that don't have to get federal approval before changing their election rules.

A covered region can "bail out" of those strictures if it shows that it hasn't discriminated against voters in the preceding 10 years, has followed the preclearance rules, has ended voting practices that prevent "equal access to the electoral process," has attempted to make registering to vote easier and has fought efforts to intimidate voters.

The brief asserts that the list of states that have to get approval is "obsolete" and "not linked to current conditions" and that the law is overriding their ability to make their own rules. It also argues that bailing out is "illusory," because no states have been able to get out of the preclearance rules. Dozens of individual counties and towns, however, have been able to successfully bail out.

The National Black Chamber Of Commerce, which is officially nonpartisan but tends to support conservative causes, weighed in with a brief of its own, also calling for the rules to be struck down.

"The government officials who are partners in this effort are people of good faith, and do not deserve to be labeled and treated as presumptive discriminators," the NBCC brief read. "Federal control of elections, through the 'preclearance' process, undermines these officials’ authority and flexibility, to the ultimate detriment of their constituents – many of them minorities. Worse, Section 5 has been abused in some instances to reinforce stereotypes regarding minority voters’ preferences and affiliations, preventing voters who do not embody these stereotypes from electing their candidates of choice."

The briefs come just days before a three-judge panel is set to rule on the constitutionality of South Carolina's voter ID law in a trial set to begin on Monday. The voter ID law was blocked by the Justice Department late last year, and South Carolina is one of nine states that must get federal preclearance.

Voter ID laws have been passed in eleven states since the 2010 midterm elections, during which Republicans picked up several statehouses. Supporters of the laws, which require that voters present ID before they cast ballots at polling centers, argue that they're necessary to prevent in-person voter fraud. All of the states that have passed voter ID laws since 2011 have Republican governors and Republican-controlled statehouses.

But studies have shown that in-person voter fraud is virtually nonexistent, and a wave of critics of the laws contend that the groups most likely to be turned away at the polls for not having valid state-issued IDs -- African Americans, Latinos, the poor and young voters -- are also groups that traditionally vote Democratic.

“According to South Carolina’s own data, minority registered voters were nearly 20 percent more likely to lack a photo ID issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles than white registered voters, and thus to be effectively disfranchised by the state’s proposed requirements," said Leah Aden of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. "Indeed, there are more than 80,000 registered minority citizens in South Carolina who lack a DMV-issued photo ID.”

The group also said that one in four African Americans and 16 percent of Latinos nationwide lack a government-issued ID. 

YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE GET REGISTERED AND VOTE!

HEY BLACK PEOPLE, You almost lost some of your Voting Rights!

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER!


BLACK PEOPLE Some of your VOTING rights were almost taken from You!

After Fiery Speech, Voting Rights Amendment Is Pulled

So you want to get angry at Obama and the NAACP over their support of Mariage Equality? 

Well then you can vote republican but let me give you a little history on these people!

The Republican Party is in the throes of a full scale counterrevolution. They're at war with the revolution conservatives lost in 1781. They're at war with the Constitution that they despised so much, especially the intimation that all men are created equal. Conservatives fought on the side of the British during the Revolution. Those who didn't flee to Canada and the Old Country after they lost-- as well as other conservatives who had remained "neutral" during the war for independence-- insisted that the Constitution preserve the privileges of wealthy white males. 

The ideals of a new world that had inspired so many of the patriots was trampled on by conservatives-- many from backward Southern states that were as backward then as they are today-- who held the very idea of a united nation hostage to their right-wing ideology. They threatened to tear the new country apart, not just over slavery, but over the franchise as well. No women, no young people, no poor people would be allowed to vote-- or they would walk. Only older white male property owners. The history of conservatism in this country is the history of opposing every extension of the franchise that has come down the pike.

Ironically, now that they own their own political party, well-funded by a greed-obsessed and dangerously powerful plutocracy, many of the very people who they would bar from the franchise are their keenest followers. Low-info voters, especially, though not exclusively, in the Old Confederacy can buy into a zeitgeist manufactured by right-wing wealth. They have Fox and Hate Talk Radio validating their basest instincts and stoking and manipulating manufactured fears and prejudices. Objective reality and science are now just a he-said/she-said proposition as the vilest aspects of the Republican lizard brain seem perfectly respectable to large segments of the population.

The states that the GOP controls-- and not just southern throwbacks like Alabama, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida-- but normal places that have fallen into their clutches as well-- Wisconsin being the most obvious example-- have been passing laws to suppress voter participation. They are no longer content in opposing extending the franchise, now they have deranged billionaires like the Koch brothers will to fund efforts to prevent people from voting.

When these things make it to the floor of the congress it can bring a lengthy debate!

And sometimes during lengthy floor debates on bills, interesting things happen in the witching hours.

Such was the case when Representative John Lewis of Georgia pushed back with a fiery speech directed at an amendment offered by Representative Paul C. Broun of Georgia that would have barred the Justice Department from using money to enforce a part of the Voting Rights Act.

At around 10 p.m., Mr. Lewis, a former civil rights leader, took to the podium to denounce the amendment, which sought to end financing for enforcement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, designed to protect minority voters from being disenfranchised.

He began by saying it was “hard and difficult and almost unbelievable that any member, especially a member from the state of Georgia,” would offer the amendment. As he laid out various methods used before the civil rights movement to suppress the black vote, he added: “People died for the right to vote! Friends of mine! Colleagues of mine!”

WATCH:

Mr. Broun appeared shaken and, in an unusual move, withdrew his own amendment.

On Thursday, Meredith Griffanti, a spokeswoman for Mr. Broun, who is a medical doctor, said that he “fully believes in the intent of his amendment to prevent the Justice Department from enforcing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,” but added that “given the magnitude of this change and out of respect for his colleagues, Dr. Broun withdrew the amendment.”

“He felt as though it deserved ample debate time where all members could participate rather than during a closed-off discussion in the late hours of the evening,” she said. “Dr. Broun looks forward to having this debate in the future.”

So you Blacks who mad at Obama and the NAACP over marriage equality needs to get a DAMN GRIP. There are far more WORSE issues plaging our community than Gay Marriage.

1. Jobs
2. Education
3. Crime
4. Health Initiatives (H.I.V, Diabetes, Hypertension, Cancer, etc)

These are far worse issues and just think if there wasn’t a champion like John Lewis to fight for US. YEAH You think the Mormon Mitt Romney and the Republicans give a DAMN about you? Keep thinking inside the box and see where our community gets…NO WHERE!

WAKE UP AND KNOW YOUR PRIORITIES!!!