- Mar 11, 2015
- 83,150
- 49,593
Maybe you produce this phantom extension of the voting rights act the CBC supposedly opposed.
List of acts of the 108th United States Congress
List of acts of the 108th United States Congress - Wikipedia
This happened in the 109th congress:
Congress reconsidered the Act in 2006 as the special provisions were due to expire in 2007. Civil rights organizations advocated for the renewal and strengthening of the special provisions.[32]:206 As a matter of principle, Democrats generally supported renewing the special provisions. However, the Republican Party controlled both chambers of Congress and the presidency, and many Republicans considered the preclearance requirement an affront to states' rights and the principle of color-blindness.[11]:180 Furthermore, conservatives believed that the primary beneficiaries of the special provisions were African Americans, who overwhelmingly and increasingly voted for Democratic Party candidates.[32]:207 However, Republicans were receiving increasing support from some language minority groups, particularly Hispanics and Asian Americans, and they did not wish to risk losing that support by refusing to reauthorize the special provisions.[32]:208 Republicans also recognized that the Act often helped Republican candidates win by requiring jurisdictions to pack Democratic-leaning racial minorities into few electoral districts. In addition, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) had a strong desire to reauthorize the special provisions, and he led an early effort to pass a reauthorization bill before his chairmanship expired at the end of 2006. Thus, a consensus in favor of reauthorizing the special provisions emerged early in the legislative process.[11]:180–181
In 2005, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution began holding hearings on amending the Voting Rights Act. Few witnesses at the hearings testified against reauthorizing the special provisions, and the committee focused primarily on assembling evidence of discrimination in voting.[11]:181–182 Congress's evidentiary record of voting discrimination was viewed as particularly important because Congress believed that according to the Supreme Court case Boerne v. Flores (1997) and its progeny, Congress needed to demonstrate that legislation passed to enforce the Reconstruction Amendments was "congruent and proportional" to remedying or preventing constitutional violations. To make this showing, the committee needed to assemble evidence to demonstrate that the special provisions were generally successful in combating racial discrimination in voting, but not so successful as to no longer be necessary. Given the uncertainty surrounding the congruence and proportionality standard, political constraints, and the Supreme Court previously having upheld the special provisions as constitutional, the committee decided to reauthorize the special provisions without amending the coverage formula.[11]:192–194 The committee ultimately included in the record four types of evidence to support this reauthorization: statistics showing rates of minority voter registration, turnout, and elective officeholding in covered versus non-covered jurisdictions; statistics showing the behavior of covered jurisdictions and the Department of Justice in the preclearance process; instances of voting discrimination in covered jurisdictions; and data comparing successful Section 2 litigation in covered versus non-covered jurisdictions.[11]:195
On May 2, 2006, Representative Sensenbrenner introduced the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.[33][34] The bill proposed to extend the special provisions by 25 years and keep the coverage formula unchanged. The bill also proposed to amend the Act to overturn two recent Supreme Court cases: Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board (2000),[9] which interpreted Section 5 to prohibit voting changes that were enacted or maintained for a "retrogressive" purpose instead of any discriminatory purpose, and Georgia v. Ashcroft (2003),[10] which established a broader test for determining whether a redistricting plan had an impermissible effect under Section 5 than assessing only whether a minority group could elect its preferred candidates.[11]:207–208 While passage of the bill was virtually certain, a few Republican lawmakers attempted to amend the bill on the House floor. One group of legislators, led by Congressman Lynn Westmoreland (R–GA), argued that the reauthorization unfairly targeted certain jurisdictions for long-past discrimination.[35][36] Another group of 80 legislators signed a letter originated by Congressman Steve King (R–IA) arguing that the Act's bilingual election requirements constituted costly unfunded mandates.[37] All proposed amendments to the bill failed, though three received the support of a majority of the Republican caucus. Following the defeat of these amendments, the House passed the bill on July 13, 2006 by a 390-33 vote.[34] Notably, this tally included many Republicans who had previously voted in favor of the failed amendments
Amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia
This is why children should not be home schooled.
^^^^^^^^
