the Reps & the Voting Rights Act
Los Angeles Times - July 12, 2006
Voting Rights Act Renewal Divides GOP
Bush’s plan to attract more minorities to the party faces a rebellion
by conservatives, who see provisions of the law as an insult to the
South.
By Peter Wallsten and Johanna Neuman, Times Staff Writers
WASHINGTON — In an intensely competitive election year, this was
supposed to be the issue virtually everyone in Congress could agree
on: renewing civil rights-era laws protecting minorities’ access to
the ballot box.
But on the cusp of a vote scheduled for Thursday that White House
strategists and other top Republicans once hoped would symbolize a
GOP eager to attract more blacks and Latinos, a group of increasingly
vocal Capitol Hill conservatives is staging a revolt — arguing that
certain provisions of the law are out of sync with party principles
and are insulting to the South.
The result is another emotional standoff within a party already
fractured over how to deal with illegal immigration.
As in the battle over immigration policy, the flap over the Voting
Rights Act pits the “big tent” political aims of President Bush’s
closest political advisors against conservatives who argue that they
are being asked to vote against their values.
And the dispute is erupting at the same time that White House
officials are deciding whether Bush this weekend should make his
first speech since taking office to the National Assn. for the
Advancement of Colored People, the nation’s oldest and biggest civil
rights organization. The disagreement in the GOP-dominated Congress
could spoil Bush’s ability to cite renewal of the Voting Rights Act
as proof that minorities can trust Republicans.
On Tuesday, Republican leaders were waging a fierce, behind-the-
scenes fight to persuade recalcitrant conservatives that backing the
act would benefit the party.
But the conservatives weren’t buying the argument, pressing their
belief that Congress should change sections that impose federal
oversight of states with histories of institutional racism and those
that require bilingual ballots.
A two-hour meeting among House leaders, GOP strategists and the law’s
critics failed to resolve the disagreement, leading some to question
whether the House would go ahead with its Thursday vote.
A postponement would be the second time within a month that the vote
had been delayed — a move that would heighten the White House’s
embarrassment and intensify its need for damage control within
minority communities.
“I want this bill finished this week,” House Majority Leader John A.
Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters after the meeting. “But to tell you
everything is settled and everyone is happy would not be the truth.”
If the vote does not occur by the time thousands gather Saturday in
Washington for the NAACP convention, group leaders who have forged
closer ties with the White House in recent months would find
themselves once again at odds with Republicans.
Critics of the Voting Rights Act provisions concede they are unlikely
to win changes to the law. But the existence of another racially
sensitive debate within the GOP has the potential to complicate the
party’s election-year message as it seeks to stave off potential
Democratic gains.
Both Bush and Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman have
called repeatedly for the 41-year-old Voting Rights Act to be
renewed. The law requires a vote by 2007, but White House strategists
want to make its renewal part of an outreach plan this year that
features black Republicans running for high-level offices in
Maryland, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Bush and Mehlman have called the Voting Rights Act the “crown jewel”
of the nation’s civil rights laws.
Three months ago, leading Republicans such as House Judiciary
Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin stood side-
by-side with liberal Democrats and members of the Congressional Black
Caucus to back the law’s renewal.
But the GOP lawmakers complicating the push for renewal assert that
Bush and the other top Republicans are pursuing voters at the expense
of conservative ideals.
“The party is engaged in group politics,” said Rep. Steve King of
Iowa. “I reject the idea of doing that. We are all created in God’s
image. He draws no distinction between race, skin color or national
origin. It’s an insult to him for us to do so in our public policy in
America.”
King, backed by almost 80 fellow conservatives, has focused his
efforts on fighting the requirement for bilingual ballots in
districts where some voters speak limited English.
He said he also agreed with those conservatives seeking changes to
the provision that required the Justice Department to screen state
and local voting-related decisions in certain communities — mostly in
the South — to ensure that the new rules did not harm the rights of
minorities. The proposed changes would make it easier for the
communities to win exemptions from federal oversight.
Civil rights leaders argue that the areas that receive special
screening were selected because they were notorious for
institutionalized acts of racism, such as adopting laws designed to
prevent blacks from voting.
One of the conservatives supporting changes to the Voting Rights Act
said GOP leaders were “playing politics” with a law that is unfairly
targeting his home region because of its past — and failing to
account for progress in racial relations.
“Do you think we treat Japan or Germany differently [because of World
War II]?” asked Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia. “Do we treat the
British any differently because of the Stamp Act? … If we’re going
to do that, then let’s go back to the Indians and say they butchered
Custer.
“If we want to rely on everything we do in government based on
history, then we’d have a screwed-up place, if you ask me,”
Westmoreland added. “Because what they’re saying is nobody can ever
do better.”
One House leadership aide, who requested anonymity because of the
delicate nature of the negotiations, said that top Republicans had
“had a lot of engagement” with Westmoreland and others who launched
the unexpected rebellion.
But sighing at the turn of events since the renewal first sailed
through the House Judiciary Committee this year, the aide added: “The
reason we brought this whole thing up is to show people we’re for
extending the Voting Rights Act. Instead, we created our own problem.”
Jack Kemp, the party’s 1996 vice presidential nominee and a longtime
advocate for Republican efforts to court black voters, said the party
“had better get this thing passed. We need to get back on the right
side of history.”
Westmoreland argued that his change would simply “modernize” the act,
and he said that he supported renewal.
But asked how he would react if the dispute prevented the law’s
oversight provision from being retained, he said, “I’d feel fine.”