September, 15 2016, 03:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Email:,press@civilrights.org,Phone: (202) 869-0398
Civil and Human Rights Coalition Urges Self-Proclaimed VRA Restoration Supporter Speaker Ryan to Bring Bill up for Vote
WASHINGTON
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights coalition of more than 200 national civil rights groups is urging Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, a self-proclaimed supporter of restoring the Voting Rights Act, to bring a VRA restoration up for a vote on the House Floor.
In a letter sent to his office this week, The Leadership Conference asked Speaker Ryan "to bring legislation to the House floor this month to restore the critical protections of the VRA. As we approach the first presidential election in 50 years without that law's full protections, our request for immediate action is more urgent than ever."
The organization is looking to appeal to the Speaker, who has claimed to support a VRA restoration, because the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, "has shut down the possibility of any action in the Judiciary Committee while he remains in charge, and it is now clear that there is no way forward through him. Chairman Goodlatte's intractability does a disservice to the millions of voters impacted by the fallout from the Shelby County decision."
"Lip service is not public service," said Wade Henderson, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference. "While court after court after court acknowledges widespread voting discrimination, Speaker Ryan has not lifted one finger to ensure our election isn't rigged from politicians choosing who can vote based on the color of their skin."
The full letter is below and linked here.
September 13, 2016
The Honorable Paul Ryan, Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Speaker Ryan,
On the heels of the 51st anniversary of the Voting Rights Act (VRA or the Act), we remain deeply troubled that there has been no action in the House of Representatives to address the issue of voting rights. We are writing to urge you to bring legislation to the House floor this month to restore the critical protections of the VRA. As we approach the first presidential election in 50 years without that law's full protections, our request for immediate action is more urgent than ever.
As you know, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 protected the voting rights of racial and ethnic minorities in several states and local jurisdictions with a history of discrimination against communities of color in voting. These jurisdictions were covered by Section 5 of the Act, which required the Department of Justice (DOJ) to approve any changes to voting in specific states and localities. However, in 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court's devastating decision in Shelby County v. Holder invalidated the pre-clearance requirement and the DOJ's authority to send observers to covered jurisdictions. Following Shelby, numerous states have passed voting laws, which several federal courts agree have a disparate impact on people of color and language minorities. In the case of North Carolina, the courts found that the state's massive bundle of voting restrictions, passed within weeks of the Shelby decision, targeted African-Americans "with almost surgical precision."[1] Evidence shows that restrictive voter laws also suppress turnout of the elderly,[2] people with disabilities,[3] and students.[4]
And while some courts have taken action to block discriminatory laws in states like North Carolina and Texas, these decisions came only after years of costly litigation during which impacted citizens were blocked from voting in the 2014 elections and this year's primaries. Meanwhile, there is no way of knowing how many potentially discriminatory voting changes are being made by cities, counties, school boards, water boards, and other local jurisdictions that were previously required to be precleared. According to "Democracy Diminished,"[5] a report by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., "more than 85% of preclearance work previously done under Section 5 was at the local level."
Since Congress has failed to pass a bill to restore the VRA, which has resulted in DOJ lacking authority over voting changes in places that Congress determined in 2006 should continue to have federal oversight, we are extremely concerned that there will be widespread voter discrimination in the upcoming presidential election. This is exacerbated by the fact that there will be no DOJ observers holding jurisdictions accountable. In the 2012 general election, the Department of Justice sent 780 federal observers to 51 jurisdictions in 23 states.[6] Because of the Shelby decision, there will be virtually no election observers deployed in 2016.[7]
Shortly before the last VRA was reauthorized in 2006, former Congressman and HUD Secretary Jack Kemp wrote an op-ed,[8] "Renew the Voting Rights Act," urging Congress to reauthorize all sections of the law that were set to expire. Secretary Kemp's op-ed was prescient. He wrote that, "If Section 5 is not extended, the covered jurisdictions will not have to submit voting changes to the Department of Justice. The loss of federal authority to control voting procedures could enable local governments to more easily discriminate against minority voters. Renewing the Voting Rights Act won't solve all of these problems, but more Americans will have confidence that their votes really do count."
Mr. Speaker, you followed Secretary Kemp's guidance and voted to reauthorize the law, as did an overwhelming number of your colleagues. Your support for the bill overall helped protect "the crown jewel of American liberties" - a phrase President Ronald Reagan used to refer to the right to vote[9] when he reaffirmed his commitment to the 1982 VRA reauthorization.
In February of this year, you recognized the importance of the VRA when you told the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) that you support Rep. James Sensenbrenner's bill, the Voting Rights Amendment Act (H.R. 885), to help restore the VRA. While we realize that, as Speaker, you would prefer to defer to the Committee chair, in this case, not insisting that legislation to restore the VRA be brought to the floor is likely to result in disenfranchisement for thousands of Americans. This is because, for the past three years, Chairman Goodlatte has refused to consider any such legislation, claiming that it is not needed despite being provided by us and others with many examples of voter discrimination and intimidation. We understand your commitment to a bottom-up approach in Congress, but protecting the right to vote is too important to be held hostage by a single committee chair.
We are well aware of your various efforts to honor civil rights - from supporting H.R. 885 and visiting Selma with Rep. John Lewis to honoring the Bloody Sunday foot solders by presenting them with the Congressional Gold Medal. In contrast to your record of understanding and supporting the need to protect the right to vote, Chairman Goodlatte has shut down the possibility of any action in the Judiciary Committee while he remains in charge, and it is now clear that there is no way forward through him. Chairman Goodlatte's intractability does a disservice to the millions of voters impacted by the fallout from the ShelbyCounty decision.
We know this because we wrote to Chairman Goodlatte in July,[10] presenting him with ample evidence of why he should hold a hearing and advance legislation to restore valuable protections against voting discrimination. To date, the chairman has taken no action whatsoever.
With the election less than 60 days away, we urge you to follow through on your commitment to ensure the right to vote for all eligible Americans without delay. Real leadership is making sure all American voters have access to the ballot box. It is time to take this matter to the floor of the House of Representatives immediately. We know you believe in voting rights and the VRA. Now you need to demonstrate your commitment.
Sincerely,
Wade Henderson, President & CEO
Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights is a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States. Through advocacy and outreach to targeted constituencies, The Leadership Conference works toward the goal of a more open and just society - an America as good as its ideals.
(202) 466-3311LATEST NEWS
Passing on Senate Run, Ro Khanna Endorses 'Progressive Leader' Barbara Lee
"I know Barbara will not only fight for, but will deliver on our progressive priorities that are long overdue like Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and ending the filibuster," said the Democratic congressman.
Mar 26, 2023
Congressman Ro Khanna announced on CNN Sunday that he will not run for U.S. Senate and is endorsing fellow California Democrat Rep. Barbara Lee in the closely watched 2024 race for retiring Sen. Dianne Feinstein's seat.
"I have concluded that despite a lot of enthusiasm from Bernie folks, the best place, the most exciting place, action place, fit place, for me to serve as a progressive is in the House of Representatives," said Khanna, who co-chaired the 2020 presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
"And I'm honored to be co-chairing Barbara Lee's campaign for the Senate and endorsing her today. We need a strong anti-war senator and she will play that role," the congressman told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union."
In a statement, Khanna stressed that "Barbara is the progressive leader Californians need right now, and her solid record as one of Congress' most outspoken champions of justice speaks for itself."
"I know Barbara will not only fight for, but will deliver on our progressive priorities that are long overdue like Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and ending the filibuster," he continued. "There's a reason she's beloved by Gen Z. Because Barbara understands the issues facing young people today and knows it is our responsibility to protect our rights, our democracy, and the planet for the next generation."
"What's more, I believe that representation matters. And for far too long, our country's institutions have failed to reflect that reality," added Khanna, noting that there is not currently a Black woman serving as a Democratic senator.
So far, Lee's opponents are two other Democrats representing California in the U.S. House of Representatives: Katie Porter and Adam Schiff. Feinstein, who is 89, confirmed her long-anticipated retirement plans last month.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Internet Archive to Appeal 'Chilling' Federal Ruling Against Digital Books
"For democracy to thrive at global scale, libraries must be able to sustain their historic role in society—owning, preserving, and lending books," said Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle. "This ruling is a blow for libraries, readers, and authors."
Mar 25, 2023
Internet Archive vowed to appeal after a U.S. district court judge on Friday sided with four major publishers who sued the nonprofit for copyright infringement.
Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, Internet Archives operated a controlled digital lending system, allowing users to digitally check out scanned copies of purchased or donated books on a one-to-one basis. As the public health crises forced school and library closures, the nonprofit launched the National Emergency Library, making 1.4 million digital books available without waitlists.
Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley & Sons, and Penguin Random House sued Internet Archive over its lending policies in June 2020. Judge John G. Koeltl of the Southern District of New York on Friday found in Hachette v. Internet Archive that the nonprofit "creates derivative e-books that, when lent to the public, compete with those authorized by the publishers."
A future in which libraries are just a shell for Big Tech's licensing software and Big Media's most popular titles would be awful—but that's where we're headed if this decision stands.
Internet Archive "argues that its digital lending makes it easier for patrons who live far from physical libraries to access books and that it supports research, scholarship, and cultural participation by making books widely accessible on the Internet," the judge wrote. "But these alleged benefits cannot outweigh the market harm to the publishers."
In a statement responding to the ruling, Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle pledged to keep fighting against the publishers.
"Libraries are more than the customer service departments for corporate database products. For democracy to thrive at global scale, libraries must be able to sustain their historic role in society—owning, preserving, and lending books," Kahle said. "This ruling is a blow for libraries, readers, and authors and we plan to appeal it."
Internet Archive's supporters have shared similar warnings throughout the ongoing court battle, including after the ruling Friday.
"In a chilling ruling, a lower court judge in New York has completely disregarded the traditional rights of libraries to own and preserve books in favor of maximizing the profits of Big Media conglomerates," declared Lia Holland, campaigns and communications director at the digital rights group Fight for the Future.
"We applaud the Internet Archive's appeal announcement, as well as their steadfast commitment to preserving the rights of all libraries and their patrons in the digital age," they said. "And our admiration is shared—over 14,000 people having signed our pledge to defend libraries' digital rights at BattleForLibraries.com this week alone."
Holland continued:
From a basic human rights perspective, it is patently absurd to equate an e-book license issued through a surveillance-ridden Big Tech company with a digital book file that is owned and preserved by a privacy-defending nonprofit library. Currently, publishers offer no option for libraries to own and preserve digital books—leaving digital books vulnerable to unauthorized edits, censorship, or downright erasure, and leaving library patrons vulnerable to surveillance and punishment for what they read.
In a world where libraries cannot own, preserve, or control the digital books in their collections, only the most popular, bestselling authors stand to benefit—at the expense of the vast majority of authors, whose books are preserved and purchased by libraries well after publishers have stopped promoting them. Further, today a disproportionate number of traditionally marginalized and local voices are being published in digital-only format, redoubling the need for a robust regime of library preservation to ensure that these stories survive for generations to come.
A future in which libraries are just a shell for Big Tech's licensing software and Big Media's most popular titles would be awful—but that's where we're headed if this decision stands. No book-lover who wants an equitable and trustworthy written world could find such a future desirable. Accordingly, we plan to organize an in-person action to demand robust ownership and preservation standards for digital books and libraries. For updates on when and where, check BattleForLibraries.com.
More than 300 authors last September signed an open letter led by Fight for the Future calling out publishers and trade associations for their actions against digital libraries, including the lawsuit targeting Internet Archive.
"Libraries saved my life as a young reader, and I've seen them do as much and more for so many others," said signatory Jeff Sharlet. "At a time when libraries are at the frontlines of fascism's assault on democracy, it is of greater importance than ever for writers to stand in solidarity with librarians in defense of the right to share stories. Democracy won't survive without it."
Fellow signatory Erin Taylor asserted that "the Internet Archive is a public good. Libraries are a public good. Only the most intellectually deprived soul would value profit over mass access to literature and knowledge."
Koeltl's ruling came just two days after the American Library Association released a report revealing that in 2022, a record-breaking 2,571 titles were challenged by pro-censorship groups pushing book bans, a 38% increase from the previous year.
Meanwhile, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday passed the so-called Parents Bill of Rights Act, which education advocates and progressive lawmakers argue is intended to ban books and further ostracize marginalized communities.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Extremely Dangerous Escalation': Putin to Station Russian Nukes in Belarus
"Putin's nuclear provocations are dangerous and unacceptable. U.S. and NATO must resist calls to respond in kind and avoid injecting nuclear weapons deeper into this war," said Global Zero's Derek Johnson.
Mar 25, 2023
Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on state television Saturday plans to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus—an escalation anti-war campaigners had been warning about and that alarmed disarmament advocates and experts.
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) "condemns this extremely dangerous escalation which makes the use of nuclear weapons more likely," the group declared in a series of tweets.
"In the context of the war in Ukraine, the likelihood of miscalculation or misinterpretation is extremely high," ICAN added. "Sharing nuclear weapons makes the situation much worse and risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences."
"Sharing nuclear weapons makes the situation much worse and risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences."
The deployment decision comes 13 months into Russia's invasion of Ukraine and after the United Kingdom this week revealed plans to provide the invaded nation with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium (DU).
Putin said the U.K.'s announcement "probably served as a reason" why Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko agreed to the plan and argued that it won't violate Russia's international nonproliferation treaty obligations, according to a BBC translation.
As Reutersexplained, "The Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, signed by the Soviet Union, says that no nuclear power can transfer nuclear weapons or technology to a nonnuclear power, but it does allow for the weapons to be deployed outside its borders but under its control—as with U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe."
The United States, which has the world's second-largest nuclear arsenal after Russia, "long ago deployed their nuclear weapons on the territory of their allies, NATO countries, in Europe," the Russia leader noted. "We are doing the same thing that they have been doing for decades."
Russia "will not hand over" nuclear arms to Belarus, Putin insisted, explaining that his country has already given its ally an Iskander missile complex that can be equipped with weapons, plans to start training crews in early April, and aims to complete construction of a special storage facility for the nukes by the beginning of July.
The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and in the five years that followed, nuclear weapons based in Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine were transferred to Russia—where they have remained since.
"It's a very significant move," Nikolai Sokol, a senior fellow at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Nonproliferation, toldReuters of the deployment decision. "Russia had always been very proud that it had no nuclear weapons outside its territory. So, now, yes, they are changing that and it's a big change."
Hans Kristensen, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Nuclear Information Project, told Reuters that "this is part of Putin's game to try to intimidate NATO... because there is no military utility from doing this in Belarus as Russia has so many of these weapons and forces inside Russia."
Global Zero managing partner Derek Johnson said that "Putin's nuclear provocations are dangerous and unacceptable. U.S. and NATO must resist calls to respond in kind and avoid injecting nuclear weapons deeper into this war."
In addition to his nuclear announcement, Putin pointed out during the Saturday interview that Russia also has depleted uranium shells. As he put it: "I must say that certainly, Russia has something to respond. Without exaggeration, we have hundreds of thousands, namely hundreds of thousands of such shells. We are not using them now."
A U.K. Ministry of Defense official had confirmed earlier this week that "alongside our granting of a squadron of Challenger 2 main battle tanks to Ukraine, we will be providing ammunition including armor-piercing rounds which contain depleted uranium," which swiftly generated concerns about not only Russian nuclear threats but also public health and environmental impacts.
"DU shells have already been implicated in thousands of unnecessary deaths from cancer and other serious illnesses," stressed Kate Hudson, general secretary of the U.K.-based Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which has advocated for a moratorium on such arms. "Sending them into yet another war zone will not help the people of Ukraine."
This post has been updated with new comments from Derek Johnson.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.