June, 24 2016, 04:45pm EDT
Shelby v. Holder - Three Years Later
The Invisible Face of Voter Suppression: Our Youth
BALTIMORE, MD.
Three years ago tomorrow, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Shelby v. Holder, nearly dismantling the centerpiece of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The court ruled that 16 states no longer needed to pre-approve their voting changes with the federal government. These were the states with some of the longest and continuous histories of voting discrimination. Since then, our nation has witnessed the greatest assault on voting rights since the Jim Crow era.
This year will be the first presidential election in 50 years without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. With the Shelby decision, we have seen an onslaught of new voting restrictions in states across the country - laws severely limiting early voting, states purging voter rolls, passing strict voter id laws, and implementing new restrictions on voter registration. Instead of the federal government blocking these laws before they are even implemented, the Shelby decision allows discriminatory laws to take effect and cause confusion and potential disenfranchisement in their wake. These barriers affect not just African Americans but the elderly, the disabled, the poor and people of color. But what may be more insidious and least obvious is the effect these restrictions have on suppressing the millennial vote.
"Our youth are the bruised but invisible faces of voter suppression," said Cornell William Brooks, president and CEO of the NAACP. "This is not the voter suppression of a seemingly ancient civil rights era, but rather Jim Crow 2.0 in 2016. This is not your grandparents white versus black voter suppression, but rather a multigenerational older versus younger, as well as race-based voter suppression. When college IDs are not honored at the ballot box, but concealed weapons permits are, when polling places are moved off college campuses, when DMVs are closed at the moment when high school seniors are getting a license for the prom or an ID to vote, this is nothing less than a generational assault against young voters. This kind of voter suppression is not partisan gamesmanship, but rather the corruption of our democracy. The NAACP is opposed to race-driven voter suppression and youth-targeted voter suppression. In this first presidential election in 50 years without the full protection of the Voting Rights Act, with millions of millennials being the largest voting bloc, we can do no less."
"It is very clear that the Shelby v. Holder decision precipitated voter suppression laws by state legislatures across the country to intentionally disenfranchise people of color and millennials and silence their voices at the polls," said Stephen A Green, national director of the NAACP Youth and College Division. "As a result, The Youth and College Division of the NAACP will engage in a rigorous and relentless civic engagement campaign which couples voter registration, voter education and voter mobilization efforts with voter demonstrations, a call for resistance and non violent direct actions across the country."
Here are the facts:
- According to the US Census, in the 2008 presidential election 48.5% of 18-24 year olds voted. In the 2012 president election, 41.2% of those aged 18-24 cast a vote.
- In the 2012 election, in states where online registration was available, 12.8% of young voters registered online.
- In same day registration states, 47% of young voters registered at polling sites, making it clear that young voters utilize more convenient methods of registration.
- According to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), the requirement in some states that photo ID must show the voter's current address significantly affects young voters who are more likely to change addresses due to college matriculation or simply moving out of their childhood home. Additionally, states like Tennessee where government refuses to the accept student ID from any of the state's 23 universities as a form of voter ID, it becomes difficult for students in particular to vote.
Efforts to suppress millennial voters could have a significant impact on voter turnout as the millennial population surges. A Feb. 21 New York Times Editorial reports that the total millennial population in the 2016 election is equal now to the baby boom generation in the voting age population (both making up 1/3rd). Of all eligible voters, 21% or 49 million are 18-29. Since the 2012 election, 16.5 million youth have turned 18. One third of 18-29 year olds are eligible to vote in a presidential election for the first time in 2016--there will be 16.9 million potential new young voters in 2016.
Founded Feb. 12. 1909, the NAACP is the nation's oldest, largest and most widely recognized grassroots-based civil rights organization. Its more than half-million members and supporters throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private sectors.
LATEST NEWS
Sanders Unveils Resolutions to Block US Arms Sales as Israel Rejects Cease-Fire Call
"Sending more weapons to Netanyahu's extremist government is unacceptable," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Sep 26, 2024
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and a pair of his Senate colleagues on Wednesday formally introduced resolutions aimed at blocking a series of proposed arms sales to the Israeli government as it bombards Gaza and Lebanon, deepening humanitarian crises there and pushing the region to the brink of all-out war.
The six Joint Resolutions of Disapproval, five of which were backed by Sens. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), would together prevent the sale of $20 billion of U.S. weaponry to Israel. The Biden administration approved the massive sale of Joint Direct Attack Munitions, tank ammunition, F-15 fighter jets, and other military equipment last month.
In a statement, Sanders (I-Vt.) said that "there is a mountain of documentary evidence demonstrating that these weapons are being used in violation of U.S. and international law."
On top of the legal case for scrapping the sales, Sanders said Wednesday that "there are also clear policy reasons not to proceed," noting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has obstructed cease-fire efforts at every turn.
"It is clear that Netanyahu is prolonging the war to cling to power and avoid prosecution for corruption," the senator said. "Meanwhile, his government has also overseen record illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank and unleashed a wave of violence there that has killed nearly 700 Palestinians, including 150 children, and several Americans over the last 11 months. And now the world must contend with the dramatic escalation in Lebanon."
"Sending more weapons to Netanyahu's extremist government is unacceptable," he added. "That is why many of our closest allies have already stopped offensive arms transfers. Congress must now act to uphold U.S. and international law and use our leverage to advance U.S. policy goals."
Sanders, Welch, and Merkley introduced the resolutions as U.S., France, Qatar, and other nations issued a joint statement calling for a three-week cease-fire on the Israeli-Lebanon border—a proposal that Israel's foreign minister swiftly rejected as Israeli forces carried out a fresh wave of bombings in Lebanon, killing dozens.
"There will be no cease-fire in the north," Israel Katz wrote on social media. "We will continue to fight against the terrorist organization Hezbollah with all our might until victory and the safe return of the residents of the north to their homes."
The Sanders-led Joint Resolutions of Disapproval face long odds in a U.S. Congress that has passed billions of dollars in military aid to Israel since the Hamas-led October 7 attack.
With the formal introduction of the resolutions, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee now has 10 calendar days to consider the measures. Once that period is up, "the sponsor(s) of the resolution can force a floor vote on a motion to discharge the resolution from committee," Sanders' office explained in a fact sheet. Because the resolutions are privileged, they can't be amended or filibustered and require just a simple majority to pass.
The Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project said Wednesday that the resolutions mark "the first time in U.S. history" that "there will be a vote in Congress to block weapons to Israel."
"Sending Israel weapons is a violation of U.S. law and opposed by a majority of Americans, who are sick of seeing their tax dollars fund Israel’s war crimes against Palestinians," the group added.
Dylan Williams, vice president of the Center for International Policy, applauded the resolutions as "an appropriate, measured, and sadly necessary response to a security partner's repeated violations of U.S. and international law."
"We welcome Senator Sanders' initiative to put a stop to this carnage and U.S. complicity in it," said Williams.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Condemned for 'Genocidal' Threat to Destroy Iran
"Trump's threat to blow Iran's largest cities and the country itself 'to smithereens' is an outrageous threat that should be widely condemned," said the National Iranian American Council.
Sep 25, 2024
Former U.S. President Donald Trump's threat on Wednesday to blow Iran "to smithereens" if he returns to power was condemned by a leading Iranian American advocacy group as "genocidal."
Trump—the 2024 Republican nominee—addressed a campaign rally in North Carolina on Wednesday after he was reportedly briefed about alleged Iranian assassination threats against him.
"If I were the president, I would inform the threatening country—in this case, Iran—that if you do anything to harm this person, we are going to blow your largest cities and the country itself to smithereens," he said to raucous applause. "We're gonna blow it to smithereens, you can't do that. And there would be no more threats."
Responding to the former president's remarks, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) said in a statement that "Trump's threat to blow Iran's largest cities and the country itself 'to smithereens' is an outrageous threat that should be widely condemned as psychotic and genocidal."
"Just like his threat to target 52 of Iran's most cherished cultural sites, Trump appears disturbingly willing to kill millions of Iranians who have no say over the actions of their authoritarian government," NIAC continued. "These remarks should be disqualifying for a man vying to once again be commander in chief and have sole authority over launching nuclear weapons with the power to make good on his horrifying threat."
"Likewise, we unequivocally condemn any Iranian threats that may be targeted at Trump or former officials," the group added. "Political violence must be rejected and prevented in all forms. Assassinations are a path to war and human suffering, as was demonstrated by the strike on [Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Maj. Gen.] Qasem Soleimani that engendered these threats, and risk further embroiling the region in violence."
Trump ordered the January 2020 airstrike that killed Soleimani in Iraq. He also unilaterally withdrew from the so-called Iran nuclear deal and ramped up sanctions on Tehran, exacerbating Iran's economic woes.
While Trump is known for his boastful and sometimes empty claims, as president he also followed through on his 2016 campaign promise to "bomb the shit out of" Islamic State fighters and "take out their families," resulting in thousands of civilian casualties in countries including Iraq and Syria.
Although Trump often presents himself as the peace candidate, critics have warned voters not to be fooled.
"He's a liar. C'mon, you know he doesn't tell the truth at all," Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)—the only member of either legislative chamber who voted against authorizing the so-called War on Terror in 2001—said in a recent interview with The Nation.
"Just look at his record, who he cozies up to in terms of dictators," Lee added. "He wants more investment in the military budget. What his strategy is, is to create a more dangerous world."
Keep ReadingShow Less
CBO: GOP Social Security Plan Would Cut Benefits by Thousands, Not Extend Solvency
"Their goal is to destroy our Social Security system," one advocate for seniors said of Republican politicians.
Sep 25, 2024
Social Security defenders have long argued that former Republican U.S. President Donald Trump's return to the Oval Office could spell disaster for seniors, and a nonpartisan government analysis released Wednesday bolsters their warnings.
U.S. House Budget Committee Ranking Member Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) asked the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to analyze the impact of raising the full retirement age (FRA) for Social Security from 67 to 69, as various Republican groups have proposed.
"This report shows that raising the retirement age to 69 would slash benefits by an average of $3,500 a year," Social Security Works executive director Alex Lawson told Common Dreams. "For seniors and people with disabilities, that means not being able to buy groceries, pay a heating bill, or buy birthday presents for their grandkids."
"This cruel benefit cut would hit those who claim benefits early—largely people who work on their feet, not those who work in offices—the hardest," Lawson noted. "Even worse, it is only one of the benefit cuts that Republicans are backing. Their goal is to destroy our Social Security system."
As CBO Director Phillip L. Swagel wrote to Boyle:
All people affected by such an increase in the FRA would receive a smaller amount of Social Security benefits over their lifetime. Workers who chose to delay claiming their retirement benefits by the same number of months as the increase in the FRA would receive the same monthly benefit for a shorter period. Those workers who claimed retirement benefits at the same age as they would have claimed them under current law would receive a smaller benefit for the same number of years.
In a statement responding to the report, Boyle's office highlighted that "for workers currently in their 30s and 40s who are subject to the full retirement age increase, the average annual benefit cut would be 13%, or around $3,500 a year."
As the congressman's office pointed out, the CBO also found that "though increasing the retirement age would reduce spending, it would not create enough savings to change the expected exhaustion date of the Social Security Trust Fund, which is projected to be unable to pay full benefits by the end of fiscal year 2034."
Boyle and Senate Budget Committee Chair Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) have introduced the Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act, which would extend the solvency of both programs by requiring Americans with higher incomes to pay more than they do now.
"Social Security is a sacred promise that after a lifetime of hard work, Americans have earned the right to retire with dignity," Boyle said Wednesday. "This independent, nonpartisan report shows just how devastating Republican plans to rip away hard-earned Social Security benefits would be for American workers."
"Instead of saving Social Security by making the ultrarich pay their fair share, the GOP is hellbent on gutting benefits for the middle class," he warned, specifically calling out the congressional Republican Study Committee and the Heritage Foundation, which is behind Project 2025. "Democrats will never stop fighting to keep the promise of Social Security and defend Americans' retirement security from Republican attacks."
The CBO report comes less than six weeks away from the U.S. general election. Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris is facing Trump in the race for the White House.
Before President Joe Biden left the contest and passed the torch to Harris, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, National United Committee to Protect Pensions, and Social Security Works Political Action Committee were backing him over Trump. All three groups have endorsed Harris.
"As president, Biden has been an unwavering protector of Social Security and Medicare," Social Security Works president Nancy Altman wrote in a July opinion piece for Common Dreams. "Harris will be as fierce a defender, and she will do more. She will expand Social Security and Medicare and ensure that all benefits will continue to be paid in full and on time for the foreseeable future by requiring billionaires to pay their fair share."
"In stark contrast, Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress are a serious threat to our earned benefits and to our families," she stressed, also warning of the GOP's positions on medication prices and tax breaks for the rich. "A vote for Democrats is a vote to expand benefits, lower prescription drug prices, and require those billionaires to start paying their fair share."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular