In 2008, Calera, Alabama shifted the boundaries of its voting districts in a way that drastically altered the city's racial geography. Almost immediately, the U.S. Department of Justice wrote that Calera couldn't go through with it. According to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, states with a history of racial discrimination must obtain "preclearance" from the government to make voting-related changes. And in this case, the DOJ flexed its muscles.
That set off a debate from Alabama to Washington about the relevance of Section 5 in the 21st Century. Is voter discrimination based on race a thing of the past? Or should the government still keep watch on those states which have an unpleasant history of racism? Kareem Crayton, associate professor of law at the University of North Carolina, has studied voter polarization.
Lessons From a Female Union Electrician
President Obama Seeks to Narrow 'War on Terror,' A Closer Look at the IRS Inquiry, Boy Scouts to Allow Gay Members
The DSM and Mental Health in America
Defining Normal After a Diagnosis of Schizophrenia, The Mayor of Oklahoma City, A New Kind of Commencement Speech
Oklahoma High School Seniors Graduate in Tornado's Aftermath
The show is a co-production of WNYC Radio and Public Radio International, in collaboration with New York Times Radio and WGBH Boston.
Major funding provided by:
Comments [1]
Much emphasis on Republican strategists yet no mention of Democratic Party's history and voting rights.
It was the Democratic Party machine of the South which engaged in voting discrimination and intimidation against African-Americans, Republican voters and others who rejected the Democratic Party for over a century.
LBJ himself has storied allegations of his voter fraud with various elections including the 1960 Presidential race.
It seems the Democratic Party's reputation on voting laws from the Solid South to Eric Holder's Justice Department deserves some attention along with Republicans who take voter rights seriously.
There is a lack of knowledge of history and there is deliberate omission of history which contradicts a biased political narrative. Which is worse?
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.