Activists Confront a Changing Voting Rights Landscape

Friday, August 23, 2013

Waiting in line to vote in Brooklyn, in the 2008 election. (April Sikorski/Wikimedia Commons)

This week, The Takeaway has gone on a voting rights tour, examining how the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County Vs. Holder has changed voting laws across the country, from Texas to Florida to North Carolina.

Today, Marvin Randolph looks at the future of voting rights in America. Randolph, senior vice president for campaigns at the NAACP, explains how his organization has had to revamp its get-out-the-vote strategies in light of the Supreme Court's voting rights decision.

He says that voter ID laws, limitations on early voting and other measures have posed problems for the NAACP's constituents, but that the organization will push Congress to pass a new preclearance formula and reinstate Section Four of the Voting Rights Act.  

Guests:

Marvin Randolph

Produced by:

Megan Quellhorst and Jillian Weinberger

Editors:

T.J. Raphael

Comments [4]

Charles

So we completed The Takeaway's weeklong look at the current scene in "voting rights," without ever once presenting the side favoring expanded voter ID requirements. A comprehensively one-sided story, for a solid week.

Thanks, public radio, for a balanced discussion.

Aug. 26 2013 09:06 AM
lana ramig from Fort Worth, Texas

My dad and I registered to vote at at a courthouse in an African American area. We both obtained multiple voter registration cards!!! We are both listed multiple times on the roster(our names are slightly different on each of the cards!) . Now I know why the liberal push not to show valid I.D.!!! You call this justice!!! WAKE UP!!

Aug. 23 2013 12:58 PM
listener

Doesn't a firearm ID require more verifiable information than a student ID thus making it a more legit document for identification?

Nice try on the sophistry.

Aug. 23 2013 12:17 PM

One of the things that bothers me most is the rhetoric our representatives use when talking about Voters' Rights and voter fraud. Our representatives say that their main concern is making sure every eligible person can vote and that no fraud occurs. Yet there is a clear conflict between their words and their actions.

Many representatives that support protection against voter fraud are the same representatives that insist voters' rights legislation is no longer needed. They are so vehement in protecting against voter fraud, even when DOJ statistics show past instances of fraud account for .00000013 % of all votes. Yet when confronted with the idea that Voters' Rights may help protect even a small number of people's right to vote, they dismiss it and say it's no longer necessary. If their true intention was to protect everyone's right to vote, there wouldn't be such a strong push to abolish Voters' Rights legislation. Instead, they would promote and protect any legislation that might lead to more protection and more voter accessibility to one of our most fundamental freedoms.

Aug. 23 2013 09:58 AM

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.