Munoz writes: "In an interview with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly ignored key legal problems for photo voter ID laws under the Voting Rights Act and dismissed concerns of voter suppression, claiming in-person voter fraud was a problem."
Colin Powell schooled O'Reilly on voting rights. (photo: Media Matters)
Colin Powell Explains Voter Suppression to O'Reilly
02 February 13
n an interview with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly ignored key legal problems for photo voter ID laws under the Voting Rights Act and dismissed concerns of voter suppression, claiming in-person voter fraud was a problem.
On the January 29 edition of the O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly hosted Powell to discuss "racial politics," voter suppression, and voter fraud, but failed to provide important context, including any mention of a crucial Voting Rights Act case set to be argued before the Supreme Court on February 27. In part, this case will turn on the historic civil rights law's efficacy at preventing the type of race-based voter suppression Powell described.
The problem that recent photo voter ID laws purport to address - voter fraud committed in person - is "virtually non-existent." Nevertheless, in the past two years, state Republican legislators and right-wing allies have aggressively pushed such laws that add another identification requirement for voting, even though voter identification is already required across the country. Under the Voting Rights Act, federal courts have recently confirmed that new voter ID laws in jurisdictions with a history of voter suppression have a prohibited effect on African-American and Hispanic voters.
O'Reilly refused to acknowledge any of these facts in his interview with Powell, even as Powell tried to explain them to him:
POWELL: One more point.
O'REILLY: All right. Go ahead, go ahead.
POWELL: You can't have policies that try to make it harder for minorities to vote. I think one of the most terrible things that happened in the past election season is when we had a number of states that were going out of their way, claiming there was outright fraud, when there really wasn't any fraud to be of concern to us.
But we were doing things to - making it more difficult for those people to vote.
O'REILLY: I want to get very micro on this.
POWELL: Well, but you're -
O'REILLY: Voter ID - wait, wait, wait.
POWELL: Go ahead.
O'REILLY: The voter ID, you object to showing an identification card when you vote?
POWELL: No. Of course not.
O'REILLY: Well, that's all the Republican Party wants. That's all they wanted is the voter ID.
POWELL: I object to putting in place additional levels of voter ID that -
O'REILLY: One, show one.
POWELL: - disenfranchise, disenfranchise those of our fellow citizens. I want to see a Republican Party that, rather than trying to make it more difficult to vote and restricting the number of days and hours you can vote, a Republican Party that says we want everybody to vote and we're going to give you a reason to vote for us.
O'REILLY: All right. But I don't - I don't know if asking for an ID is trying to restrict the vote - I mean, I'm sorry. You should be able to prove who you are before you cast a ballot.
POWELL: No, you should be able to prove who you are when you register to vote. And when you make the proper registration and identify yourself, you shouldn't have to go to some higher level which is going to restrict some.
O'REILLY: But surely you know how fraud is committed. I mean Boston, in Chicago, you register and then you show up and it's not you.
POWELL: I have not seen any study that says fraud is a problem of such significance that these kinds of procedures were in place. And I'm glad to see that Governor Scott in Florida has recently said he is turning this back over to his - his local communities to handle.
O'REILLY: All right. I just think showing an ID to vote is the bare minimum.
O'Reilly's effort to discuss the topic in "micro" contained multiple inaccuracies and completely ignored the recent and relevant challenge to the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. For example, O'Reilly seems to be under the misimpression that "all the Republican party" wanted this past election cycle was "an identification card when you vote." Powell tried to correct him by noting the new voter ID laws were actually "additional levels" of already-required documentation. As detailed by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, it was precisely these redundant and unnecessary "additional levels" of identification which made this initiative pushed by state Republicans so troubling:
Currently, every state in America requires voters to prove their identities before receiving a ballot; different states require different levels of proof. Legislators in states across the country are now promoting bills that would require voters to meet more stringent documentation requirements before voting - including presenting photo identification at the polls on Election Day in order to cast a ballot. While the details of the proposals vary, these bills all would deny the right to vote to some or all citizens who are unable to produce a photo ID. Studies show that as many as 11 percent of United States citizens - mostly older, low-income, and minority citizens - do not have government-issued photo IDs.
As of last year, ten states have new "unprecedented" voter ID laws. In-person voter fraud of the type O'Reilly describes has been repeatedly shown to be a fabricated problem to justify the "solution" of government-issued photo voter IDs mandated under the recent legislation. State Republicans are beginning to admit these types of laws are purely a prohibited race-based voter suppression tactic, as Powell argued during his O'Reilly Factor appearance. O'Reilly did not mention these documented admissions.
O'Reilly also notably left out the fact that federal review has documented this phenomenon through the "pre-clearance" process under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which forbids jurisdictions with a history of impermissible racial discrimination - such as states in the South - from enacting changes in election practices without approval. As election law expert Professor Rick Hasen recently explained, these are the examples of illegal voter suppression that O'Reilly was searching for:
Like many other states with Republican majority legislatures acting over the last few years, South Carolina adopted a tough photo identification law before the 2012 election. The state's Republican legislature likely acted out of the belief that such laws would marginally depress Democratic turnout and help Republicans at the polls. Controversy over voter ID laws also motivates the Republican base to turn out to vote. (What voter ID laws don't do is prevent a lot of real voter fraud, though that's the rationale their supporters cite.)
The U.S. Department of Justice blocked South Carolina's voter ID requirement under Section 5. The process sounds technical, but it's important. Nine full states and parts of other states with a history of racial discrimination in voting must get approval from either the Department of Justice or a three-judge court in Washington, D.C. before making any changes in their voting practices and procedures - from changes as small as moving a polling location to as large as enacting a new redistricting plan.
[ ... ]
Voter ID laws have also passed outside the South in recent years, in states such as Indiana and Kansas. Because Section 5 doesn't apply there, no federal law prevents the voter ID requirements from going into effect, though some state courts have blocked them for other reasons. By contrast, because of Section 5, South Carolina's law automatically went on hold until it was softened. Texas, meanwhile, lost a bid to impose an even stricter voter ID requirement enacted in 2011.
Because GOP legislation of this sort is not going away, other media outlets are reporting on the clear and important link behind recent voter ID laws and the Voting Rights Act's prohibition of certain voter suppression that discriminates on the basis of race. In the coming weeks before the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the "pre-clearance" requirements of the Voting Rights Act, hopefully O'Reilly will finish the conversation he started with Powell and include this crucial context.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 15 May 2013
|
 15 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 15 May 2013
|
 17 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 17 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
In their big "Rumble" last year O'Reilly told John Stewart that he didn't like people who said things that weren't true for purely partisan reasons. He's clearly in denial about the purpose of Fox News.
Hannity's reply: "it's only television."
Hannity, in my view took the child's ego role to an adult question. His mentality in that situation was to try to strip Maher's question of its integrity.
Fortunately for the world, the majority of the nation does no like or approve of this culture, and disapproves of the GOP for insisting upon cultivating the denial with all sorts of innovations and liberalizing of that denial.
Fortunately for rest of us, the most obnoxious of the big electoral spenders will waste much of their ill begotten and irresponsible wealth on their attempts at selling that culture.
If a white guy can pretend to be a black criminal--and be believed--then yes, voter ID IS necessary!
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/06/01/holders_chutzpah/page/full/
Other than that, finally Colin Powell, finally...!
If the "white actor" had been a black actor, he would have been more scrutinized and our "democracy" would be safe; those manning the voting booth would have checked him thoroughly. You make our point.
Now suppression of votes and flipping of votes is a different matter, and so far we only know of one party that has been doing that and who has owned the machines that count the votes and that is the Republican party, with the help of all their un-Democratic, American people hating friends.
"Despite Holder's claim, a little experiment in his own home voting district showed how easy it is to commit voter fraud. An actor -- a white actor, at that -- went to a voting place where Eric Holder is registered to vote, and told them that he was Eric Holder.
"The actor had no identification at all with him, either with or without a photo. He told the voting official that he had forgotten and left his identification in his car. Instead of telling him to go back to the car and get some identification, the official said that that was all right, and offered him the ballot. (TO BE CONTINUED in part II of this 'long' comment.)
When I registered to vote I had to prove who I was, that I had a legal address and that I was a citizen.
When this was verified, I was sent a card stating that I was a registered voter. Now, why should I need to show anything else when I vote? My name is on the voting list at my polling place and I have a card that matches that name and other pertinent info...what the f**k is the problem?
Even if my wallet was stolen, does anyone with an IQ over 90 think that the perp is going to save my voter card until the next election and go to my polling place and VOTE? And if I sign up for a write-in ballot, I don't even need my card - even if I don't mail it in and decide to drop it off at my polling place.
Voter fraud my ass, it's the Secs. Of State and Governors who are creating a fraud on the voting public.
I will never forget 2000 and the treason of five members of the Supreme Court.
Powell is such a fool, there is not and can never be such a reason - because the Republican party is a party of an aggressively dominating elite, and they can only exist when the people are beat down and kept in the dark and lied to.
A return to the Republican Party of old might permit America to grow and really become the beacon to the world that it has the potential to be.
Voter fraud doesn't happen at the individual level; no one goes out and recruits old Asian women to stand in long voter lines. What voter fraud there is is usually implemented at the level of voter registrations, such as were being organized by several Republican groups in Florida and (I believe) South Carolina before the last election. Photo ID laws for voters are nothing but harassment mechanisms, and deserve to be labeled as such.
And these people feel they are "victims" of "vote fraud".
If they listen to faux they are clearly exposing themselves to "information fraud".
I have worked my Precinct for 30 years and we know every single person. Now even I have to show my I.D. to the Judge to get a ballot!
I thought he was a clever actor who'd worked up a bullying demagogic "character" that he played on television to the delight of right-wing dolts and to the dismay of left-wing dolts - both of whom took him and his "faux" network seriously.
Now that I have been given another perspective, I am glad of only one thing. At least he (or the character he plays) displays "a total lack of manners." If we ever got a suave, charming and well-mannered bullying demagog, THAT would be scary!
It's not that I object so much to the possibility of a moderating black presence in the GOP, or the reassertion of a white liberal presence for that matter.
I would, however, be more interested in a presence (black, white or polka dot) that would lead the Democrats back to their roots among minorities, working people and now embracing environmentalis ts, feminists and the broad range of progressive needed to rescue America from itself.
Mr. Obama's inaugural address was OK, but we've heard that sort of thing before ... without pertinent consequences. Constant pressure on the Democrats is currently more important than the arrival of some Republicans with a smidgen of integrity, an IQ over 80 and a hint of compassion and civility.
However, I truly believe that he feels anyone who isn't "up to standards" should not be allowed to vote. This was the sentiment anyway regarding students and minorities during the last election.
I am just about tired of these code-word laden political discussions. If Republicans truly believed in their cause, they would never need to add a layer of deceit in order to further them.
See our video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXBA59pTBh8
or go to godot at rsn where A DEADLY WRONG is posted.
The other red herring Republicans toss out is their concern for the debt which is never a Republican concern when they are in office. Witness the deficit spending by Reagan, Bush and Bush.
Unfortunately, the Republican party has turned into the party of lies.
I am amazed as to why a brilliant man like Colin Powell would accept to be interviewed by O'Reilly on Fox News. What a waste of time. O'reilly is a bigoted, racist, hypocritical right wing radical Republican. A Tea Party man. It is demeaning for any intelligent, educated person to appear on his program.
Aygen
Istanbul, Turkey
Is it true that the lastest Neilson TV poll shows a drop in FOX news viewership? I hope that's true.
Lying steals a persons right to deal with the truth. One can't make good decisions with bad information! FOX is a pathalogical lying machine that has led viewers down a destructive path.
That's his idea of "Getting micro", innit?!
Why Powell is still a Rethug' beats me.
Powell is pitiful, a "running dog" for the GOP.
What I object to is the state changing horses on the current rules and being unprepared to give ALL voters access to compliance with the rules in time to vote. The state legislature that switches from a simple ID to a photo ID, or from any form to any other form, a week, month, possibly a year in some backward states, before the election is absolutely restricting voter’s ability to access the polls.
Voting is supposedly (listening to the Right) the second most important right of Americans, second only to the Second Amendment. States should be assisting citizens to vote, not blocking their attempts to vote.
Strange how the Right screams against gun regulations when guns kill 30,000 a year in the US, then turn around and scream for regulations when there are 10 cases of voter impersonation fraud (the only type that photo ID addresses) in 12 years.
Maybe a bit of hypocrisy here. Or might we call it fraud AGAINST the voter?
"The actor had the good sense not to actually take the ballot, which would have made him guilty of voter fraud -- and, being white, he would undoubtedly have been prosecuted by Eric Holder's Department of Justice.
"But the actor had made his point. When a white man with no identification can go to a voting site, impersonate a black man who lives in that district, and get his ballot offered to him, then it is far too easy to commit voter fraud."
From this it is clear that this was NOT a case of voter fraud (despite the writers assertion). It is a case of an official failing to enforce voting laws. The official should have the book thrown at him -- whether he is black or white! Even if there HAD been a photo ID requirement, this official would have been violating the law by not asking for it. So what exactly does this prove? Certainly not anything Fox New is interested in.
(1) Fox News mission is to spread propaganda to support the Republican Party using any possible technique including bullyism. Essentially it is an arm of the party to aggressively support and promulgate its un-democratic agenda.
(2) Bill & Sean get paid big bucks to support that. They maintain their jobs because they fit the job description and internally have no integrity
(3) Who are the people that watch FOX? - (A) the extreme right wingers, people who lack integrity, racists etc. AND (B) some of us occasionally more through curiosity just to see what the other side is saying, planning etc. The group (A) conforms to the theory "birds of a feather flock together"
Anyone therefore can see that their influence is bolstered only within their own domain and their message of hatred etc. is not winning over the rest of the population. The GOP's loss of the last election is a year when there is a bad economy and many more problems speaks volumes for their further decline.
Hopefully we will dig ourselves out of this rut and the GOP's will become irrelevant along with FOX NEWS.
So we should not be surprised by arrogant, bullying, talk over people being interviewed, shout at people who do not agree with his vicious ranting, ill-mannered, racist actions of Billy O'Reilly.
Don't stress out over this guy. He too will become irrelevant and bite the dust eventually.
I have done thousands of door knocks on doors of registered voters - at least that is what the current voter database displayed to me.
Problem is when I was withen a mile or so of the major university and knocking on apartment complex doors - the approved voter list was almost totally usles becasue people registered to vote legally and property inthose places typically are students. Then they graduated and moved - or they moved to a different location so more often then not the names and addresses showed valid resisted voters who simply did not exist at the claimed residence.
With out valid current photo ID any one could data mine that voter database and vote many times and there would be zero proof of fraud.
We get into heated emotional debate sometimes before we review the facts.
Question:
What do Burundi, Belize, Bahamas, Mexico and USA have in common?
Answer:(FACT)
Only countries that rely on individuals to register to vote.
All other countries take the responsibility and initiative to register voters by different means.
FACT: In a few countries it is mandatory to vote. You have no choice your are required to vote.
In our democracy voting is not mandatory and we all agree with that.
FACT: Recent figures: Canada 93% of the population is registered, US 68%. France - 84% of registered voters vote, in the USA less than 50%
So we all agree it makes sense to fix the system. Let's drop the word reform. It conjures up a long miserable process which generally goes nowhere.
That fix should start today. No need for 'paralysis by analysis' like everything else 'gun control reform' 'immigration reform'.
As a technology professional I say we have the technology now that we did not have 20 years ago to do it. We can create and link large databases of information that can be shared, sorted, verified, validated and secured.
let's start here: (a) responsibility federal (b) implementation state level (c) automatic registration of all citizens, purge deceased etc.(d) more..
Thoughts please .. Thanks
RSS feed for comments to this post