The Supreme Court is reviewing what?!?!?!?

This week the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear an appeal in the case sytled, Shelby County v. Holder which seeks to challenge Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and its requirement of pre-clearance of changes in voting rules in jurisdictions that have exhibited a history of racial discrimination in its voter laws.  The logic of their reasoning was simply that Barack Obama was elected and re-elected President of the United States and therefore the notion of racial discrimination at the polls is invalid. However the facts have been far from supporting this logic and would tend to reinforce the necessity of the Voting Rights Act and its requirement of pre-clearance in certain areas.

Over the last 2 years, many jurisdictions, including many that are not the subject or the requirements of Section 5 have attempted to change election law in such a way as to provide a significant impediment to voting or representation.  Texas, a jurisdiction subject to pre-clearance, found itself challenged for both its redrawn electoral maps and its newly crafted Voter ID laws.  Texas found itself the recipient of four new congressional districts due to its population growth, especially in its Latino population, yet through a partisan effort sought to draw the districts in such a way that Latino influence in the body politic would be heavily diluted. In fact only one of the newly created districts could even be considered a minority opportunity district, and it was drawn specifically to try and place long serving Democratic Congressman Lloyd Doggett in a district where he would not survive a primary challenge thus completing a decade long crusade of the Texas GOP to oust Congressman Doggett.  Then Texas came under fire, and rightly so, for seeking to implement a voter ID scheme, obstinately to combat voter fraud, which sought to limit the involvement of voting blocs that tended to vote against the GOP such as students, the elderly, Latinos and African-Americans by placing obstacles to casting ballots that many could not meet.  To underscore this, the law specifically excluded student ID issued by colleges and universities while allowing state concealed handgun permits to suffice at the polls.

Texas was not the only state to have its voter ID laws challenged, its pre-clearance brethren South Carolina had its proposed law blocked by the Justice Department after it applied for pre-clearance.  Pennsylvania's own version of Voter ID law was challenged in courts since that state was not subject to Section 5's pre-clearance requirement.  What made they Keystone State's case more interesting however was the controversy that surrounded its law from the start.  Mike Turazi, Republican Majority Leader in the Pennsylvania house of representatives, told an audience that the Voter ID law will help deliver the state and its electoral college votes to Mitt Romney. Then later, during the ensuing court challenge over the law (which the state contended that it enacted to curb in-person voter fraud), the state stipulated that it had no evidence of any acts of in-person voter fraud it could document.  Once again the demographers demonstrated that those that are most likely to not have the required identification  were more likely to be poorer, urban and other groups that traditionally voted against the GOP and its candidates.

Until we come to the day where legislative districts are drawn by disinterested parties rather than elected officials the notion of pre-clearance should not just survive but be expanded.  The court should rule that all jurisdiction who seek to fundamentally change voting rules submit their requests to the Justice Department for approval. This is the crux of the Shelby County argument.  I am sure the Justice Department would swiftly grant approval to jurisdictions who seek to ease voting restrictions, draw legislative maps that reflected the areas diversity, and expand early voting hours, while rejecting those that seek to continue a pattern of exclusion and obstructionism designed to allow a shrinking majority to retain some vestige of power they feel entitled to.  This would be the best possible outcome by addressing the concerns brought up in the case before the court and also reaffirming the importance of the spirit behind the Voting Rights Act.

Women Beware

     If you are woman, before you head out to cast your ballot in the 2012 election think long and hard about the recent record of the GOP and what that means to you.   Through all the vitriol and rhetoric of the campaign some stark truths emerge, chief among them is that the GOP lead 112th congress, the same class that ran on a campaign of focus on the economy and jobs, chose to ignore the economy and instead focus upon attacking women's issues with a gusto.

      A recent congressional report identified 55 separate votes taken by the GOP lead House of Representatives on bills and measures that sought to roll back women's rights in a variety of ways.  Among these is the bill sponsored and written by Reps. Paul Ryan and Todd Akin which sought to redefine rape.  Other bills sought to eliminate funding for  Planned Parenthood who provide a multitude of medical services to women which include cancer screenings, STD prevention and treatment and other routine gynecological services.  They serve primarily low income women and others who are priced out of the medical services market though the lack of health insurance.

      On other occasions they sought to weaken provisions of the Patient's Affordable Care Act which stipulated that health plans cover well woman exams and contraception without a co-pay.  Birth Control pills have become a therapeutic treatment for a number of conditions which result from hormonal fluctuation.  Like much of the rest of the pharmaceuticals market, prices have risen steadily as new and improved options make their way into the marketplace when the patent-holder holds near monopolistic rights to set pricing on the product. Ensuring that women have access to these therapies ensures that the only constraints upon the treatments available to them are what their doctor and them decide as the best course of treatment based on the patient's needs.

     The GOP are still showing opposition to the first bill President Obama signed into law, The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which provided more recourse to women to pursue equal-pay grievances against their employer.  Some GOP candidates call initiatives like this intrusive, thereby defending the notion that women should be paid substantially less than their male counterparts.  All this while economists point out that closing the gender wage gap would pump more money directly into the economy than the Bush and Obama tax cuts combined.

     The record bears it out, the GOP have been attacking women's rights and issues like President Clinton used to attack Big Macs and McDonald's fries.  If you are a woman think long and hard before voting for a candidate with the big "R" next to their name.  That vote is a vote against the progress that women have made in the country since they won the vote in 1920. That vote is tacit approval of the attack on those hard earned gains and for many against your own interests. Mitt Romney has never disavowed these attacks on women and not only has he chosen Paul Ryan, who wanted to redefine rape as his VP candidate, but in his only endorsement of a Senate candidate this cycle, chose Richard Murdock who believes that babies conceived during rape is "God's Plan" which by extension makes the rape God's plan as well under his logic, unless he subscribes to the notion that Ted Akin espoused that "during legitimate rape, women's bodies have a way of shutting things down"