Have We Moved Beyond Racism?

By Andrew Costello

“The question is whether the Act’s extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements” (Supreme Court, 2013, 6). These words encapsulate the methodology of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down key components, principally Section 4, of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). Section 4 of the VRA set up both special jurisdictions for federal overview and the principal formula for determining said special jurisdictions among states according to where there has been a history of voting discrimination. Furthermore, Section 5, the main target of the Supreme Court’s decision, dictates that those special jurisdictions mentioned in the fourth section were required to have Federal preclearance when implementing any “change affecting voting” (DOJ, 2013). The changes mentioned in the decision refer to a variety of legislative tactics used to disenfranchise voters; for example, among practices that previously required clearance are gerrymandering, voter ID laws, and literacy tests all of which are used to specifically target minority voters.

Is the decision in Shelby Country v. Holder to strike down key provisions of the VRA truly necessary constitutionally, or even appropriate for the times in which we live? Throughout the explanation of his decision, Roberts emphasizes that “history did not end in 1965,” (Supreme Court, 2013, 24) espousing the idea that states should not be penalized for their past actions. “In assessing the ‘current need’ for a preclearance system that treats States differently” says Roberts, “history cannot be ignored” (Supreme Court, 2013, 24). The history, to which he is referring, is the fact that the situation for minority voters in states within the jurisdictions has greatly improved due to the VRA. Therefore, to Justice Roberts, the VRA is no longer necessary, but rather a blight on the “fundamental principle sovereignty” held among states (Supreme Court, 2013, 14). This would be a compelling argument, if it rested on facts and reason, two essential attributes in which Justice Roberts’ argument is completely lacking. Judge Richard A. Posner of the 7^th Circuit of Appeals in his review of Shelby noted that “there is no such principle;” furthermore, “apart from the spurious principle of equal sovereignty, all that the majority had on which to base its decision was tenderness for ‘states rights’” (Posner, 2013). According to Posner, Roberts and his conservative colleagues have made a figment of their imaginations the foundation of the debasement of the most important civil rights legislation ever.

With the principle idea of Roberts attack on the VRA discredited, the only thing left to ponder is if Roberts was actually correct in his assertion that the VRA is no longer needed, that racism is no longer an issue.  Justice Ginsburg feels that it is, expressing her bafflement the VRA’s gutting by saying, “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet” (Supreme Court, 2013, 64). Indeed, hours after the VRA was struck down, Texas enacted a harsh voter ID law. Thus, according to the evidence presented by facts and reason, racism is still alive and well in the United States, and still a problem in the special jurisdictions identified by the VRA. After the court’s decision, it will be interesting to see if state governments will make use of their newfound freedom. Unfortunately, I am sure that the Supreme Court will supply no guidance or aid in support of  “the perpetuation of racial entitlements” (Davidson, 2013) as Justice Scalia has so fondly called the rights protected by the now defunct VRA.

Bibliography

Davidson, Amy. "In Voting Rights, Scalia Sees a “Racial Entitlement”." The New Yorker. The New Yorker, 28 Feb. 2013. Web. 15 Sept. 2013.

"History of Federal Voting Rights Law." Civil Rights Division Home Page. The United States Department of Justice, n.d. Web. 15 Sept. 2013.

Posner, Richard A. "Entry 16: The Voting Rights Act Ruling Is about the Conservative Imagination." Slate Magazine. Slate Magazine, 26 June 2013. Web. 15 Sept. 2013.

"Supreme Court Decision in Shelby County v. Holder." Supreme Court Decision in Shelby County v. Holder. Supreme Court of the United States, 25 June 2013. Web. 15 Sept. 2013.

Cannabis in the United States

By Elorm Sallah

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), marijuana in the United States “is the most commonly use illicit drug” with 17.4 million past-month users in 2010. And in 2012 it was reported by the NIDA that 78.6 percent of illicit users use marijuana, with 60.1 percent of users stating marijuana was the only drug that they used.¹

Although marijuana has a strong presence in many cultures in America, particularly adolescence, and young adults, efforts to prevent users has been strongly enforced since the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as well as President Nixon’s declaration of the “War on Drugs” in 1971, which is federal policies, and military efforts to prevent the use of illicit drugs within the United States.

As of 2013, only two states in the nation have legalized cannabis, Washington state, and Colorado, while many states which include California, Nevada, Oregon, Alaska, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island all have enacted both medical and decimalization laws with in the last 15 years.

In addition, numerous states that have either decriminalized marijuana possession laws, or have enacted medical cannabis laws, almost half of the states in the United States have no such laws or regulations, making users susceptible to severe fines, and possible jail time.

In 2009, Gil Kerlikowske, the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy clarified that the federal government will uphold their position of marijuana as being “dangerous and has no medical benefit.” ² Additionally in 2012, the Obama administration stated that it “steadfastly opposed legalization of marijuana and other drugs because legalization would increase the availability and use of the illicit drug, and pose significant health and safety risks.”³

According to the FBI, there have been nearly eight million cannabis arrests in the United States since 1993, and the majority of these arrests are possession – which does not include manufacturing or distributing marijuana.⁴ In 2008 alone, there were 847,864 persons arrested for marijuana possession, and of that number only 752,224 were charged with possession only. Marijuana accounts for nearly half of all drug arrests in the United States.⁴

In recent years, many prominent politicians have come out in favor of the legalization of marijuana or the reduction of penalties faced with possession of cannabis.  Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (R) is for some sort of federal legalization of the drug.  In an April 2012 interview for rawstory.com, he stated, “When we legalize marijuana, we’re going to take steps toward drug reform, which will start off with looking at drugs as a public health issue, rather than a legal issue.”⁵

In addition to legalizing marijuana usage based on recreational purposes, many political figures state that legalizing cannabis would lead to a reduction of cartel violence in Mexico and Central America. US officials state that 60 percent of Mexican cartel revenues come from marijuana that is sold in the United States, so with current legalization and future initiatives for the legalization, it is possible that the current drug cartel violence within Mexico can decrease, as there will be a greater legal availability of American grown marijuana.

¹ http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/marijuana-abuse/what-scope-marijuana-use-in-united-states

² http://www.komonews.com/news/local/52676987.html

³ http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/marijuanainfo

⁴ http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/arrests/index.html

⁵ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/20/former-nm-gov-gary-johnson-legalize-marijuana-to-reduce-violence/

⁶ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/20/former-nm-gov-gary-johnson-legalize-marijuana-to-reduce-violence/

What the Navy Yard Shooting Will Mean for Gun Control Reform

By Rosalba Gleijeses

Often a source of much contention in national policy debate, gun control legislation has been once again thrust into the limelight in the tragic aftermath of this week’s Navy Yard shooting. In the wake of the Newton massacre this past winter, a Senate bill was introduced that sought to establish more rigorous background checks in the purchase of firearms, ban the purchase of military-style rifles, and limit the size of ammunition magazines. Despite attempts to overrule a filibuster, the bill failed to pass in April. Ardently dismayed by Congress’s squandering of the bill, President Obama has since pledge to make control a priority. However, the issue has yet to resurface on the floor on Congress, which begs the question: will this issue quickly fade into legislative oblivion after the immediate shock and grief subside?

The answer seems dismal, if patterns perpetuate. After the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, gun control received a surge in media coverage.  Interest quickly dissolved when the issue no longer remained a legislative issue being addressed on the floor. The President’s statements prove influential in spiking media coverage, but only briefly, where this issue will likely remain untouched until violent tragedy strikes again. An unfortunate side effect of the waning media coverage is that many citizens are unaware or the current gun control legislation.

As of 2010, 40-45% of households in the US had at least one firearm. Roughly 67% of documented murders in the United States are committed with firearms. What are the current rules to regulate this? In 1976, Washington, DC passed a law that prohibited individuals from possessing handguns, while also requiring that all firearms in private home be kept unloaded and rendered temporarily inoperable, by means of disassembly or installation of a trigger law. In 2008, however, the US Supreme Court struck down the law as unconstitutional in a 5-4 ruling. Current federal law deems it illegal to import, manufacture, deal, or transport a firearm without a license to do so (64 USC 18). However, federal law does not require that an individual undergo a background check when transferring or selling a firearm within the same state. Are these means alone the extent of sufficient, constitutional gun control?

In the immediate aftermath of situations like those of Navy Yard, and all other mass shootings, the public ardently preaches the need for stricter gun control. But as with the trend of media coverage, this fervor softens as tragedies slip farther into the past. Alternatively, there are a considerable amount of Americans that would vehemently defend their Second Amendment rights. Unless another bill soon reaches the floor, this issue will remain addressed only when immediately apparent, an occasional captivating story with undulating media popularity.