Our blog series Vote 2012 aims to educate and update voters as we head into the U.S. presidential elections of 2012.
Suppression of the right to vote has a long history in the United States. Over time, however, property qualifications for voting were eliminated and the 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments to the Constitution were adopted to end the exclusion of African Americans and women from the ballot. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment also banned other restrictions on the right to vote except by reason of age or participation in rebellion or other crimes.
At least so far as African Americans were concerned, these measures did not suffice, and it has been necessary for the courts to strike down such practices as poll taxes, white primaries, and blatantly discriminatory malapportionment. An example of the last of these was what happened in Tuskegee, Alabama. Until 1957, it was a square-shaped city with about 400 African American voters. That year, the state legislature made it a 28-sided city from which all but fewer than 10 African American voters were excluded. This was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals but that court was reversed unanimously by the United States Supreme Court.
Half a century ago, in 1961, the United States Commission on Civil Rights transmitted a landmark five-volume report to President John F. Kennedy and to the Senate and the House of Representatives. The 380-page first volume dealt with the right to vote. It focused particularly on abuses in about 100 counties of eight Southern states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.
Aside from outright intimidation, which was common in that era, it identified a number of practices that were employed to suppress voting by African Americans. An example was a requirement of a specified number of registered voters to serve as “vouchers” to identify would-be voters. Where no African Americans were registered, this meant that none could vouch for new voters. In most of those places, no whites would vouch for African Americans. To ensure that a few renegade whites could not have much impact, rules were also enforced limiting the number of times a voter could vouch for another.
The Voting Rights Act and strenuous efforts by the United States Department of Justice under presidents Kennedy and Johnson, and the struggles by civil rights workers of the 1960s in which a considerable number were murdered, helped to overcome many such restrictions on the right to vote.
For someone like me, who remembers those struggles well and took part in them (not by front-line participation in voter registration campaigns but by organizing support at a safe distance), it is particularly dismaying that suppression of the right to vote has again become an important factor in circumscribing the democratic process.
Today, suppression is not primarily a practice in eight Southern states. The phenomenon is nation-wide. It reflects the extreme partisanship of our era. Attempts are being made all across the country to exclude African Americans, students and other young people, and new citizens from registering and exercising their right to vote.
Half a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court could be counted upon to turn thumbs down on the most blatant forms of discrimination. That is not the case today. If there were a counterpart today of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights of half a century ago, it would probably report that suppression of the vote is now as extensive or more extensive, than it was in that era. The struggle required to turn the tide may not have the lethal consequences of that which took place a half century ago, but it seems likely to be at least as difficult.
BOXFORD IS FEELING 7-YEAR ITCH CRITICS WANT TO DISSOLVE TRI-TOWN EDUCATION PACT
The Boston Globe (Boston, MA) May 14, 2000 | Coco McCabe, Globe Correspondent This is the story of three small towns and their noble plan to pool and share educational resources. It's also a cautionary tale about the ups and downs - including a lawsuit, name-calling, and general exasperation - communities can face when they band together for a greater good. web site 7 year itch
Essex and Manchester-by-the-Sea have just tied the knot, happily, after four years of courtship. Earlier this month voters approved a plan to create a regional school district for students in kindergarten through grade 12. But even as they were casting their votes, forces were at work in Boxford to undo an educational union that has bound that town with its neighbors, Middleton and Topsfield, since 1993.
It's called the Tri-Town Superintendency Union and allows the three towns to keep control over their own elementary schools while sharing one school superintendent as well as a central office staff that includes a handful of other administrators. Its goal is to save taxpayers money and make sure that when students in seventh through 12th grade finally move onto the Masconomet Regional School District, which serves the three towns, they will be equally prepared.
Sounds sensible, but this marriage, with its seven-year itch, may be on the rocks. Some folks in Boxford say the union is cumbersome and outdated and Boxford is big enough to be on its own. But proponents of keeping the union together insist that with some fine- tuning it can continue to work as well as it always has.
It's hard to say who is right or wrong in this fight. But one thing is clear: The issue has become increasingly divisive and has now spilled over into court. The Boxford School Committee, or a slim majority of it anyway, wants out. It has filed suit against the school boards in Middleton and Topsfield and is seeking to have the contract that binds them declared invalid.
At a town meeting last week, a slight majority of the voters favored continued participation in the union. The vote was 183-149. The dispute may reach a critical point on Tuesday, when Boxford voters go to the polls to answer two nonbinding questions: Should they stick with the union? And, do they support using at least $175,000 and possibly more than $381,000 in town funds to dissolve the union? Voters also will have a chance to fill two seats on the Boxford School Committee, and those choices could help seal the fate of the union. Two of the candidates favor standing by it, two are for dissolving it.
Meanwhile, residents of Topsfield and Middleton are sitting tight. Sick of all the fighting and disgusted that money that could be spent on education is going instead into a lawsuit, many say they just want the issue resolved.
"It needs to end. It's been a very mentally draining process," said Heidi Bond, chairwoman of the Topsfield School Committee. At the same time, she acknowledged that Boxford's departure would not only raise some significant money issues but could affect the education of students in all three towns.
Those who want the separation say that's exactly the point: They want more educational control for Boxford, and the union is standing in the way.
"I'm not sure people understand exactly what a behemoth this thing can be," said Erin Doherty Turcotte, a Boxford School Committee candidate, as she rattled off the union's organizational structure. Each of the three towns elects its own five-member school committee, and three of whose members are then selected to join the nine-member Tri-Town Union school committee. The superintendent reports to all four school boards. Decisions the Tri-Town Union board makes get disseminated to six principals in three towns where there are a total of 400 staffers and 2,400 students.
"It's a very inefficient, bureaucratic, outdated model," said Joan Sedita, a Boxford resident who is lobbying for the union's dissolution. When the union was first formed years ago, it included just Topsfield and Boxford. Both were a lot smaller than they are now, she said.
Plus, say the separatists, adding a third town - Middleton - into the mix seven years ago skewed the ability of the organization to reach consensus as easily as it had in the past. go to site 7 year itch
"A group of two working things out is a lot easier than three," Turcotte said. "It's kind of like having three kids. The dynamics in the house change." But that's not all that has changed over the years. Boxford's student population has ballooned from 370 in 1959 to 1,000 this year, and sharing a school superintendent with two other towns is no longer good enough, say those who want to leave the union. They also are unhappy about paying 43 percent of the union's costs based on Boxford's enrollment while getting only a third of the administrative services.
"We're of the size we can justify and deserve the attention of a full superintendent, and with the demands of education reform we need that kind of attention," said Ann Knight, chairwoman of the Boxford School Committee and a member of the separatist camp. "We have good schools, but a full-time superintendent would make them great schools. I believe Middleton and Topsfield can afford [to be on their own]. I don't think they'll be harmed educationally." Not everyone is so sure of that.
"I truly feel in my heart of hearts that it's the best thing if we all stay together," said Gimmie Valacer, chairwoman of the Middleton School Committee. "Our children learn by example. If we as adults can't make this happen, what are we telling our children? I don't want the message to my children to be if you don't get along with your neighbor, sue them." The union was formed on the heels of a failed attempt to regionalize all the schools, kindergarten through 12th grade, in the three towns. While most folks were loathe to give up control of their elementary schools to a regional district, the union was seen as a happy medium, said Holly Langer, a former member of the Boxford School Committee who served when Middleton was invited to join. Costs could be shared. There could be curriculum coordination. But each school committee could still oversee its own schools.
"All our children go to Masco, and to have them all working together in the upper grades, it's really important to have continuity at our lower grades," said Sharon Benson, a union supporter and member of the Boxford School Committee.
"From the Masconomet perspective, things are better now dealing with one union, rather than the Topsfield-Boxford union and Middleton as a separate entity," said Barbara Was, a Boxford resident and member of the Masconomet School Committee who also supported regionalization. "Communication is much easier. You have only one entity to deal with instead of two." If the union were to dissolve, supporters fear that all the communication and coordination that helps pave the way to Masconomet would disappear.
"You can have [curriculum coordination] teams, but if there's not an administration that holds people accountable for it, it may not happen," warned Sandy Skinner, a Boxford School Committee candidate who hopes to keep the union glued together.
"I think we need the sharing and the cooperation, and it's not going to happen if we get out of the union because of tremendous bitterness," Langer said.
Feelings already have gotten ugly.
"One quote I've heard is we're snobs. Snobford," Benson said. "It's embarrassing. Out of the 15 people who sit on the three [town] school committees, only three want out of the union." So what are the lessons in all of this? Is it possible for towns to peaceably pool and share resources? Well, around here it's probably going to take some effort.
"You run into the Massachusetts tradition of small units," said Philip Devaux, the Marblehead school superintendent who wrote his dissertation on the subject of regionalization. "Across the country county government is big. But not in New England or Massachusetts. The whole concept of county government was to pool resources." Still, pooling and sharing does work.
"Masco is a shining example of success. Look at the building project underway," said Janet Kmetz, former chairwoman of the Topsfield Board of Selectmen. "Twenty-one people on their building committee from all three towns." Coco McCabe, Globe Correspondent
Stay Informed
While the history narrated here is correct,
The last paragraph is so speculative as to be meaningless. To register to vote these days is so easy. Granted, not everyone has a driver License, but everyone has a social security card. Granted not every one is physically able, or close to voting station, but if someone is intent on voting I fail to see how such a person cannot muster help from family or friends or community organizers to go out and vote.
No specifics are given here as to how the voter discrimination of today is occurring, so the author is not making his point with any proof.
I just don't see it. The only thing I can think of is the requirement to show ID. Should we be picketing liquor stores, check cashing services, retail stores, etc. because they have the same requirement. For those without drivers licenses, subsidized ID cards are available from the government, and many organizations provide free transportation. What else is there? Do I think presenting ID is a good thing? Yes. It's a small thing, and I believe most if not all people have some form. Life in America requires it. I also find it insulting that some hold the poor in so low a regard that they think them so...what? lazy? stupid?.. that they are unable to apply for free ID, or unable to remember to take it with them when voting. I believe they are more competent than this writer gives them credit for.
48 states and the District of Columbia bar voting on the part of those with a prior felony conviction. Given the disproportionate representation of minorities in the criminal justice system, this is a tremendous and systematic disenfranchisement of persons who already have paid hugely with time spent behind bars.
Correct Mr. Crowley. Along with that, adhoc committees stripped automatic civil rights reinstatement for ex-felons who were convicted, sentenced, and served time for non-violent and non-sexually-oriented misdeeds. The clandestine committees took place in Governors' offices with less than five people present; including the Governor! Specifically, Florida added an additional five year waiting period after sentences are completely served, which includes follow-up probation and/or parole time before an application for civil rights reinstatement would be considered. In addition, the process is one that takes years to complete due to fiscal constraints that keep state government offices understaffed. In short, history delineates that oppressed people tend to behest federal government intervention; due to regional bias toward acceptance of unfair treatment. Amalgams of insidiously heinous acts are fueled by lack of tolerance for ethnic uniqueness. Therefore expect that those who get civil rights reinstated will vote for a liberal or independent candidate while the entities orchestrating the impingements to automatic civil rights reinstatement, which includes the right to vote, are conservatives.
the author of the documentation maintains speculation based on historical facts. let the present facts be exhibited to drive the point home. Otherwise with the past the author is correct.