TONIGHT

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Archives
• Young Voices
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis

FEATURES

• Election 2008
• Road to Wealth
• Examining Hip-Hop

RELATED LINKS

• Op-Ed by Professor Overton
• About Stealing Democracy
• National Voting Rights Institute
• Professor Overton's bio

E-mail a friend

Tavis: Spencer Overton is a professor at the George Washington University law school, and a former member of the Jimmy Carter-James Baker commission on federal election reform. His new book is called 'Stealing Democracy: The New Politics of Voter Suppression." Professor Overton, nice to have you on the program.

Spencer Overton: Hey, thanks for having me.

Tavis: Is there a new politics of voter suppression, and what might it be, if it's new?

Overton: Well, Tavis, politicians use redistricting; they've got new computers that redraw districts precisely. Certainly, it's always been around. Remember after the Civil War, White Democrats used certain devices, like literacy tests and poll taxes, to exclude people of color, Republicans of color. But we see these techniques being used now to, redistricting and then also barriers to the ballot.

Tavis: It's one thing, Spencer, to argue that there are new techniques that those who play this political game are using or are invoking. It's another thing to suggest that that behavior rises to the level of voter suppression. That's a strong indictment. Make the case for me.

Overton: No, it may be strong, but it's absolutely true. Politicians use a variety of techniques to basically maintain control in America. We talk a great game about exporting Democracy to other countries, but in fact here the people aren't in control. Politicians use redistricting, they use these barriers to the ballot, whether it's a photo ID rule, or preventing former felons from casting a ballot, and a variety of other just detailed, thousands of techniques, to determine who votes, and whose vote counts. Actually, voters don't always choose politicians. And in fact, politicians too often choose voters by manipulating these election rules.

Tavis: Let's talk about the photo ID, for example. As you well know, you're the expert here, in places like Michigan, this has been debated. Certainly in Georgia, this has been debated. There are a lot of folk who don't get how a photo ID - we live in a world where everybody wants to have you show ID. So tell me, you make the case for me of how demanding, insisting that one show ID at the voting booth amounts to voter suppression.

Overton: Right. Well, Tavis, it seems reasonable to require a photo ID. Most people do have photo ID. The problem, though, is that there are 20 million Americans who don't have a state-issued photo ID. That's more people than in New Mexico, Delaware, and 14 other states combined.

And there are particular communities that are really hit hard, if you look in Wisconsin, for example. Twenty-three percent of senior citizens don't have a state-issued photo ID. Seventy-eight percent of young Black males ages 18 to 24 don't have a driver's license. So, a lot of folks don't have an ID. And on the same token, on the other side of the coin, a fraud is not significant.

The studies that have existed so far, for example in Ohio, out of nine million ballots cast in 2004, only four were deemed to be improper. So my concern here is that a photo ID requirement would essentially throw out the baby, because the baby has a drop of bath water on the baby's arm. We need better tools that actually deal with that drop of bath water.

Tavis: If I hear you correctly, and I'm certain I do, I think I hear you suggesting that on any number of levels, even in 2006, as we head toward midterm elections, of course the presidential election of 2008, that race continues to be a factor in these issues and cases of voter suppression, yes?

Overton: Right. Race is significant, in part because of voting patterns of particular people. And politicians feel like well, maybe people from particular racial groups, Latinos or African Americans, will cast ballots against them. And it's one good reason to keep the Voting Rights Act. Because race still does matter. If we look just in 2004, down in Prairie View, Texas, the district attorney there threatened to prosecute Black students for voting down there.

And also, the county board reduced the polling hours at the poll closest to Prairie View A&M, which was a historically Black college, in order to, frankly, prevent some students who were running for election from defeating, right, those incumbents. So race still is a problem, and we still need the Voting Rights Act, and we still need to be sensitive to the importance of race in politics. Politicians are never, they never ignore race. They know race, because it's important to them in terms of winning elections.

Tavis: You said a couple things I wanna follow up on. Let me start with the Voting Rights Act. We now know, thankfully, that we are on the right side, the other side of this debate about the Voting Rights Act. It was, in fact, renewed. Passed both houses of Congress, President Bush has reauthorized it for another 20, 25 years, so that's a good thing.

Tell me, though, how you read the debate. Because it didn't start out that way. Started out with the Congressional Black Caucus a few years ago meeting with President Bush and asking him to support the reauthorization, and he said, even though he's from Texas, where LBJ is from, the guy who signed it into law, Bush says in that meeting in the Oval Office, I don't know what you're talking about. I don't know nothing about the Voting Rights Act.

That's how this thing started. It got cantankerous all the way through. When we got down to the wire, we thought the vote was gonna happen in the house. A bunch of southern Republicans, you know the story, jumped in and killed the vote on that particular day. So again, it finally got passed, but there was a long process to get the Voting Rights Act reauthorized.

Of course, for those watching, the Voting Rights Act, as you know, is that piece of legislation that protects us when we go to vote. Protects us from being intimidated out of our right to vote. But how did you read that debate that we had about this issue?

Overton: Well, I think initially, it was bipartisan. There was leadership in both parties that was really pushing forward in terms of the Voting Rights Act. The problem is that there was some obstruction. And some obstruction is from the south. Here Republicans from the south, White Republicans from the south, as well as people who are really not sensitive to the language needs of certain language minorities like Latinos and Asian Americans, because the bill also provides for bilingual ballots, right?

So on those two grounds, the bill was attacked by these obstructionists. And I'll tell you, I think that the Republican leadership, and perhaps it's for political reasons, but I think that they stood up to these obstructionists, not unlike LBJ. You remember he stood up to the southern Dixiecrats. Back then, the problem, the segregationists were from the south, right?

He stood up to them, and they pushed through the original Voting Rights Act. And I think that that was what was done here. The big problem to watch out for now, though, Tavis, is what will the Supreme Court do? There are obstructionists here who said we didn't get enough votes in Congress to stop the Voting Rights Act, but I only need five votes before the Supreme Court to stop this. So that's what we've gotta watch out for now.

Tavis: Is it possible? I don't mean to be naive in asking this question, but possible, given that Congress has now moved on this, the President has now signed it. I have to, let me, I don't wanna be naïve here. Let me just make a best-case scenario. If the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate get, for political reasons, why they have to support the Voting Rights Act, I have to assume that these judges, although the court clearly leans this way, I have to also believe that they're smart enough to not tinker with the Voting Rights Act. If the Republicans on the Hill get it, why don't these members of the court, appointed by a Republican president, get it?

Overton: Well, a couple things. First, the new Voting Rights Act does a couple new things, right? It basically turns back two Supreme Court decisions. So it kind of slaps the court in the face. That's number one, right?

Tavis: Oh, okay. Gotcha. (Laugh) Members of the Supreme Court don't like being slapped in the face.

Overton: Right, right, right. So that's one aspect of it. On the other hand also, in addition to that, some of these Republicans who voted for the Voting Rights Act actually slid in some legislative history that may make it more easy for the Supreme Court to strike down the renewed portions of the Voting Rights Act. So even though they got the headline of supporting the Voting Rights Act, there's some legislative history there that can be interpreted against the act.

Tavis: One of the other reasons that this debate was so cantankerous about reauthorization of these provisions of the Voting Rights Act, to your earlier point, is because of the bilingual ballot. The debate about bilingual ballots. That debate, as you well know, got caught up in the whole debate about immigration that's sweeping the country as we speak. Talk to me about the bilingual ballot and its connection to voter suppression issues.

Overton: Right, number one, bilingual ballots, it's not an immigration issue. Seventy percent of the people who use bilingual ballots are born here in the United States, right? Also what's important to note is that bilingual ballots don't breed division, they actually breed unity. Politicians can no longer exclude and scapegoat particular language communities.

They really have to build coalitions across lines, and facilitate integration of their, so that's an important thing to remember. Also, Tavis, bilingual ballots are needed for the same reason that literacy tests are illegal. We want everyone to have a say. All citizens to have a say. Certainly, English is a great skill, just like literacy is a good skill, right? But we don't wanna exclude Americans from Democracy simple because their language skills are not as strong.

Tavis: Tell me how you think we are viewed around the - here we sit on PBS, public television, talking about all kinds of voter suppression issues that the exporter of Democracy still has, and we're still working through this stuff ourself. At the same time, we talk all the time about exporting Democracy around the globe. You think folk watching this or reading this online or just watching how America works right about now on voting issues kind of look at us as, what's the word here? A little hypocritical?

Overton: I think so.

Tavis: Ain't quite got our act together?

Overton: I think so. There are a couple big problems. One, we got the fox guarding the henhouse, in terms of incumbents making up the rules. The Katherine Harrises, the Ken Blackwells. And again, this is about conflict of interest. It's not about party. Both Republicans and Democratic incumbents engage in this self-serving behavior. In other places, like even the newly-formed Iraq, there's an independent commission that administers elections.

It's not a situation where we've got partisans administering election. So we fall out of sync there with international norms. Also, things like felon disenfranchisement. We disenfranchise over two million people in this country who have served their time, completed their time. Just millions of people in places like Florida, Virginia, and this is a real probably. It disproportionally impacts African American community.

We disenfranchise them for life. The only other places in the world, Armenia, basically, is the only other place in the world that disenfranchises everyone for life for committing a felony, even after they've served their time. So we're out of sync, in terms of voter participation in international norms.

Tavis: Finally let me ask you right quick what your best advice is for Americans who don't want their Democracy stolen. How do you protect yourself against having your vote suppressed?

Overton: Well number one, we can't just throw up our hands and give up. We gotta vote. We gotta get out. If people aren't registered to vote, they can do so at Stealing Democracy.com. Or if they've moved and they need to update their registration, they can do that there. We need to get involved, and we need to work the polls, we need to join groups like the NAACP, Common Cause, The League of Women Voters.

Work on important reforms that A, stop manipulation by politicians through independent commissions, and also through audits of election officials. Also, we need to open up the process to more voters. We're in the bottom 19 percent of all democracies, in terms of voter turn-out. And so, we need Election Day registration, we need a host of reforms that make voting easier.

Tavis: 'Stealing Democracy: The New Politics of Voter Suppression' is the new book by law professor Spencer Overton. Professor Overton, nice to have you on the program.

Overton: Hey, thanks so much for having me, Tavis.

Tavis: My pleasure. Up next, tennis legend Billie Jean King. A wonderful conversation on tap. Stay with us, we're back in just a moment.