Fox pushes yet another phony voting rights story
Fox News' Dave Briggs attacked the Department of Justice for asking election officials in Ohio to print ballots in Spanish, which he claimed would not be "a proper use of funds." But the Justice Department reportedly says the ballots are needed to obey federal law, which prohibits making a person educated in a Spanish-language school in Puerto Rico understand English in order to vote.
Briggs claims enforcing federal voting law is not "a proper use of funds"
Briggs: Spanish ballots are not "proper use of funds." During the August 31 edition of Fox & Friends, guest host Dave Briggs claimed that the Department of Justice "is demanding" that Cuyahoga County, Ohio, election officials "print ballots in Spanish," and said, "The cost, again, $500,000 estimated, for what some say is 6,000 voters, which does sound like not a proper use of funds." He then asked a guest, "But, beyond that, I mean, do you think this is something that is absolutely required, is necessary, in our country?"
Plain Dealer: DOJ told Cuyahoga County "it needed to better accommodate voters educated in Puerto Rico." In an August 25 blog post, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that "the Justice Department told the [Cuyahoga] elections board July 29 that it needed to better accommodate voters educated in Puerto Rico who have limited English-speaking ability. At issue is part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that requires full voting opportunity for people from Puerto Rico, which makes them full U.S. citizens, but who are educated in primarily Spanish-language schools."
Federal law prohibits making Puerto Ricans educated in Spanish-language schools understand English in order to vote. According to media reports, at issue is a provision of federal law originally enacted in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 explicitly protects the rights of Puerto Rican voters educated in U.S. schools to vote regardless of their ability to understand English:
(1) Congress hereby declares that to secure the rights under the fourteenth amendment of persons educated in American-flag schools in which the predominant classroom language was other than English, it is necessary to prohibit the States from conditioning the right to vote of such persons on ability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter in the English language.
(2) No person who demonstrates that he has successfully completed the sixth primary grade in a public school in, or a private school accredited by, any State or territory, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in which the predominant classroom language was other than English, shall be denied the right to vote in any Federal, State, or local election because of his inability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter in the English language, except that in States in which State law provides that a different level of education is presumptive of literacy, he shall demonstrate that he has successfully completed an equivalent level of education in a public school in, or a private school accredited by, any State or territory, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in which the predominant classroom language was other than English.
Bush DOJ said the provision "requires jurisdictions to provide" ballots in minority languages. In September 2008 congressional testimony, Grace Chung Becker, then the acting assistant attorney general for the Bush Justice Department civil rights division, testified that the provision "requires jurisdictions to provide election materials, including ballots, in the required minority language for voters who are limited-English proficient (LEP) and who were educated in an American school in which the predominant classroom language was not English."
Briggs falsely claims English is "official language" of U.S.
Briggs: "English is the only official language of the United States." Introducing the discussion, Briggs asked, "English is the only official language of the United States, but should it be the only language on the ballot this November?"
FACT: U.S. does not have an official language. According to the government website USA.gov, "Congress has never declared an 'official' language for the United States." Likewise, MSNBC.com reported in 2009, "The United States has no official language."
In attacking DOJ, Briggs dredged up discredited attacks
Briggs: DOJ is "accused of stalling on the MOVE Act, which denies our troops the rights to vote." In the same segment, Briggs said the Justice Department was "accused of stalling on the MOVE Act, which denies our troops the rights to vote." Briggs' claim echoed the discredited attacks from conservative activists that the Justice Department was "ignoring" the act by "encouraging waivers."
FACT: The waiver process is built into the MOVE Act. The MOVE Act, which helps to ensure that troops overseas can exercise their right to vote, contained a provision that permitted states that would have an "undue hardship" in providing ballots 45 days before an election to apply for a waiver, which the Department of Defense must approve.
Briggs: DOJ "ignored" phony New Black Panther scandal because it has "not pressed charges." In the same segment, Briggs claimed that the Justice Department has "not pressed charges against the Black Panthers who clearly committed voter intimidation. So why choose this case to make such a big deal of when others are ignored?"
FACT: DOJ did press charges in the New Black Panther case. The DOJ successfully obtained default judgment against King Samir Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party carrying a nightstick outside a Philadelphia polling center on Election Day 2008.
Story is another in a string of discredited, Fox-promoted attacks against DOJ
Fox News has hyped phony New Black Panthers scandal at least 95 times. On July 16, Media Matters for America reported that over the course of two weeks, six Fox News shows discussed the discredited New Black Panthers scandal during a total of 95 segments after Megyn Kelly's June 30 interview hyping GOP activist J. Christian Adams' unsubstantiated accusations. In all, these Fox shows devoted more than eight hours of airtime to discussing the New Black Panthers.
Fox News also pushing Adams' false claim that DOJ is "ignoring" military law. Fox News also heavily promoted the baseless "controversy" that the DOJ is attempting to ignore the MOVE Act in order to help Democrats "skew" the fall elections.
If he'd done just a little bit of investigation, he would have found this out. He COULD have found this out, which means he chose to NOT try to find this out.
And that's yet another reason why FoxNews is not a legitimate news organization. A legit one would have tried (and succeeded) to figure out the 'why' behind the decision to force Ohio to print ballots in Spanish.
Instead, he apparently assumed that it was to kowtow to the increasing Hispanic population in the USA, because they are such a threat, don't ya know.
Hey, when it comes time for me to visit Rome, maybe I'll pick up on a little Italian? Out of respect, of course :)
And with only a quarter of a brain, you could have read the article which would have told you that answer!
I swear, why can't we have more honest conservative posters with brains on this site? Why aren't more conservatives so fed up with the nonsense that they'd work towards the goal of eliminating that nonsense?
If you think it is, and can actually READ it, try reading some of the article posted above. They address that question.
And no, it's not.
And if it was, so what?
And you'd be surprised how many people in Europe speak english, in addition to their own native toungues.
---------------------------------------------
Y no me preocupe, porque hablo espanol tamblien.
Oh, and I thought you spoke Spanish. Never learned Galician, though, have you?
If you were trying to participate in a reasonable conversation, you would have actually read the article.
DellDolly, you are so full of love and kindness and charity, my cup is overflowing!
You were NOT asking if English was our official language, and no one with half a brain could EVER be convinced that you were asking an honest question.
On top of that, the ANSWER to that dishonest question was IN THE FREAKIN' article.
So, not only wasn't it an honest question, the ANSWER was up above, yet you STILL "asked" that question.
So, clearly, you weren't "asking" a question at all.
The reason that ballots have to be printed in both English and Spanish is so as to not disadvantage people who might have been educated in Puerto Rico. Again, the article explained this, so EVEN IF our national language WAS English, then we should STILL have ballots in Spanish, since English is NOT the national language in Puerto Rico, and laws were passed to prevent those citizens from being disadvantaged in our English-centric country!!!!!
Firstly, in a democracy voting is an obligation not a right. Our word "idiot" is derived from the Greek word "idiote" which was applied to those self absorbed, disengaged citizens that did not vote. Voting was also compulsory in ancient Athens, the cradle of democracy.
Secondly, just as voting is an obligation for the citizen, it is mandatory for the authorities to ensure that all citizens are able to caste an informed vote.
Voter suppression is a direct attack on the legitimacy of any election. The legitimacy of any elected official is directly related to the legitimacy and thoroughness of the election that put him or her there.
And the use of "mandatory" was in reference to the officials being mandated to ensure that people have access to vote! Did you not even READ that post? I swear, you're falling down on the job. The burden is on the voter to ensure that they're informed. That's what the poster said in the second paragraph.
And you say mandatory is about access? Read what the poster wrote > "it is mandatory for the authorities to ensure that all citizens are able to caste an informed vote".
Informed, read it Sue.
If you are going to intrude where you offer nothing at least try not looking like an idiot.
Political thought and practice has come a long way in the last 200 or so years. In fact, I would contend that by contemporary standards the U.S. is a decidedly undemocratic nation - its risable excuse for an electoral system, both in structure and in practice, alone disqualifies it from truly categorising itself as a democracy.
I guess I would too if I had made them.
He probably some college kid taking his first course in political philosophy. ..
Next time we will ask SueDolly, she seems to know what everyone means.
Ignorance born of parochialism may be comforting but it inevitably leads to underperformance. I repeat that the U.S. electoral system is a disgrace to the point of being laughable and its operation in many areas is a real "Dad and Dave" operation - take a look at electoral systems from around the world and study their operation. You might actually learn something instead of basking in arrogant ignorance. As for your parliamentary system, dysfunctional is the most polite way to describe it. Try checking out the standing orders of other legislatures from around the world. No one has a monopoly on good ideas and, conversely, no one has a monopoly on bad ideas.
Get out and learn a bit about the rest of the world - it could be to your benefit.
If you took that as arrogant, so be it.
Your apparent ignorance of the operation of legislatures and electoral systems in other countries and failure to grasp the glaring shortcomings of your own does bring to mind the words "pot", "kettle" and "black".
The weakest element of the U.S. electoral system is the ease with which voter suppression can be used as a campaign strategy. The problems with the operation of the legislature are too great to be enumerated here but the ease with which the upper chamber can block the debate on legislation by requiring a "super" majority has to get the award for the most cockamamie notion ever put into a legislative chamber's standing orders. I would also suggest that the electoral cycle for the lower chamber is too short and acts to promote short term expediency rather than the long view.
He said that the authorities need to be mandated to ensure that informed voters can cast ballots, NOT that voters be informed! The burden to be informed falls on the VOTER!
As with almost all areas of govt responsibilities, the responsibility can only go as far as the provision of opportunity i.e. the responsibility to provide access to such things as education or healthcare. As the old saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink".
Libertarian notions of a laissez faire approach to societal governance are immature in that they predate any real understanding of the complex societies growing up at the time as a consequence of the Industrial Revolution. Ironically Adam Smith, much cited by the advocates of a laissez faire approach, was a moral philosopher whose much neglected work The Theory of Moral Sentiments provides a context for the proposition put forward in the better known Wealth of Nations wherein he notes the need for Government intervention, particularly and notably in the finance sector.
The notion of equality of opportunity falls down when one moves from one generation to the next - the wealth of one's antecedents can be an absolute determinant of opportunity. A just society acts to even up the odds a little by providing entry level opportunities - usually in the form of public education (by which I don't just mean schools) which is where the matter of the informed voter comes in. In Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth the High Court of Australia held, in a nutshell, that as a requirement for truly free and fair elections there was an implied right of free speech with regard to political communication in order that the electorate be better informed. This is all part of the public education obligation of government in the context of acting to provide for the most informed electorate possible (not withstanding the above reference to horses and water!).
To this end, the provision of ballot papers and voter information in a language appropriate to the individual voter is a "gimme".
Rescuers, like the pathetic word parsing queen DollySue, try to stomp around and tell us what someone else means, all for naught.
You said exactly this "Secondly, just as voting is an obligation for the citizen, it is mandatory for the authorities to ensure that all citizens are able to caste an informed vote."
That is very clear and needs no further slicing and dicing up. If you want to back away from it, fine. Just don't look like a fool and say you never said it.
Like I explained multiple times, his sentence has two parts. You're the one that did the dishonest parsing to claim that grmce was saying that it's the government's responsibility to inform voters. He wasn't.
It is mandatory for authorities to ensure that all citizens are able to cast a vote. It is up to the voters to ensure that they cast an informed vote.
Given the preceding paragraph AND the preceding clause in the sentence YOU ARE QUOTING, it's clear that there's a burden on the voter (to be informed and to vote) and there's a burden on the authorities to ensure that they CAN easily vote!
It IS very clear, you're right. You were wrong from the very start, and you've consistently refused to admit it.
No one has backed away one iota from anything grmce wrote. It was your flawed interpretation that's been the problem from the beginning. It's YOU who won't back away from THAT flawed word parsing that's the issue here!
And you STILL don't understand that in an open forum, ANYONE can reply to your nonsense?
And yeah, I DID correctly understand exactly what he was saying, and I caught YOU word parsing! I understand you'd rather pretend that I might not have understood what he was saying - too bad, so sad - not going to happen the way that YOU'D always like it, doofus!
And yeah, I DID read what the poster said.
He said that VOTERS should be responsible for ensuring that they are informed, and that the officials overseeing voter access should ensure that that all voters are ABLE to cast that informed vote!
This isn't rocket science, dummy.
Nope, and again not convincing. The poster has responded several times and has not even addressed it. So you are late, unnecessary and intrusive. I'm sorry Sue.
Really?
REALLY???
I caught you word parsing, and your reply was to tell me that I was wrong. I explained how YOU were the one who was wrong, and your reply is to again make another baseless personal attack? Really?
And yeah, HE hasn't addressed it because I fully covered it!!! This isn't rocket science!
Your bogus word parsing was just that, word parsing. He never SAID that the authorities had to ensure that voters were informed. Your reading comprehension sucks OR you were word parsing to derail the thread. I know you're not stupid, and so the latter is the ONLY option. And yeah, you're teed off that you got caught at it yet again. Too bad, so sad.
Voter suppression, which has almost become an artform in the U.S., has developed all sorts of obstructions over the decades, ranging from the crude efforts in the pre-Civil Rights Act era to some of that era's hang overs such as the prohibition on persons convicted of felonies from voting for life, following the completion of their court imposed sentence to the more subtle(?) failure to provide the logistic support necessary for people to vote in booths that usually vote the "wrong" way. This last example is a graphic illustration of having the voting system beholden to partisan officials (often unpaid part timers). without a fully professional, independent, commission charged with enforcing the electoral legislation in both word and intent the assorted critical corruptions and balls-ups that plague U.S. elections will continue.
I repeat that in a truly functional democracy, voting is an obligation and to that effect it is incumbent that the authorities provide every reasonable opportunity for individual electors to cast a free, fair and informed vote.
Even the cleverest sophistry in the world won't change that.