Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
BECOME MORE AND MORE UNHAPPY
>> BLESS YOU, MARTY.
BUT DO WE HAVE TO TAKE OUR CUE
FROM BRAZIL?
WE'VE SEEN COLLECTIVE ACTION
WORK BEFORE TO MAKE THIS A
BETTER COUNTRY.
SOME OF US HAVE EVEN BEEN AROUND
LONG ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THE
FIGHT FOR VOTING RIGHTS 50 YEARS
AGO.
WE REMEMBER THE PROTESTS BY
COURAGEOUS MEN AND WOMEN WHO PUT
THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE, AND THE
POLITICAL SKILLS OF PRESIDENT
LYNDON JOHNSON AND THE CONGRESS
THAT PASSED THE VOTING RIGHTS
ACT OF 1965.
I WORKED FOR LBJ AND I WAS THERE
WHEN NOT LONG AFTER PEACEFUL
PROTESTERS IN SELMA, ALABAMA,
HAD BEEN RUTHLESSLY BEATEN BY
WHITE THUGS IN OFFICIAL
UNIFORMS.
THE PRESIDENT WENT BEFORE A
JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS AND
TURNED THE ANTHEM OF THE CIVIL
RIGHTS MOVEMENT INTO A HYMN OF
FREEDOM FOR ALL.
>> WHAT HAPPENED IN SELMA IS
PART OF A FAR LARGER MOVEMENT
WHICH REACHES INTO EVERY SECTION
AND STATE OF AMERICA.
IT IS THE EFFORT OF AMERICAN
NEGROES TO SECURE FOR THEMSELVES
THE FULL BLESSINGS OF AMERICAN
LIFE.
THEIR CAUSE MUST BE OUR CAUSE
TOO.
BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST NEGROES,
BUT REALLY IT'S ALL OF US, WHO
MUST OVERCOME THE CRIPPLING
LEGACY OF BIGOTRY AND INJUSTICE.
AND WE SHALL OVERCOME.
>> THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT PASSED
THE SENATE BY A BIPARTISAN VOTE
OF 77 TO 19.
YES, 77 TO 19.
BUT EVEN SO, MANY CONSERVATIVES
OPPOSED IT THEN, AND HAVE TRIED
EVER SINCE TO NULLIFY IT.
LATE LAST MONTH, THEY SUCCEEDED.
THE SUPREME COURT'S FIVE
CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES DECLARED
THE KEY PROVISION OF THE ACT
OUTDATED.
NINE STATES WITH A PATTERN OF
DENYING MINORITIES THE RIGHT TO
VOTE, MOST OF THEM FORMER
MEMBERS OF THE CONFEDERACY, NO
LONGER HAVE TO GET FEDERAL
APPROVAL TO CHANGE THEIR VOTING
PROCEDURES IN ANY WAY.
SEVERAL OF THOSE STATES
IMMEDIATELY SET OUT TO IMPLEMENT
RESTRICTIVE NEW VOTING LAWS THAT
BEFORE THE RULING WOULD HAVE
BEEN FOUND DISCRIMINATORY.
BY COINCIDENCE, THE VERY WEEKEND
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT'S
DECISION DISEMBOWELED THAT
HISTORIC LEGISLATION, I HAD
FINISHED READING A MASTERFUL NEW
ACCOUNT OF THE EVENTS LEADING UP
TO ITS PASSAGE.
THIS IS IT.
BENDING TOWARD JUSTICE.
THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND THE
TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN
DEMOCRACY.
YOU WILL NOT FIND IN ONE VOLUME
A MORE COMPELLING STORY OF THE
HEROIC MEN AND WOMEN WHO
STRUGGLED FOR THE RIGHT TO VOTE,
OR A MORE CINEMATIC RENDERING OF
THE POLITICAL BATTLE TO ENACT
THE LAW, OR A MORE SUCCINCT
TELLING OF THE LONG CAMPAIGN TO
SUBVERT IT.
THE AUTHOR IS WITH ME NOW.
GARY MAY IS A PROFESSOR OF
HISTORY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
DELAWARE AND WINNER OF THE ALLAN
NEVINS PRIZE FROM THE SOCIETY OF
AMERICAN HISTORIANS.
WELCOME.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> WHAT WERE YOU THINKING AS THE
SUPREME COURT GUTTED THE VOTING
RIGHTS ACT?
>> I THOUGHT FIRST OF THE PEOPLE
YOU MENTIONED, THE PEOPLE WHO
HAVE BEEN FORGOTTEN BY HISTORY
WHO FOR DECADES HAD BEEN RISKING
EVERYTHING, THEIR HOMES, THEIR
JOBS, AND THEIR LIVES AND, I
THOUGHT, "HERE ARE THESE FIVE
MEN, MEN OF PRIVILEGE, MEN WHO'D
SERVED AS U.S. ATTORNEYS,
JUDGES, THOMAS, AN
ADMINISTRATOR.
HOW COULD THEY POSSIBLY
UNDERSTAND THE WORLD OF THOSE
MEN AND WOMEN WHO FOUGHT AND
DIED FOR THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
THEY DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND IT
AT ALL.
THEY THINK IT'S ALL PAST.
>> BY COINCIDENCE I HAD JUST
RECENTLY SEEN C.T. VIVIAN, HE
WAS ONE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING'S
TOP AIDES LEADING THOSE
DEMONSTRATORS TRYING TO VOTE IN
SELMA --
>> UH-HUH.
>> -- WHEN THE INFAMOUS SHERIFF
JIM CLARK WOULDN'T LET THEM
PASS.
HERE IS THE SCENE.
>> YOU ARE BREAKING THE
INJUNCTION BY NOT ALLOWING THESE
PEOPLE TO COME INSIDE THIS
COURTHOUSE AND WAIT --
THIS COURTHOUSE DOES NOT BELONG
TO SHERIFF CLARK.
THIS COURTHOUSE BELONGS TO THE
PEOPLE OF DALLAS COUNTY.
AND THESE ARE THE PEOPLE OF
DALLAS COUNTY.
AND THEY HAVE COME TO REGISTER.
AND YOU KNOW THIS WITHIN YOUR
OWN HEART, SHERIFF CLARK.
YOU ARE NOT AS EVIL A MAN AS YOU
ACT.
YOU KNOW IN YOUR HEART WHAT IS
RIGHT.
WHAT YOU'RE REALLY TRYING TO DO
IS INTIMIDATE THESE PEOPLE BY
MAKING THEM STAND IN THE RAIN,
KEEP THEM FROM REGISTERING TO
VOTE.
AND THIS -- THIS IS THE KIND OF
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION,
THE VIOLATION OF THE COURT
ORDER, THE VIOLATION OF DECENT
CITIZENSHIP.
YOU CAN TURN YOUR BACK ON ME,
BUT YOU CANNOT TURN YOUR BACK
UPON THE IDEA OF JUSTICE.
YOU CAN TURN YOUR BACK NOW, AND
YOU CAN KEEP THE CLUB IN YOUR
HAND.
BUT YOU CANNOT BEAT DOWN
JUSTICE.
AND WE WILL REGISTER TO VOTE
BECAUSE AS CITIZENS OF THESE
UNITED STATES, WE HAVE THE RIGHT
TO DO IT.
>> I'M LOOKING DOWN THE LINE AND
SEEING ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE
BEEN IN JAIL FOR FELONIES.
THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT.
>> PRECISELY RIGHT.
AND IF THEY -- IF THEY'RE NOT
FIT TO VOTE, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO
FIND THAT OUT.
BUT YOU'RE NOT UNTIL THEY'RE --
UNTIL THEY'RE ON THE REGISTER.
AND MANY OF THOSE HAVE THE
FELONY ACTION BECAUSE SHERIFF
CLARK MADE THEM A FELONY ACTION,
NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE
RIGHTFULLY.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO BEAT US.
>> SO GET OUT OF HERE.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO BEAT US.
ARREST US.
>> THAT WAS AN EXTRAORDINARILY
IMPORTANT MOMENT.
A FEW NIGHTS LATER, REVEREND
VIVIAN WAS ASKED TO PREACH AT A
CHURCH IN MARION, ALABAMA, NOT
TOO FAR FROM SELMA.
AND HE DID THAT.
AND THE PARISHIONERS WERE GOING
TO MARCH ON THE JAIL AFTERWARDS
WHERE ONE OF THEIR COLLEAGUES
HAD BEEN UNFAIRLY IMPRISONED.
REVEREND VIVIAN LEFT.
HE DIDN'T JOIN THAT MARCH.
AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT THE
PARISHIONERS CAME OUTSIDE.
THE DEMONSTRATORS CAME OUTSIDE
TO FACE ALMOST A MOB OF ALABAMA
POLICE, LOCAL POLICE.
JIM CLARK WAS THERE AS WELL.
AND IN THE MELEE THAT FOLLOWED,
A YOUNG CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER
NAMED JIMMIE LEE JACKSON WAS
KILLED BY AN ALABAMA STATE
TROOPER WHILE HE WAS TRYING TO
PROTECT HIS MOTHER AND
GRANDFATHER FROM A BEATING.
AND IT'S THOUGHT THAT CLARK AND
THE OTHERS WERE THERE TO GET
VIVIAN FOR THAT ENCOUNTER THAT
THEY HAD.
AND OF COURSE, THE MARION PEOPLE
WERE SO DISTRAUGHT OVER
JIMMIE LEE JACKSON'S DEATH THAT
ONE OF THEM SAID, "LET'S TAKE
HIS COFFIN AND TO GEORGE WALLACE
IN MONTGOMERY AND PUT IT ON THE
CAPITOL STEPS."
AND FROM THAT CAME THE IDEA OF
THIS MARCH FROM SELMA TO
MONTGOMERY.
AND SO THERE WAS A DEBATE IN
KING'S CIRCLE.
SHOULD THEY GO FORWARD, THEY
MIGHT ENCOUNTER AGAIN WHAT HAD
BEEN ENCOUNTERED IN MARION.
AND KING'S ADVISORS WERE
DIVIDED.
SOME SAID, "YES, LET'S GO
FORWARD."
KING HIMSELF WAS UNCERTAIN.
>> AS YOU KNOW, AND WRITE ABOUT,
PRESIDENT JOHNSON DIDN'T WANT
THAT MARCH TO HAPPEN EITHER.
NOW, OF COURSE, HE CHANGED HIS
MIND LATER.
AND WHEN LYNDON JOHNSON CHANGED
HIS MIND, HE CAME OUT THE CROSS
OF A CHARGING BEAR AND A CRAFTY
FOX.
BUT AT THE MOMENT, HE WAS DOING
WHAT HE COULD TO PREVENT THAT
MARCH FROM HAPPENING.
>> UH-HUH.
WHICH IS ANOTHER IRONY, ISN'T
IT?
BECAUSE HERE IS THE EVENT THAT
ALMOST NEVER TOOK PLACE.
AND THE EVENT THAT
LYNDON JOHNSON WANTED STOPPED,
THE EVENT THAT
MARTIN LUTHER KING INITIALLY HAD
OPPOSED.
AND, OF COURSE, IT TURNS
EVERYTHING AROUND.
>> AND AS YOU KNOW, IT CAME TO
BE CALLED "BLOODY SUNDAY."
>> UH-HUH.
>> HERE IS THAT SCENE.
>> IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO
YOUR SAFETY TO CONTINUE THIS
MARCH.
I WILL SAY THIS IS AN UNLAWFUL
ASSEMBLY.
I WILL SAY IT AGAIN.
YOU ARE TO DISPERSE.
YOU ARE ORDERED TO DISPERSE.
GO HOME OR GO TO YOUR CHURCH.
THIS MARCH WILL NOT CONTINUE.
ADVANCE TOWARDS THE GROUPS.
SEE THAT THEY DISPERSE.
>> IT WAS SO TERRIBLE.
ONE PERSON -- WE HEARD A PERSON
CALLING FOR A DOCTOR.
SOMEONE CALLED FOR AN AMBULANCE
TO SHERIFF CLARK.
AND SHERIFF CLARK REPLIED, "LET
THE BUZZARDS EAT THEM."
AND WHAT WAS SO EXTRAORDINARY
WAS THAT IT WAS CAPTURED ON
FILM.
AND THAT PROVED TO BE ABSOLUTELY
CRITICAL.
JOURNALISTS, PRINT JOURNALISTS
AND PHOTOGRAPHERS WERE THERE.
THEY GOT THEIR CAMERAMAN.
THEY GOT THE FILM BACK TO
NEW YORK VERY QUICKLY.
AND ABC WAS THE FIRST TO BREAK
THE NEWS BY INTERRUPTING THE
MOVIE OF THE WEEK, WHICH AGAIN,
IN AN AMAZING COINCIDENCE WAS
JUDGMENT AT NUREMBURG, THE
1961 FILM ABOUT THE NAZI WAR
TRIALS.
AND PEOPLE WERE STUNNED.
THEY JUST WATCHED THE FOOTAGE.
THERE WAS NO NARRATION.
AND THEY -- WAS THIS AMERICA?
I MEAN, THEY COULDN'T BELIEVE
IT.
THEY DROPPED EVERYTHING TO JOIN
KING'S CAMPAIGN.
OTHERS BESIEGED LYNDON JOHNSON
IN THE WHITE HOUSE, SAT IN, A
GROUP OF THEM IN THE
WHITE HOUSE.
>> WHAT DO THESE UNANTICIPATED,
UNEXPECTED, UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONVERGENCE
OF SUCH FORCES, WHAT DO THEY
TELL YOU ABOUT HISTORY, HOW IT
GETS MADE?
>> THAT IT'S PRIMARILY AN
ACCIDENT.
YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WE SEE THIS
STORY AS ONE OF MARTIN LUTHER
KING AND LYNDON JOHNSON, THEY
GET TOGETHER AND WE HAVE THIS
VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
BUT, OF COURSE, IT'S A MUCH
LARGER STORY.
AND IT'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF
THE VALUE OF COLLECTIVE CHANGE
TO BRING ABOUT PROGRESS IN THIS
COUNTRY, PEOPLE GETTING TOGETHER
AND BEING COMMITTED AND WILLING
TO RISK THEIR VERY LIVES TO
BRING SOMETHING THAT THE COUNTRY
DESPERATELY NEEDS IT.
>> BUT IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT IF
THERE HADN'T BEEN THIS STEADY
WITNESS AND MARTYRDOM OF THESE
YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN IN THE
SOUTH, AND A PROGRESSIVE
PRESIDENT, THE RESULT WOULDN'T
HAVE BEEN THE SAME.
IF YOU'D NOT HAD THE PRESSURE
FROM BELOW AND IF YOU'D HAD A
CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENT, HISTORY
WOULDN'T HAVE COME THE WAY IT
HAS COME TO US.
>> YES.
AND ONCE JOHNSON DECIDED THAT
BILL WAS GOING TO GO TO THE
CONGRESS THAT HE WAS GOING TO
GIVE THAT GREAT ADDRESS, HE FELT
LIBERATED.
>> I WAS STANDING OFF TO THE
RIGHT BELOW THE PRESIDENT ON THE
FLOOR OF THE HOUSE.
AND I COULD LOOK RIGHT INTO THE
EYES OF SENATORS AND
REPRESENTATIVES AS CLEARLY AS I
CAN LOOK AND AS CLOSELY AS I CAN
LOOK INTO YOUR EYES.
I MEAN, THEY HAVE NEVER HEARD A
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
SAY THAT ANYWHERE.
AND TO SAY IT ON THE DAIS ON THE
ROSTRUM THERE IN THE HOUSE
CHAMBER BEFORE THE ASSEMBLED
CONGRESS, I MEAN, AT FIRST THEY
COULD NOT BELIEVE WHAT THEY HAD
HEARD.
>> EVERY DEVICE OF WHICH HUMAN
INGENUITY IS CAPABLE, HAS BEEN
USED TO DENY THIS RIGHT.
THE *** CITIZEN MAY GO TO
REGISTER ONLY TO BE TOLD THAT
THE DAY IS WRONG, OR THE HOUR IS
LATE, OR THE OFFICIAL IN CHARGE
IS ABSENT.
AND IF HE PERSISTS AND IF HE
MANAGES TO PRESENT HIMSELF TO
THE REGISTRAR, HE MAY BE
DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE HE DID NOT
SPELL OUT HIS MIDDLE NAME, OR
BECAUSE HE ABBREVIATED A WORD ON
THE APPLICATION.
AND IF HE MANAGES TO FILL OUT AN
APPLICATION, HE IS GIVEN A TEST.
THE REGISTRAR IS THE SOLE JUDGE
OF WHETHER HE PASSES THIS TEST.
HE MAY BE ASKED TO RECITE THE
ENTIRE CONSTITUTION, OR EXPLAIN
THE MOST COMPLEX PROVISIONS OF
STATE LAW.
AND EVEN A COLLEGE DEGREE CANNOT
BE USED TO PROVE THAT HE CAN
READ AND WRITE.
FOR THE FACT IS THAT THE ONLY
WAY TO PASS THESE BARRIERS IS TO
SHOW A WHITE SKIN.
NO LAW THAT WE NOW HAVE ON THE
BOOKS, AND I HAVE HELPED TO PUT
THREE OF THEM THERE, CAN ENSURE
THE RIGHT TO VOTE WHEN LOCAL
OFFICIALS ARE DETERMINED TO DENY
IT.
>> THAT SPEECH WAS WRITTEN BY MY
COLLEAGUE, GIFTED YOUNG MAN --
33 AT THE TIME, I BELIEVE --
RICHARD GOODWIN.
GOODWIN AND JOHNSON CREATED A
MAGNIFICENT MOMENT THEN.
>> AND AS ALMOST AN ACCIDENT
ALSO THE FIRST DRAFT OF THAT
SPEECH HAD GONE TO ANOTHER
JOHNSON AIDE.
AND JOHNSON SAID, YOU GAVE IT TO
A PUBLIC RELATIONS GUY?
I WANTED GOODWIN TO DO THIS.
I WANTED A JEW TO WRITE THIS
SPEECH.
SOMEONE WHO HAD EXPERIENCED
ANTI-SEMITISM.
AND WHILE GOODWIN WAS WORKING ON
THE SPEECH, JOHNSON TELEPHONED
HIM AND SAID, "YOU REMEMBER THE
STORY ABOUT HOW I WAS A TEACHER
AT THAT MEXICAN-AMERICAN
SCHOOL?"
AND OF COURSE, GOODWIN HAD HEARD
IT A THOUSAND TIMES.
AND JOHNSON'S LIKE, "I WANT THAT
IN THE SPEECH."
>> MY FIRST JOB AFTER COLLEGE
WAS AS A TEACHER IN COTULLA,
TEXAS, IN A SMALL
MEXICAN-AMERICAN SCHOOL.
FEW OF THEM COULD SPEAK ENGLISH,
AND I COULDN'T SPEAK MUCH
SPANISH.
MY STUDENTS WERE POOR AND THEY
OFTEN CAME TO CLASS WITHOUT
BREAKFAST, HUNGRY.
AND THEY KNEW EVEN IN THEIR
YOUTH THE PAIN OF PREJUDICE.
THEY NEVER SEEMED TO KNOW WHY
PEOPLE DISLIKED THEM.
BUT THEY KNEW IT WAS SO, BECAUSE
I SAW IT IN THEIR EYES.
I NEVER THOUGHT THEN, IN
1928, THAT I WOULD BE STANDING
HERE IN 1965.
IT NEVER EVEN OCCURRED TO ME IN
MY FONDEST DREAMS THAT I MIGHT
HAVE THE CHANCE TO HELP THE SONS
AND DAUGHTERS OF THOSE STUDENTS
AND TO HELP PEOPLE LIKE THEM ALL
OVER THIS COUNTRY.
>> YOU SAY THAT THE VOTING
RIGHTS ACT NEVER WOULD HAVE
EXISTED WITHOUT THE HELP OF TWO
GENERATIONS OF COURAGEOUS
REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS.
I AGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE I
WORKED WITH MANY OF THEM WHEN I
WAS A YOUNG MAN WORKING ON
POLICY FOR PRESIDENT JOHNSON.
ONE OF THEM WAS SENATOR
EVERETT DIRKSEN OF ILLINOIS, THE
WIZARD OF OOZE AS YOU REMIND US.
>> THEY HAD A VERY INTERESTING
RELATIONSHIP.
YOU KNOW, VERY OFTEN, DIRKSEN
WOULD ATTACK THE PRESIDENT ON
THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE IN THE
MORNING.
AND IN THE AFTERNOON, THEY'D BE
DRINKING BOURBON AND BRANCH
WATER TOGETHER.
THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT WAS
LITERALLY WRITTEN IN EVERETT
DIRKSEN'S OFFICE WITH THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE ACTING
ATTORNEY GENERAL, KATZENBACH
THERE.
AND SOME CALLED THE BILL
DIRKSENBACH.
>> YEAH, I REMEMBER THAT.
>> AND JOHNSON, OF COURSE, WAS
QUITE CONTENT TO GIVE THE CREDIT
FOR SOME OF THIS TO EVERETT
DIRKSEN BECAUSE HE FEARED THAT
THE SOUTHERNERS MIGHT MOUNT A
FILIBUSTER AS THEY HAD WITH THE
1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, A LONG
FILIBUSTER.
AND IN ORDER TO GET THE VOTES TO
INVOKE CLOTURE, WHICH WOULD STOP
THE FILIBUSTER, HE NEEDED
REPUBLICAN VOTES.
>> THE PRESIDENT SENT ME IN
1964 TO SEE DIRKSEN.
HE SENT A LOT OF PEOPLE UP TO
SEE DIRKSEN.
AND I WAS 30 YEARS OLD.
AND HE WAS 68 -- 67, 68.
WE TALKED ABOUT CLOTURE VERY
BRIEFLY.
AND THEN I SAID, "THANK YOU."
AND I GOT UP TO LEAVE.
AND I GOT TO THE DOOR.
AND HE SAID IN THAT DEEP VOICE
OF HIS, "MR. MOYERS, WHAT ABOUT
THAT GREAT AMERICAN I
RECOMMENDED TO THE PRESIDENT WHO
BELONGS BY DESTINY ON THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION?"
I SAID "I DIDN'T KNOW YOU'D DONE
THAT."
HE SAID, "YOU JUST CHECK IT OUT.
HE'S A GREAT AMERICAN."
AND HE GOT ON THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION.
I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT.
I MEAN, THAT'S THE WAY THEY BOTH
UNDERSTOOD POLITICS.
>> YES.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T HAVE
THAT TODAY.
>> SO JUSTICE ROBERTS, WHEN HE
WRITES HIS OPINION ON THE
RECENT GUTTING OF THE VOTING
RIGHTS ACT SAYS, "WE DON'T NEED
IT ANYMORE."
HE SAID, "THE COUNTRY HAS
CHANGED.
THIS IS THE AGE OF OBAMA.
WE'VE GOT OUR FIRST BLACK
PRESIDENT."
AND JUSTICE ROBERTS EVEN
MENTIONED BLOODY SUNDAY IN SELMA
AND THE *** OF THOSE THREE
YOUNG PEOPLE --
JAMES CHANEY, ANDREW GOODMAN,
AND MICHAEL SCHWERNER NEAR
PHILADELPHIA, MISSISSIPPI.
AND ROBERTS WROTE, "TODAY, BOTH
OF THOSE TOWNS," SELMA AND
PHILADELPHIA, MISSISSIPPI, "ARE
GOVERNED BY AFRICAN-AMERICAN
MAYORS.
PROBLEMS REMAIN IN THOSE
STATES," THE JUSTICE SAID, "BUT
THERE IS NO DENYING THAT DUE TO
THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, OUR
NATION HAS MADE GREAT STRIDES."
WE HAVE MADE GREAT STRIDES.
WHAT'S YOUR REACTION?
>> WE CERTAINLY HAVE MADE GREAT
STRIDES.
BUT ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS LOOK AT
THE VOTER SUPPRESSION MOVEMENT
THAT AROSE FROM MANY OF THE
COVERED STATES INCIDENTALLY, IN
2011 AND --
>> STATES --
>> -- 2012.
>> -- STATES COVERED BY THE
VOTING RIGHTS ACT?
>> CORRECT.
VOTER I.D.s THAT ARE VERY
DIFFICULT FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS,
AND WHITES AS WELL, WHO ARE
ELDERLY AND DON'T HAVE THOSE
DOCUMENTS.
IT COSTS MONEY TO ACQUIRE THESE
NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.
IT'S REALLY A KIND OF POLL TAX
NOW.
VOTER I.D.s MAKE IT MORE
DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE.
PREVENTING VOTING ON SUNDAY,
WHICH WAS SO IMPORTANT TO THE
AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY.
THEY'D GO TO CHURCH.
THEY'D GO TO THE POLLS.
IT'S TAKING YOUR SOUL TO THE
POLLS.
AND ALL OF THOSE INDICATE A
CONTINUING NEED FOR THE VOTING
RIGHTS ACT.
>> WHAT DID THE SUPREME COURT
DECISION ACTUALLY DO?
>> BY STRIKING DOWN SECTION 4,
WHICH CONTAINS THE FORMULA THAT
ALLOWS SECTION 5 TO COVER
CERTAIN STATES IN THE SOUTH, AND
ACTUALLY NINE STATES, AND PARTS
OF SIX OTHER STATES, REQUIRING
THEM, BEFORE CHANGING ANY VOTING
PRACTICE, TO SUBMIT THOSE
CHANGES TO A FEDERAL COURT IN
WASHINGTON, D.C., OR THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT TO RECEIVE WHAT IS
CALLED PRE-CLEARANCE.
>> AND THE REASON THE VOTING
RIGHTS ACT SINGLED OUT THOSE
STATES IS BECAUSE FOR DECADES,
THE VOTING RIGHTS OF BLACK
PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DENIED BY ONE
TECHNIQUE AFTER ANOTHER, AS
PRESIDENT JOHNSON SAID IN HIS
SPEECH.
AND WITHIN HOURS OF THE SUPREME
COURT'S DECISION, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF TEXAS ANNOUNCED THAT
THEY WERE GOING TO RESURRECT
THEIR VOTING I.D. BILL WHICH HAD
BEEN DISALLOWED LAST YEAR.
AND THERE IS AN OUTFIT
LOUIS MENAND MENTIONS IN THE
"NEW YORKER" MAGAZINE.
THERE IS A WHITE GROUP IN
BEAUMONT, TEXAS, JUST WAITING
FOR THIS SUPREME COURT DECISION
BECAUSE THEY WANT TO OVERTHROW
THE BLACK MAJORITY THAT RUNS THE
SCHOOL BOARD.
SO YOU'RE SAYING, I THINK YOU'RE
SAYING, A LOT OF MISCHIEF CAN BE
DONE NOW THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISQUALIFIED BY THE VOTING
RIGHTS PROVISION.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
YOU KNOW, CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN,
WHEN THE COURT FIRST RULED ON
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
VOTING RIGHTS ACT IN 1966, SAID
THAT THE BILL HAD BEEN DESIGNED
TO ELIMINATE THE MOST EGREGIOUS
OF DIFFICULTIES.
BUT IT WAS ALSO WRITTEN TO COVER
SUBTLE DEVICES.
AND HERE, I THINK, IS AN EXAMPLE
OF SUBTLE AND QUITE HARMFUL
DEVICES.
WE'RE STILL VERY POLARIZED
RACIALLY.
SOMETIMES IT'S WRONG JUST TO
FOCUS ON THE FACT THAT WE HAVE
SO MANY AFRICAN-AMERICANS IN
OFFICE, INCLUDING A PRESIDENT.
IN THE ORAL ARGUMENTS CHIEF
JUSTICE ROBERTS SAID, YOU KNOW,
WELL, YOU'RE SAYING THAT ALABAMA
IS MORE PREJUDICED THAN
MASSACHUSETTS.
AND THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT
YES, IT STILL IS.
>> THE MAJORITY ON THE COURT
STRUCK DOWN THE PROVISION THAT
REQUIRES THE STATES TO GET
FEDERAL APPROVAL BEFORE MAKING
CHANGES.
IS THERE A HISTORICAL RECORD TO
SUGGEST THAT THIS DECISION IN NO
SMALL PART WAS MOTIVATED BY A
POLITICAL GOAL?
>> IT'S HARD TO SAY.
TO BE FAIR, SHOULD WE ACCEPT
THAT MAYBE THOSE FIVE JUSTICES
HAVE THEIR OWN SET OF POLITICAL
PRINCIPLES AND WE JUST DON'T
AGREE WITH THEM?
YOU KNOW, AS A HISTORIAN YOU
WANT TO BE FAIR.
BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THEY ARE
ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY,
THAT THERE WAS SO MUCH EVIDENCE
TO INDICATE CONTINUING
DIFFICULTIES, THAT TO SIMPLY,
BLANKETLY SAY, "WE NEED THE
VOTING RIGHTS ACT ANYMORE.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN A POST-RACIAL
SOCIETY NOW. WE HAVE A BLACK
PRESIDENT."
IT IS SO OUT OF TOUCH WITH WHAT
IS HAPPENING IN THE COUNTRY.
>> PARDON ME FOR SUGGESTING THAT
JOHN ROBERTS SOMETIMES SEEMS
LESS CONCERNED WITH THE LAW AND
THE CONSTITUTION THAN WITH A
POLITICAL AGENDA.
IS THAT UNFAIR?
>> NO, IT'S NOT UNFAIR.
IN FACT, WHEN HE WAS A YOUNG
MEMBER OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS
DIVISION UNDER RONALD REAGAN HE
WAS AT THAT POINT WORKING VERY
HARD WHEN THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
CAME UP FOR REAUTHORIZATION IN
1982 TO GUT IT AT THAT POINT.
SO IN MANY WAYS THE COURT'S
RECENT DECISION IS THE
FULFILLMENT OF JUDGE ROBERTS'
DREAM.
>> IN FACT, THERE'S A MEMO
ROBERTS WROTE BACK THEN IN WHICH
HE SAID THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
WOULD QUOTE, "PROVIDE A BASIS
FOR THE MOST INTRUSIVE
INTERFERENCE IMAGINABLE BY
FEDERAL COURTS INTO STATE AND
LOCAL PROCESSES."
IN OTHER WORDS, "UNCLE SAM,
YOU'RE MEDDLING TOO MUCH.
LET'S GET YOUR HANDS OFF OF
STATE PROCESSES."
IT'S CERTAINLY CONSISTENT WITH
RONALD REAGAN'S PHILOSOPHY OF
YOU KNOW, "GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE
SOLUTION.
IT'S THE PROBLEM."
SO IF WE JUST REMOVE GOVERNMENT
FROM REGULATING CORPORATIONS AND
BANKS, AND EVERYTHING WILL BE
FINE.
SO THAT WAS THE CIVIL RIGHTS
VERSION OF REAGANISM.
>> JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG
WROTE IN HER DISSENT, QUOTE,
"HUBRIS," PRIDE, "IS A FIT WORD
FOR TODAY'S DEMOLITION OF THE
VOTING RIGHTS ACT."
WAS IT HUBRIS?
>> IT'S POLITICS.
AND I THINK IT'S ALSO
IDEOLOGICAL HUBRIS.
BECAUSE IF YOU GO BACK TO THE
CRITICAL DOCUMENTS THAT
SUPPOSEDLY PROTECT THE RIGHT TO
VOTE, YOU KNOW, THE
15th AMENDMENT PASSED IN 1870,
DECLARES THAT PEOPLE COULD NOT
BE PROHIBITED FROM VOTING
BECAUSE OF RACE, COLOR, AND
CONDITION OF PREVIOUS SERVITUDE
AND ADDED THE CONGRESS SHALL
ENFORCE THIS AMENDMENT WITH
APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION.
THE FIRST OF THE LINE
1965 VOTING RIGHTS ACT SAYS,
THIS IS A BILL TO ENFORCE THE
15th AMENDMENT.
SO THIS WAS A POWER GIVEN TO THE
CONGRESS, NOT TO THE COURTS.
>> THE ROBERTS COURT IN EFFECT
SAID TO CONGRESS, YOU CAN
REWRITE THESE STANDARDS, YOU CAN
REWRITE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
AND IT'S YOUR OBLIGATION TO DO
SO.
ANY CHANCE THAT THIS CONGRESS
WOULD DO THAT?
>> IT SEEMS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE
BECAUSE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS
BECOME THE PARTY OF THE SOUTH.
AND IN A STRANGE WAY, HAS TAKEN
ON THE APPEARANCE OF THE OLD
WHITE SOUTHERN SEGREGATIONIST
DEMOCRATS.
>> NOW YOU HAVE ANALYSTS, AND
OTHERS SAYING THE COURT'S RECENT
DECISION IS GOING TO ACTUALLY
HELP THE DEMOCRATS IN THE VOTING
BOOTH AND THAT IT'S ACTUALLY
GOING TO BE A SPUR TO THE
ENERGIES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
IN THE COMING ELECTIONS.
DO YOU SEE ANY POSSIBILITY OF
THAT?
>> I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I
REMEMBER -- WHAT WAS THE
DECISIVE MOMENT THAT TURNED THIS
WHOLE THING AROUND, THAT LED TO
THE CREATION OF THE VOTING
RIGHTS ACT?
IT WAS THE TRAGEDY OF BLOODY
SUNDAY.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE.
I THINK THE COURT'S DECISION
DOES GIVE A GREEN LIGHT TO ALL
SORTS OF THINGS, NOT SIMPLY THE
MISCHIEVOUS DEVICES TO SUPPRESS
THE VOTE.
BUT IMAGINE THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES GIVING ITS
ENDORSEMENT OF -- CREATING
DIFFICULTIES FOR VOTING.
I MEAN, IT'S EXTRAORDINARY.
AND WHAT COMES OF THAT?
I DON'T KNOW.
>> YOU'VE WRITTEN A BOOK THAT
COULD CHANGE THIS COUNTRY AGAIN,
IF EVERY CITIZEN READ IT.
CONGRATULATIONS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ON "BENDING TOWARD JUSTICE:
THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND THE