Who Voted against the Voting Rights Act?


Yesterday’s final vote in the U.S. House was 390 members in favor of renewing important provisions of the Voting Rights Act, and 33 members against. Most Republicans and all Democrats voted in support of renewal. Below is the list of the 33 members who voted against renewal: Richard Baker (R-LA), J. Gresham Barrett (R-SC), Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Joe Barton (R-TX), Jo Bonner (R-AL), Dan Burton (R-IN), John Campbell (R-CA), Mike Conaway (R-TX), Nathan Deal (R-GA), John Doolittle (R-CA), John Duncan (R-TN), Terry Everett (R-AL), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Phil Gingrey (R-GA), Joel Hefley (R-CO), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Wally Herger (R-CA), Sam Johnson (R-TX), Steve King (R-IA), John Linder (R-GA), Patrick McHenry (R-NC), Gary Miller (R-CA), Charles Norwood (R-GA), Ron Paul (R-TX), Tom Price (R-GA), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Ed Royce (R-CA), John Shadegg (R-AZ), Thomas Tancredo (R-CO), William Thornberry (R-TX), Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)

h/t [Wampum]

McHenry is the Representative from the 10th Congressional District. And even more of a mouthpiece for Bush than Myrick or Dole. But this time, he didn't vote the same as them. If you know anybody in the 10th Congressional District (basically from SC border of western Gaston Co, to the edge of Mooresville, and west to Catawba county, Avery and Mitchell counties) let them know about this, its appalling. Although, I've yet to see competitors for Myrick in my district (9th) and McHenry. Has anybody else heard anything??


They are lesser known

But there are competitors in both the 9th and 10th races for NC!

In your 9th MissM there's Bill Glass. I don't know much about him yet...but i bet i will soon enough.

And in the 10th against McHenry, which after his vote on the Voting Rights Act an even tougher fight needs to be fought, is Richard Carsner.

Goodluck out there!

Be just, and fear not.

Our children need to know that some people fought back, when others collaborated.

Bill Glass is running against Myrick

His website isn't bad. He takes several progressive positions, including single-payer healthcare and a reasonable immigration stand. It is too bad you don't hear much about him - I don't know anything about his background.

Anyone from Charlotte care to elaborate?


I have an interview lined up with him. I'm on vacation in Charleston though and doing the bare minimum on the site. He's very enthusiastic and sadly isn't getting a lot of volunteer help. I hope to help raise some interest in his campaign when I get home and get settled.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

i don't get it...

someone needs to explain this to me - i'm running a couple of cylinders short after last night's drinking liberally, so type slowly.

apart from flat-out racism, why would those 33 representatives vote against renewal?

(i'm actually kind of tempted to call charles taylor's office and give him a nice "attaboy" for voting "yea", but i'm sure he's too busy trying to stem the flow of brown people into the country. never mind the fact that his ancestors probably never bothered to fill out the proper paperwork to become american citizens...)


We could use the same arguments used to excuse Democrats voting against LGBT Americans, "Oh, he has to vote this way. If he doesn't he might lose support. It is a tough district."

So an elected official votes against gay Americans and we say, "Its a tough district, he had to," but when an elected official votes against the Voting Rights Act we are appalled? What is the difference? Are you all really able to tolerate bigotry in one form but not the other?

Either way you cut it, its prejudiced people playing politics with people's lives and rights, as well as promoting prejudice and bigotry.

PS - I'm referring to comments on my recent McIntyre post.

Matt Hill Comer

Matt, while I admire your

Matt, while I admire your firey dedication to equality (that came out like condecension, and it isn't; I really do admire it!), you simply can't escape the fact that the people we send to Washington are our Representatives, and their main job is to represent their constituents.

It could be the case that Mike is voting his own beliefs. If that's true, I think the right approach is to either educate him or replace him. If the latter, I think Dems should make a strategic decision about whether replacing him makes for a better or worse future.

It could also be the case that Mike's district generally supports his position on these social issues, and that Mike disagrees but has decided that this is a battle he isn't going to fight right now. Again, there's strategy there. Politics is a lot of compromise, and no one person or party can do everything at once. Heck, even War PresidentTM Bush didn't have the political capital to do, well, anything.

I've been responding to the first paragraph of your last comment and the bolded paragraph. Re-reading, the comparison to the VRA stands out. I think a difference that explains the disparity you're describing is that the equal right to vote is a battle that has been (more or less) won at the legislative level, at least where Southern blacks are concerned. It's the status quo (not to say that vigilance isn't called for). The cost to a legislator voting to extend the act is so low and the arguments set forth against it are so weak that it's fair to presume that anyone who votes "NO" is pursuing an agenda that includes tearing down established rights. Outcry follows.

But that's not true for LGBT issues. For lesbians and gays, the fight is to make a change. The potential cost to a legislator's career (and her party's hold on the seat) is certainly high enough to make a real change in the way she interacts with the issue. I understand that this is less than optimal (aka shitty), but in a less-than-optimal world, you've got to make choices. Especially when there is a Republican party out there working to screw up people's lives in any number of ways.

I'm having a hard time thinking a straight line right now, so I'll leave out my other thoughts on this and if the conversation gets to them, so much the better for me.


I understand the politics, the compromising and the strategy. I just don't agree with it.

Just like the Democrats took a stand on race issues in the 1950s and 60s, when equality for African-Americans was still highly unpopular (esp. in the South), Americans should be taking a stand now.

It is much more honorable to stand for right and lose an election than to stand for wrong and keep your seat ("for the good of the Party").

History (and, in my personal opinion, God) will judge those who stood for right at some personal cost to themselves against those who stood for wrong in order to "make it in the world."

History is on the side of equality, justice, liberty and freedom. The Republicans and Democrats who stand for bigotry against gays will be seen in the same negative light as the racists of the 1860s and 1960s.

Like I said... When I'm 80 and on my death bed, I'll have no worries knowing that I've been on the right side of the issue my whole life.

Maybe I'm just an idealist. Maybe I'm dreaming too big. On the other side, however, maybe I'm one of the few Americans who actually, full-heartedly believe in and uphold our founding and guiding principles. Those principles are so strong, so right and so moral they have changed the world and brought freedom to millions. Maybe the same will eventually happen here at home.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead

Matt Hill Comer


Matt, you write:

History (and, in my personal opinion, God) will judge those who stood for right at some personal cost to themselves against those who stood for wrong in order to "make it in the world."

Are those really the only two choices? First, unless you believe in an absolute truth accessible by humans, standing loud and proud for what you believe in in every single case will result in you being a kook sometimes. Like Drew Barrymore. I think she really believes that trees have feelings. When she makes a stand on that, she's being a kook.

I know that's an extreme example of kookery, and I'm pretty sure we're both talking about more serious stuff than tree anguish, so moving right along:

Second, and more important, I think you're leaving out an option between standing for right and standing for wrong "in order to 'make it in the world.'" That option involves compromise along the road to doing what's right. It might mean supporting a candidate who is wrong on an issue in order to keep the seat in the hands of the party best situated to do the right thing on that issue. Or supporting a piece of legislation that isn't the best it could be but is the best that will come out of whatever body is voting on it.

Anyway, I'm just giving you a hard time about this because I think you're doing good work and I'd hate to see that hampered by a sense of unyielding absolutism. Give yourself and others room to be wrong, room to learn, and education when it's needed (as opposed to scorn and vitriol).

Sorry, one other thought:

Democrats didn't stand up as a body and strike a blow for race equality during the civil rights movement. In fact, the racist establishment in the South was maintained and reinforced by Democrats. The civil rights movement began outside the party and picked up pols from left to right as it grew. Which is kind of how things are going today with the gay rights movement, right?