Transcripts For CSPAN3 Voting Rights Historians In The Courtroom 20240714

Have two speakers this morning. We have Vernon Burton whos from clemson university, and we have Brooke Thomas who is from the university of california at irving. Both of them are stunningly important scholars in this world. Vernon burton is the judge matthew j. Perry distinguished chair of history and a professor of panafrican studies, sociology and anthropology and Computer Science at clemson university, which is to say hes mostly the entire university at this point. His i could read all of his distinguished awards and honors, and then he wouldnt have time to talk. I can only say that he has written a number of very important books. He has given major lectures at many institutions, most recently the annual lecture in southern history at the university of arkansas, and he his books have been in the book of the month club, the history book club, and other clubs. I have always hoped that i could be in a club that vernon was a member of, and im delighted to introduce him to start this mornings program. Thank you so much. [ applause ] thank you to everyone who made this possible. It is a Wonderful Group of people who worked so hard to bring this together. I wont try to name everyone, but again, thank you for all your hard work. Im a little awkward in the sense my mother used to always tell mel that fools names and fools faces are seen in public places. And yet, paul asked me to talk about a little bit my own experience as an Expert Witness in Voting Rights cases. Im afraid it sounds a little selfcongratulatory so im just going to apologize. Before i get into that, i want to make one comment about yesterdays sessions, which were so exciting. If you were there, you know that. If you missed it, you missed an incredibly intellectual feast, but when we think of reconstruction, i think its too often we separate it from the civil war, and i dont think people did that at the time, and one piece of evidence is the overthrow of reconstruction by paramilitary terrorists that brought about this coup detat in 1876 in at least 3 states that i investigated. Several of them who rode in 1876 to overthrow reconstruction then applied for the states confederate veterans pensions. Those people thought that they were and saw themselves as part of the civil war, though they had not fought in it. I think thats something we want to remember. This is the sesquicentennial of reconstruction and i just want to note that people are not as interested in reconstruction as they are the civil war. They look at the civil war, and they say that the very existence of the United States was at stake, the bloodiest war in our history. The civil war also posed in very critical ways, in fact, what clearly become consistent themes in American History, the character of the nation, the fate of africanamericans, and i would say you could read that larger as the place of minorities and all sorts of people in a democracy, the very meaning of pluralism, yet reconstruction is the most important, i think, and least understood period in United States history. If we can locate the identity of america, its in reconstruction, more so than the civil war, i believe, and reconstruction, if were finding a meaning in what we became and how and why we as a nation have done and do things. Reconstruction was a dangerous time as people and communities worked out new systems. Reconstruction showed the real possibilities of an interracial democracy. During reconstruction, africanamericans knew the importance of the right to vote. Africanamerican leader frederick douglass, lets see how this works, declared the right to vote was the keystone of the arch of human liberty. After the civil war, many former abolitionists joined africanamericans in thinking that voting as a principle should be enshrined in the constitution. Now, some thought the 14th amendment would have accomplished that. Some thought laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1866 would do so. But ultimately, it would require a new amendment to the constitution. Section 1 of the 15th amendment of the constitution stated the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and section 2 specified by then the familiar congressional enforcement clause, the Congress Shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Now, the various crosscurrents that we talked about yesterday led to close divisions for ratifications in many states including some states that voted twice defeating the amendment and then ratified it. Or like the case of new york ratified it and then tried to rescind its ratification. Nevertheless, the 15th amendment was ratified in early 1870, the constitution now defined that new birth of freedom that lincoln talked about. With citizenship secured by the 14th amendment and the right to vote secured by the 15th amendment, africanamericans could protect themselves through the rule of law, could shape those laws by standing for political office, and could choose leaders with free debate and an honest ballot. With universal male suffrage provided by the new Southern State constitutions backed by the 15th amendment, black political participation really exploded. Voting was followed by africanamerican officeholders. We heard about senator Charles Sumner that Ardent Supporter of black rights believed the ballot ensured africanamerican citizenship and effective protection against White Suprema supremacy. Writing in 1867 after the reconstruction franchised africanamerican men in the form of confederacy to vote for the new state constitution, he believed that suffrage would be immortal. He wrote, the rights to suffrage once given can never be taken away. Sumner believed with the 13th a and 15th amendment, you didnt even need a 15th amendment. Congress could just pass a law, as he said, under the power of making regulations, you cannot disfranchise a race. You cannot degrade the country. You cannot degrade the age. Okay. Now we can all go home. Voting rights were accomplished. Just because a law or even an amendment to the constitution is passed does not mean it is done and people obey the law. Historians generally debate the end of reconstruction, and they say that it ends with the election of hayes, the withdrawal of the few remaining federal troops from the south. Reconstruction, i think, really ends when the dream of equality before the law was entirely cut off by violent that allowed by violent coup detat. Reconstruction ends when the gains of freedom for africanamericans during reconstruction were legally undone by the Supreme Court. The ultimate rejection of africanamerican rights granted by the 15th amendment was the Supreme Courts approval in williams v. Mississippi in 1898 of the 1890 disfranchising conventions in the form of confederate states. With that stamp of approval, then the states of the confederacy instituted all sorts of voting restrictions. You know about a lot of them. Then theres an outrageous oklahoma case where they said well allow black people to vote, but we just wont count the votes. The United States government accepted jim crow, but africanamericans never did. The black community continued efforts to enforce Voting Rights but to little avail until the Civil Rights Movement of 1960s 37. It was really a century before Congress Finally followed Charles Sumners advice about that law, and thats the Voting Rights act of 1965. It was hard fought just as the first reconstruction had been hard fought. The act was necessary for enforcement because so many other laws to guarantee the right to vote had not worked. After president johnson signed the new Civil Rights Act of 1964 on july 2nd, 1964, he almost immediately turned to his acting attorney general to begin work with congress to prepare and i cannot take gods name in vain, but Lyndon Johnson said the g. D. Toughest Voting Rights act that you can devise. Under the Voting Rights act, cases have been generally filed under one or two separate sections of the Voting Rights act, section 5 and section 2. Now, section 2 of the Voting Rights act says that as a means of eradicating voting practices that minimize or cancel out the voting strength and political effectiveness and minority groups. Section 2 bans the use of tests that interfere with the right to vote, literacy tests, for example, and bans procedures that cause an unequal burden for minority voters or any other changes that minimize or dilute minority voting strength. So what is vote dilution . It is sort of swapping the votes of the minority voters with the majority voters. Annexation was a classic way, particularly after the Voting Rights act, annexed wide areas, blacks with the Voting Rights not to. Of course, use of atlarge elections requiring candidates to run citywide or countywide rather than from the smaller districts was the very cornerstone of vote dilution. Thats because of laws, themselves, that segregated, so you have minorities living in residence segregated areas, they often represented the majority of an area or elected district, thus have potential for electing candidates of their choice, where elections are conducted at large, however, whites are the majority of the electorate. Heres the key. Where whites vote as a bloc against candidates preferred by minority votes. If you didnt have racial bloc voting, it wouldnt really matter. The candidates preference would be submerged in a larger pool of white voters. Although section 2 set forth broad protections, it places the burdens on the minority plaintiffs to bring a lawsuit and prove discrimination. In practice, lawsuits under section 2 of the Voting Rights are so very expensive that citizens seldom can afford, they dont have the money or a Legal Expertise to pursue a successful claim unless theyre backed by some huge law firm which is often the case or has been the department of justice or an organization such as naacp, aclu, but these organizations have limited funds. Contrast that, in fact, with the jurisdiction who is defending the suit. They pull from tax money. And every person pays their tax money including the very citizens who are bringing the suit. So they are actually in their tax money paying for the county to work against them. Now, section 5 of the Voting Rights act was the most novel feature and one of the most effective enforcement mechanisms, it is whats called preclearance requirement. All changes in voting practice and jurisdiction covered by the Voting Rights act special provision had to be preapproved by one or two fact finders. Either a threejudge panel in the federal courts here in the district of columbia or the department of justice. Especially you begin to see some things that happened with the passage of Voting Rights act. I was involved in a Charleston County council election, and right before the Voting Rights act there was an article that interviewed all of the Council Members of charleston, South Carolina, and they said, it is quoted in the paper, we really like ward elections because it gives us contact with the people and were closer to them. Then you have the Voting Rights act comes about. Two years later, charleston goes to atlarge elections because blacks begin to register to vote. I looked at the state of South Carolina and about threefourths of all counties changed then to atlarge elections following the is that a coincidence . Thats what historians do in court cases. It even gets trickier than that in this case. In the school board, esaw jenkins, great civil rights leader from South Carolina drove a bus and doesnt get credit he deserves for the freedom schools. Its really his sort of idea getting this going. And just to do it, he ran for the school board on johns island. He didnt win. He came in third, but he did come in before one white person. Next year, following that election, what do they do . They change that some School Boards will be elected and some School Boards will be appointed. So i get out the map and guess which boards are elected, those where whites live and those that are appointed where live. These are the kind of tricks and laws and things that were coming about that the Voting Rights act was able to tackle. When you talk about vote dilution. Well, section 5 was the least burdensome on minority victims of voter discrimination. They dont have to bring a case. Section 2 of the Voting Rights applies to the entire nation. But section 5 applies to covered jurisdictions. How did congress decide which theyre going to enforce it in . Section 4 defines famously whats called the trigger. And this is based upon both history, that is you had to have had a device that diluted or kept africanamericans from having the same rights of voting, not just africanamericans, a literacy test. Then in addition, there was a mathematical formula that said according to the voting age population what percentage had to be more than 50 were registered or of those who voted that were registered had to be 50 . So had to do both of those things. So seven of the nine states covered by the trigger are Southern States. Was the Voting Rights unfair because it picked on the states that did not allow africanamericans to vote . Some people think so, including at the time a young law clerk for justice rehnquist, now chief justice john roberts. It was a 1980 Supreme Court c e case. The very first time the voting acts right was challenged a lot. Very first time the Supreme Court ruled against the Voting Rights act that got myself involved in Voting Rights cases and a lot of other historians as well. And thats mobile vs. Bodden. It was about an atlarge election. Weve talked about the dilution process of atlarge elections. The Supreme Court and mobile declared that henceforth, plaintiffs must prove not only that an atlarge system has discriminatory effect, that is that blacks could not get elected there in the atlarge system but also that it was adopted or maintained for the purpose of diluting minority votings. Now, take note, its not just discrimination but purposeful discrimination. Thus, the court really hindered racial equality by welcoming what seemingly neutral but actually discriminating practices. Whos trained to look at intent and purpose among politicians . Its historians. And attorneys know that they need to show this so they turn to historians and ask them to work on this intense standard. Now, the legal profession, one of the things were talk about i learned has its own way of defining how one does intent and this was actually a 1977 insurance case. It lists the four things that sort of are required to show circumstantial intent. You can read them. For time, for discussion, im going to put these on. You can read them if youre interested or not. The factors are really consistent with the inquiries a historian would make in order to draw conclusions on a purpose or intent. The difficult intense standard was in effect for only about two years and the view of many observers, the mobile decision that plaintiffs had to show intent was very inconsistent with the views of the u. S. Congress when it both adopted and then renewed the Voting Rights act from 1965, 1970, and 1975 so in 1982, a substantial bipartisan majority in both houses revised section 2 of the Voting Rights act that outlaw election measures that result in diluting minority voting without requiring proof of discriminatory intent. So historians didnt really after that need or attorneys did not really need historians do intent but every attorney likes to have more one arrow in their quiver and as i learned later its much easier for a judge to say to his neighbors that this law discriminated but we just wont talk about intent and not say that people were so it proved a practical side that we can talk about it later if you want to, some of the cases we got into. Also very important in 1982, with the 25year renewal of the Voting Rights act. The Senate Judiciary committee issued an important report that the Supreme Court has since called the authoritative source and the Senate Judiciary committee decided that the circumstances test is the evidentiary standard for the Voting Rights act. Now heres my good example of totalitarian can everybody read this . No. Okay. I just want to say [ inaudible ] says okay, hands up. So, the teacher understood the content, the totality of circumstances. Knew exactly which he was doing. But if you just read what he said, youd think, this, to me, is a great example of totality of circumstances. However, the Senate Factors went back to a 1973 texas case, a related case in the 5th circuit and listed out seven plus two, nine factors now called the Senate Factors. And you see that, too, is very consistent, what any good historian would do, would look at these things if you were trying to get the totality of circumstances thats needed now. In other words, the courts used a Senate Factor when assessing whether a particular procedure or practice results in prohibitive discrimination and violation of section 2. The factors which are outlined in the Senate Report are precisely the factors that a historian would want to look at. Its a way of organizing an independently verifiable historical analysis for the courts. Thats what i would summarize in almost every court case. Are those nine factors. You dont have to do them all, but i usually would. Attorneys now need historians then to establish not just intent but also to do the Senate Factors. As congress recognized after the mobile decision in 1980, persuading a court to define discriminatory intent is a formidable challenge. Proven intent has never been easier. But its become even more difficult now because modern politicians are much less careless about saying that its for a racial purpose. When i first started this, you could find quite a few and in texas quite late you could find people saying, but its very hard to do now unless you can get their emails or something, as to whats going on today. Work increased again for experts with a 1986 case which was out of North Carolina. It said you had to show three things. They were really statistical. In order to preswal vail as min plaintiffs. One is that as we talk about minority votes, whites normally vote together against the preferred choice of the candidate that you can show that minorities do vote together and agree on candidates. And thirdly, that you can actually form a district in some way that africanamericans could do it. And i did this because minority plaintiffs dont have very much money and it gets very, very expensive. Its got worse. It was so simple when i started. All i would do is take the newspaper column of the election and i would get the percentage of each precinct. 99 black, 99 vote for the black candidate. 99 white, 99 vote and just let the judge read it. Both the judge and i understood it. The next case, they wanted me to use r. The next case, rsquared. The next case, ecological progression. Now it is not rocket science, but huge amounts of money and time. Thats the burden of the minority plaintiffs to show something thats very simple, it seems to me, if people are not being elected and the votes there. But thats just to give you a sech sense. I dont like it. I dont like doing it. I do it because its needed. Things have changed significantly from when i first became an Expert Witness minority plaintiffs in 1980. There was no report. There might be a deposition. I went through five before i had a deposition. Testimony at trial. Most of them are actually settled because we were on a roll at that time. Now theres a huge emphasis on report preparation. Exchange of reports. The report would be critiqued by an expert on the other side and sometimes a rebuttal report by me and then another rebuttal by the opposing expert. Also, it was interesting, though, minorities won almost every case in those days from the jingles decisions in 1980 down to bush v. Vier in texas in 1996. And this is something that just strikes meso much. The court ruled in 1996 that creating districts for africanamerican candidates of choice violated the 14th amendment right of whites. Now, we have just studied why the 14th amendment, it was founded only to protect former enslaved people. Had a lot of them, but that was the reason for it. You can see it. And it was used then to stop minorities from getting representation. Well, im very honored to be part of a civil rights and Voting Rights community. Ive learned so much about history from these attorneys im working with, other Expert Witness. I think i learned actually how to do history and the importance of history. In shaping the very circumstances of peoples lives. Ive also learned about the law and how the law works as opposed to how i thought the law functioned. You heard a little bit of that today. Its not necessarily about justice. Its about these precedents that we have and its no wonder that randall is upset with the constitutional system we have now. If you think it should be about justice. First, im presented by my attorneys working for the minority client and they put on my evidence. Sort of like one attorney said, i lay down the hay so the goats can get at it. Then the opposing attorney goes with cross, which is symbolic as well. If you have been the subject of a crossexamination. They attack my testimony, my credentials, my deposition, any and everything. I even had one accuse me because i done Voter Registration years back and he said, isnt it true you spent most of your time in college in civil rights . I said, i thought a minute, i said, no, thats not true. In fact, i spent most of my time in college studying or praying. Which the judge chuckled and from then on we were doing okay. I had to learn a lot about the rules of the court. For instance, newspapers cannot be presented as evidence. But i as a historian can present the newspapers as evidence and put it in and explain it and then its part of the court record. Probably the most interesting case is when the ku klux klan decided they would intimidate me. I said this is great, thats one of the Senate Factors. I can actually tell about i just saw the klan trying to tell me to leave town. The judge says thats hearsay evidence, i cant admit that. I said, what . The aclu said, judge, in this courtroom as aclu i defended two k lrks ar klansmen. I went and got the parade permit and could testify to the Senate Factors that there was a klan there. So Little Things like that. It takes a long time to learn. Throughout the summer 2012 for the South Carolina voter i. Dmt ca case, i wrote a report. The department of justice citing my report objected under section 5. Then South Carolina sued and we came right here to d. C. With a threejudge panel. Imincluding now Supreme Court Justice Brett kavanaugh. Different Senate Factors. There had been a big debate on a license plate that said coon hunting. Now, you know, you can make what you want of that, but the Africanamerican Community objected and then at the time the governor of South Carolina, mark sanford, who liked to hike the appalachian trail, actually vetoed it because he saw the imply kimp imply cases of what it meant. It was in the record. He said now, vernon, you grew up in 96 South Carolina. You wouldnt think anything at all, would you, if you went to the gas station at noon at lunch and a couple friends were going coon hunting. I said, of course, i would be upset. You go coon hunting at nighttime and most of the time you get possums which got a good chuckle from people at the time. This trial here in d. C. , the states attorney said to me, do you think republicans are racist . I told them i didnt have to think that. Thats not required of me as an Expert Witness. But i said i prefer to say some were not very sensitive to racial issues. For instance, the person who sponsored the voter idea when a gorilla escaped from the columbia riverbank zoo, said that was a relative of michelle obamas. Then another sponsor had emailed out a cartoon that looked like it was from about 1880 of cartoonish looking africanamericans running away with this sort of horrible jim crowish look they would make because obama was coming in and saying he was going to get jobs r for black men. One of the things you do to show how other legislation is related in the charleston case i spoke about earlier, one of the sponsors of voter i. D. , after the judge had ruled the method of election discriminated against africanamericans, we won that case, he introduced the same method of election for the school board. So those are the kinds of things i did. I had been told id be on the stand all day. Is i was hardly there. The attorney dismissed me. The judges kept asking questions. He said we dont want this witness to testify. So i actually enjoyed the cross side of it. It gives me a chance to engage with the other people and get to say what i think at some times. Well, the threejudge panel then blocked the enforcement of the law until after the 2012 election. More of the judges specified the importance of provision that people without i. D. S may still vote if they sign affidavits stating any reason why they did not have a voter i. D. So the attorney general actually got on the stand and the person who was in charge of voting and changed complete said they would not have an affidavit. Said, yes, well apply an affidavit after i testify. So the South Carolina voter i. D. Law transitioned from one of the most stringent to one of the most lean yet for those without a voter i. D. Are eligible to vote. But i tested this in South Carolina. Ive read the law. Ive heard the attorney general. I know what the law is. But just for the heck of it, just last week, so we went to vote, i believe. I said to them, i dont have a voter i. D. But i can vote. They said, no, you cant. I said, yes, i can. This is the point of it. The law says i can with an affidavit. What really matters as it did at the end of reconstruction, as it does today, are those people at the polls can say yes or no. Either they dont know the law or they are trying to stop people. I think this case, they just didnt know the law. Thats very important whether its the first or second reconstruction. Who lets people vote at the polls. Last line of defense, i think. The Supreme Court ruling in 2003 has shaken the Voting Rights community. Its instructed to compare, in fact, the 2013 challenge under the Roberts Court to the first challenge to the Voting Rights act under the warren court in 1966. In 1966 in South Carolina, plaintiffs claimed that the act violated the states rights to control and implement elections. When South Carolina challenged the constitutionality of the Voting Rights act then the states of alabama, georgia, louisiana, all joined the suit. Chief Justice Earl Warren explained this new departure of the Voting Rights act. Congress felt itself confronted by an insidious and pervasive evil. The chief justice noted the long history of Racial Discrimination in the Voter Registration process in South Carolina directly quoting some of the more outrageous remarks of pitchfork ben we talked about yesterday at the 1895 convention as evidence of the chr discriminatory purpose of literary tests. Stated the constitutional priority of 1965 must be judged with reference to the historical experience, which it reflects. Thus history had caught up with the south. Thus, in 1966, the Supreme Court ruled section 5 preclearance requirement was constitutional. In 2013 the Roberts Court ruled in Shelby County v. Holder that section 4, determined that is the trigger clause, the jurisdictions that were required to submit proposed election changes for preapproval was unconstitutional. The ruling disables section 5. Now, this was in spite of a huge amount of testimony evidence presented to congress when they renewed the Voting Rights act in 2006 and section 5. This finding really eviscerated the essential preclearance of electoral changes in the covered districts and crippled the Voting Rights act. Chief Justice Roberts stated his reasoning for shelby. Our country has changed. This depressingly echoed a ruling in 1852 in the early dred scott cases which said africanamericans could not be citizens at the time, which previous decisions in missouri had a pattern of ruling for freedom, but with the new decision would be ruling for slavery. Times are not now as they were. Now, while roberts said he acknowledged that any Racial Discrimination in voting is too much, he considered it more important that congress considered current conditions. Unlike the warren court which upheld the constitutions protection of individuals against Racial Discrimination as one of the principal duties of the u. S. Supreme court, the Roberts Court argued the courts role is more to protect the rights of the states to deal with votings as they wish. The Roberts Court felt that the problem of Racial Discrimination in election was in the past and the Voting Rights act must reflect this New Historical viewpoint. The preclearance section of the Voting Rights act in its four decades blocked more than a thousand voting laws and procedures. Now thats the equivalent of a thousand successful lawsuits that have been brought under section 2. Imagine what that cost or could be done. Justice ginsburg i think had one of the more apt to the notion that the voting problems were wrapped up. She said, throwing out preclearance, when it has worg worked and continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away the umbrella in the rainstorm because youre not getting wet. She was right. It was not hardly any time that shelby was announced in a storm of efforts to disenfranchise minority voters rained down upon states previously subject to preclearance. For example, mere hours after the decision, officials put into effect a voter identification law that a federal court had already previously ruled and refused to preclear because it made it more difficult for minority voters in texas to participate in the political process on an equal basis with whites. I think thats why South Carolina changed when we were at court because of what had happened in texas. Now, Historical Context still matters, and i like to tell my colleagues, particularly, even before we thought of alternative facts, we were really arguing about how history is constructed. No question in my mind, all history is constructed, i agree with that. I also think, as a story i read to my kids, the three it really matters a you construct your history out of. The court has to have evidence and facts. Thats what i was trying to do in texas. Ill give you a little bit about what is happening there. I try to put in the long duration, the long history and put it in context. Its not about political party. As i said, it didnt matter who was in charge. Whether it was democrats, whether it was republicans, or whether, in fact, it would be marshals. One of the tragedies was in perceived times of crisis, always the party in power found ways to disfranchise or dilute the votes of minorities. In this case im looking at africanamericans. So i went through all of these. Mic. The mic. I dont know if i can read it from here. Allwhite primary. I put this in Historical Context. You have the interracial populist party of the 1890s challenging, particularly in texas, areas. They give rational for the allwhite primary is what . They say it is about voter fraud. They found it was to keep you can go through each one of these. The literacy test, the same thing. Theyre arguing its about voter fraud, but, instead, the courts find its about diluting or keeping africanamericans from voting. The poll tax, which we know about. The same thing. Comes about. And with the modern civil rights okay. Thank you so much. Voter reregistration, the texas in fact, judge governor connally said its the next best thing to a poll tax. He actually called it that. And the courts found and they said its because he said because of voter fraud, the courts, of course, found instead that it was intentional to dilute the vote. Waller county where black students are, a whole series of those. Saying its about voter fraud. The courts found otherwise. Texas senate bill 14 is the voter i. D. Case. And what i did with this was put in what was happening. Of course, you have the Great Recession of 2008. Upsets everyone. Obama, who is elected president as a minority candidate for the first time, and you have huge turnout and registration of africanamericans and minorities for the first time. And you also becomes widespread that certain states like texas and the whole United States is going to become a majority minority state. And i think its this sort of crisis that we see that leads to this the voter i. D. Law that fits this whole pattern. So thats how i showed Senate Factor Senate Factor 9. That people could understand what was going on at the time. One of the things in texas, for example, you could have a gun permit, i. D. , and you can vote, but you cant have a state i. D. Or a student i. D. With pictures on it and you still cannot vote and it was easy to show, of course, who had the gun permits and who had the other sorts of things. Well, we did win that case and judge ramos findings that the voter i. D. Had a discriminatory tint is still there. Have no practical benefit today. The Texas Legislature repeals senate bill 14, replaced it with senate bill 5. Senate bill 5 has the same very list of whats acceptable as a voter i. D. But they added in as South Carolina did an affidavit with a reasonable now, the 5th circuit, several federal judges appointed in the last two years, some slight of hand to say that this replacement act, though its almost the same as the other one, is okay, but we do have the precedent of intent in the inperson voter i. D. In texas. Now, the most interesting thing to me is nowhere have they found inperson voter i. D. Hardly at all but theres a lot of it in absentee voting like you saw in North Carolina which is not covered by the voter i. D. Things. I find it ironic, too, that when i first went to texas to testify, the doj was on the side of minority plaintiffs. When i went back in 2016, actually, the 2010 redistrict, they had changed sides, now, the department of justice, and they were defending the state of texas. The Voting Rights act is crucial for protection of minority voting but i see no guarantees it will continue into the future. The future of Voting Rights act is uncertain. When passed in 1965, you had this bipartisan support and the same has been true for all its repasses. The part of visions in congress are too intense to predict the future of these Voting Rights act. Now, in conclusion, my wife told me to always say that, to give the audience hope, we tend to think of the horrors of the terroristic overthrow of the first reconstruction of disenfranchising africanamericans something in the far past, but we are really connected to those events and the job of the historians is to put this in Historical Context and see the change over time. I had the privilege to get to know dr. Benjamin from my hometown of 96. He asked me to write the forward for his book. Born to rebel. He was the famous ride of 1898 when they were murdered for trying to vote after the 1986 disfranchising contribution and may constitution and mays father was humiliated in front of the young mays. Dr. Mays longtime president of Morehouse College and spiritual godfather of Civil Rights Movement continues from the 19 30s down to president 1980s that the right to vote is the most sacred thing a man can have. In 1957, mays student, dr. Martin luther king jr. , echoed his mentor when he equated to the right to vote with a moral issue connected to americas sin of slavery. So long as i do not firmly an r as this conference has demonstrated, regular looses reo backwards. We cant continue to let that to happen if we want to continue the democratic process. Already its difficult for me to believe that in 2019 were seeing purges of voting lists, draconian voter i. D. Laws, that d discriminate against poor people, minorities, the elderly and disabled. As Martin Luther king jr. Chann challenged in hi nobel acceptance speech, i refuse to accept the idea that the man present nature makes him morally incapable to reach up for that forever confronts him. All week were featuring American History tv programs as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan 3. Lectures in history. American artifacts. Reel america. The civil war. Oral histories. The presidency. And special event coverage about our nations history. Enjoy American History tv now and every weekend on cspan3. Weeknights this month were featuring American History tv programs as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan3. Tonight, a look at a recent Conference Held at Purdue University titled remaking american political history. Well feature programs from the gathering focusing on u. S. Politics and government from the earliest days of the american republic. American history tv airs at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan3. Sunday at 9 00 a. M. Eastern, a washington journal and American History tv live special callin program looking back at woodstock, the 1969 cultural and musical phenomenon. Historian david farber, author of the book, the age of great dreams america in the 1960s, joins us to take your calls. Drugs matter, but who takes those drugs and why the drugs had the effect they did in the 60s and early 70s is, again, something were still wrestling with as scholars to understand. The technology of drugs, with e got David Courtwright in here, some other people have thought long and hard about this, is imperative as an understanding i think not just of the 60s but of the production of history. What drugs we use at a given period and place have an incredible ability to change the direction of a given society. Call in to talk with david farber about the social movements of the 60s leading up to woodstock and its legacy. Woodstock 50 years sunday at 9 00 a. M. Eastern on cspans washington journal. Also live on American History tv on cspan3. University of california irving english professor brook thomas delivered a talk titled the politics of popular portrayals of Andrew Johnsons impeachment. Professor thomas discussed three examples. Thomas nixon jr. s 1905 novel the klansmen. The 1905 novel, the 1942 film tennessee johnson and the impeachment story told by john f. Kennedy in his 1957 book profiles in courage. This event was part of a symposium on reconstruction hosted by the u. S. Capitol historical society. Brook thomas is a professor in the English Department at the university of california at irving. I think you just took emeritus status, is that correct . Which means he now has more time to write and more time to talk and more time to educate all of us. And i am honored that he has come here again. He was here a couple years ago. Im honored that he is back today. [ applause ]