On Tuesday eveninig, Anthony Bradley – Acton Research Fellow and associate professor of theology at The King’s College in New York City – joined host Sheila Liaugminas on Relevant Radio’s A Closer Look to discuss the sensitive topic of race relations in America, especially in light of the verdict in the George Zimmerman case in Florida. Bradley gives his perspective on the state of race relations, and offers advice on how people of good will can have honest and forthright discussions about issues of race.
You can listen to the interview via the audio player below.
For 159 years, the state of Florida attempted to disenfranchise it’s citizens by suppressing voter turnout. At least that’s the logical conclusion that can be drawn from the recent partisan claims about voter suppression in the state.
As part of it’s post-2000 election reforms, Florida officially implemented early voting for the 2004 election. Until then, voters had to vote absentee or on Election Day.
But as a cost-cutting measure, the state legislature passed a law in 2011 reducing the early voting window from 14 days to eight, though it extended the hours during those eight days.
Now, critics of the law are attempting to claim the change was intentionally made to disenfranchise minority voters. Ta-Nehisi Coates, a senior editor at The Atlantic, is a prime example of the type of liberal pundits who are attempting to spark racial animus by implying the law targets African American voters:
Florida Governor Rick Scott recently declared that his state would not comply with President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In blatant defiance of the federal government, Florida will not expand its Medicare program or implement any of the other changes that “Obamacare” requires. While a flat-out refusal to comply with federal law on the part of a lower authority is relatively uncommon, it is by no means unprecedented. The history of the United States is filled with individuals and groups who have decided to obey their consciences in the face of laws that they believed to be illegal or immoral, or both. In fact, our country’s very founding began with an act of civil disobedience against the unjust and illegal actions of England’s King George III.
Even before our nation was formally established, adherence to true justice and the natural law, rather than to the whims of tyrants, was a hallmark of the American spirit. Witness the turmoil that took place in the American colonies in the 1760s and 1770s over the actions of England, including the famous Boston Tea Party of 1773. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that, “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” (more…)
“None of the above,” or NOTA, is a voting concept that would allow ballot-casters to express their frustration with the available candidates. It’s been a staple of voting procedure at the United States Libertarian Party for years.
The Florida legislature is now considering an “I Choose Not To Vote” option. This choice is not the same as NOTA, since if it “won” a majority of votes it would not result in any necessary action. The candidate who gets the highest vote total would still win the race, but the option would “enable uninformed or disgusted voters to opt out in a way that clearly displays their intention to abstain for elections officials,” according to state Sen. Mike Bennett.
The idea is basically NOTA without the teeth. But it may be a step in the right direction for a nation facing depressed voter turnouts, increasingly negative campaigns, and a problematic nomination system.
And at least in the case of Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, it may be a more attractive option than simply not casting a ballot at all.