Our group was founded by personal acquaintances of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to honor the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, for which Dr. King fought for and won for all Americans.

Today, January 15th, is Dr. King’s birthday. But “Martin Luther King, Jr. Day,” a national holiday in the United States where government offices and many private businesses are closed, always falls on the third Monday in January, making a three-day weekend for the people of the United States. Other presidents’ birthdays, and Columbus Day, were also “moved” to make for three-day-weekends, and even Thanksgiving was moved by FDR to try and stimulate the economy.

Our question is this: if the birthday of one of our nation’s most famous election reformers can be moved to make for a three-day-weekend, why can’t Election Day be moved from the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, where it has been since 1845, to make voting more accessible in a country where voting ranks near the bottom of all countries in the world?

We don’t know the answer either. To find out why we vote on Tuesday, click here.

Join our movement to fix America’s broken voting system by following Why Tuesday? on Twitter.

Posted in Civil Rights, Election Reform, Martin Luther King, Jr. | No Comments »

Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy died late last night at the age of 77. I’ve pulled from today’s New York Times obituary the many instances over his career that Senator Kennedy fought for voting rights and pasted them below. For the complete article, click here.

• Mr. Kennedy left his mark on legislation concerning civil rights, health care, education, voting rights and labor. He was chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions at his death. But he was more than a legislator. He was a living legend whose presence ensured a crowd and whose hovering figure haunted many a president.

• He returned to the Senate in 1965, joining his brother Robert, who had won a seat from New York. Edward promptly entered a major fight, his first. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Voting Rights Act was up for consideration, and Mr. Kennedy tried to strengthen it with an amendment that would have outlawed poll taxes. He lost by only four votes, serving lasting notice on his colleagues that he was a rapidly maturing legislator who could prepare a good case and argue it effectively.

• Freed at last of the expectation that he should and would seek the White House, Mr. Kennedy devoted himself fully to his day job in the Senate. He led the fight for the 18-year-old vote, the abolition of the draft, deregulation of the airline and trucking industries, and the post-Watergate campaign finance legislation. He was deeply involved in renewals of the Voting Rights Act and the Fair Housing law of 1968.

• His most notable focus was civil rights, “still the unfinished business of America,” he often said. In 1982, he led a successful fight to defeat the Reagan administration’s effort to weaken the Voting Rights Act.

In recent years, Senator Kennedy stayed active on the issue of voting rights, working for the re-authorization of the Voting Rights Act and issuing a strong opinion about voter ID.

The New York Times obituary ends with a quote by our very own board member, Norman J. Ornstein:

“He was a quintessential Kennedy, in the sense that he had all the warts as well as all the charisma and a lot of the strengths,” said Norman J. Ornstein, a political scientist at the American Enterprise Institute. “If his father, Joe, had surveyed, from an early age up to the time of his death, all of his children, his sons in particular, and asked to rank them on talents, effectiveness, likelihood to have an impact on the world, Ted would have been a very poor fourth. Joe, John, Bobby … Ted.

“He was the survivor,” Mr. Ornstein continued. “He was not a shining star that burned brightly and faded away. He had a long, steady glow. When you survey the impact of the Kennedys on American life and politics and policy, he will end up by far being the most significant.”

Photo of Senator Kennedy by Stephen Crowley for The New York Times.

Posted in Civil Rights, Election Reform, Massachusetts | 1 Comment »

As we’ve discussed here before, the struggle to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a moment in American history that is near and dear to our hearts. And in the spirit of the Voting Rights Act the Why Tuesday? team strives to find solutions to increase voter turnout and participation in elections.

Some of the same rank-and-file that participated in the fight for Civil Rights, like Ambassador Andrew Young and our founder Bill Wachtel, are the Why Tuesday? board members that push us every day to keep on in the war on low voter turnout.

Today the New York Times takes a look at an effort in Texas to repeal a specific section of the Voting Rights Act, in the name of progress, and decides that the argument being presented is flawed and counterproductive.

Some people claim that Barack Obama’s election has ushered in a “postracial” America, but the truth is that race, and racial discrimination, are still very much with us. The Supreme Court should keep this reality in mind when it considers a challenge to an important part of the Voting Rights Act that it recently agreed to hear. The act is constitutional — and clearly still needed.

Section 5, often called the heart of the Voting Rights Act, requires some states and smaller jurisdictions to “preclear” new voting rules with the Justice Department or a federal court. When they do, they have to show that the proposed change does not have the purpose or effect of discriminating against minority voters.

[snip]

In last fall’s election, despite his strong national margin of victory — and hefty campaign chest — Mr. Obama got only about one in five white votes in the Southern states wholly or partly covered by Section 5. And there is every reason to believe that minority voters will continue to face obstacles at the polls.

If Section 5 is struck down, states and localities would have far more freedom to erect barriers for minority voters — and there is little doubt that some would do just that. We have not arrived at the day when special protections like the Voting Rights Act are not needed.

We’ll keep on top of this story. To read the complete New York Times editorial, click here.

For more on our connection to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and to learn more about what we do, click here. Still don’t know why we vote on Tuesday? Here’s the answer.

Posted in Civil Rights, Election 2008, Election Reform, New York Times, Voting Rights Act, WT? Advisory Board | Comments Off

NEW YORK, NEW YORK – As with so many people across the globe, today is very near and dear to Why Tuesday?’s heart. This organization was founded in the spirit of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by William B. Wachtel whose father, Harry, was a close friend and advisor Dr. King. So today, we also salute the accomplishments of Why Tuesday? Board members Andrew Young and Martin Luther King, III. (more…)

Posted in Barack Obama, Civil Rights, D.C., Election Reform, Election administration, Martin Luther King, Jr., President Obama, WT? Advisory Board | 1 Comment »

Last week we brought you the news that over 100,000 ex-felons in Florida are getting their voting rights back.

Today the New York Times says those reforms are “well short of what’s needed — a complete overhaul of a wildly illogical system.” The interconnections of voting rights and access to jobs is part of the problem, so says the Times.

In most states, inmates win back their voting rights as soon as they are released from prison or when they complete parole or probation. One big reason that does not happen in Florida is that state law requires felons to first make restitution to their victims. And until their voting rights are restored, former prisoners are barred from scores of state-regulated occupations for which the restoration of voting rights is listed as a condition of employment.

Quite apart from the fact that it is undemocratic to bar people from the voting booth because they owe money, the system is transparently counterproductive since it prevents people from landing the jobs they will need to make restitution. Denying ex-offenders a chance to make an honest living is a sure way to drive them back to jail.

The system also requires extensive and unnecessary background checks before voting rights can be restored for some applicants, making it hard to reduce the backlog. Florida could clear up that backlog in a hurry, treat all ex-offenders fairly and enhance democracy by automatically restoring voting rights to inmates who have completed their sentences.

When we visited both the Iowa and Nevada caucuses earlier this year to document the “Un-Caucuses” — who isn’t able to participate in the caucus process and why that is — we met in both states ex-felons who are excluded from the voter rolls. We’ll continue to monitor how this issue is addressed around the country.

Posted in Civil Rights, Felon Voting Rights, Florida, Iowa, Nevada | Comments Off

That’s the quote that ends today’s New York Times article about 115,000 ex-felons in Florida getting their voting rights back.

If you listen to NPR’s coverage, you’ll learn that in all but three states felons get their voting rights back after their sentences are completed. You’ll also find out how the new rules of re-enfranchisement work in Florida.

Posted in Civil Rights, Florida | Comments Off

Why Tuesday? Board member Andrew Young appeared on Meet the Press this morning with Michael Eric Dyson and Tom Brokaw to discuss the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 40 years after his assassination. I followed along, as I did with Senator Bill Nelson on Meet the Press last Sunday, tweet-by-tweet.

Those are the final three tweets I posted. For the full live-tweet of Ambassador Young’s appearance, and to follow along with our efforts, subscribe to our Twitter feed.

Posted in Civil Rights, Election Reform | 1 Comment »

On the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., TIME magazine talked with the four surviving aides who were with him that fateful day.

Why Tuesday? Board Member Andrew Young was one of those aides.

He says King’s influence and the movement he started continues to be felt.

“It inspired success in a broad range of men and women of goodwill in the world. It inspired success, I’m sure in South Africa, but…also…when the Polish freedom fighters were standing up against communism, they followed our non-violent traditions. When the Berlin Wall came down, they were singing ‘We Shall Overcome.’ The same thing was true in Tiananmen Square, so there was a global movement. In fact, it was global before we got in it because all of us learned it from Gandhi.”

He said King would be surprised at the progress that has been made over time, although there is much more to do.

“Freedom is a struggle and we do it together. Not only together as black citizens, but black and white together,” says Young. “Martin Luther King talked about a Coalition of Conscience, or a Coalition of Goodwill — people of goodwill who want to change the world for the better. I think you see evidence of that.”

For the complete article, click here. Ambassador Young will appear Sunday morning on Meet the Press, alongside Tom Brokaw, to reflect on Dr. King’s legacy.

Posted in Civil Rights, Election Reform, Martin Luther King, Jr. | Comments Off