He says that 'no matter what argument one makes...it is often relegated to hate speech.' Franks: GOP silence on VRA is safer

Most House Republicans were relatively subdued in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Tuesday decision to strike parts of the Voting Rights Act.

Conservative Arizona Rep. Trent Franks said that was no accident, but the result of a fear that their remarks would be interpreted as racism.


“In this day and age, no matter what argument one makes, even if it’s based on verifiable principle or the sincerest intention for the most noble purpose, it is often relegated to hate speech or something along those lines. Those who can’t debate the issue on its merits often resort to calling into question the motives of everyone who would advocate a particular position,” Franks told POLITICO.

Franks — who opposed reauthorizing the VRA in 2006 — said it was in their own best interests that most of the House GOP leadership didn’t raise its voice to support the Supreme Court decision.

( PHOTOS: 21 landmark SCOTUS rulings)

“The leadership probably made a wise decision — the courts have said what many of us have believed — but I don’t think we can be intimidated though by the unmitigated carelessness with which the other side casts aspersions of racism in our direction all the time when all we’re trying to do is truly speak up for the indigenous equality of every human being.”

It was just last year that Democrats labeled Republicans as racist who pushed voter ID changes — the controversial identification laws got a renewed push after Tuesday’s decision.

So perhaps the lack of cheerleading from House conservatives wasn’t surprising.

Only a handful of Republicans put out VRA statements. And those that did respond opted to talk about the historic changes to the South, instead of their positions on what should be done to update a formula to select which states require Justice Department pre-clearance before changing their voting or elections laws.

Republican House leadership led the way in staying mum. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) didn’t release a statement, while House Minority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) issued one saying he wanted to find a “responsible path forward that ensures that the sacred obligation of voting in this country remains protected.”

“We’re pleased the Supreme Court realizes it’s not 1965 anymore,” Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) said. “Democrats can’t demand states be punished for 1965 racism unless they agree to be punished for the fact they spearheaded it. They need to stop using fossilized, discredited rhetoric to try and rig elections in their favor.”

While conservative Justice Clarence Thomas called for getting rid of other pieces of the law, his sentiments weren’t echoed by ideologically-aligned lawmakers.

Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said he is waiting to see the long-term implications of the decision.

“The Voting Rights Act should apply to everyone or no one. I have promoted that legislatively, I think we need to apply all laws to every individual in the state equally,” Broun told POLITICO. “I really don’t believe that any state, municipality should be singled out in any federal law.”

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, the former solicitor general of Texas, advocated repealing the provision of the law struck by the court, but was far from spiking the football upon the court’s ruling.

“Today, the Supreme Court recognized the enormous progress made toward voting equality in the United States since the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965,” Cruz said in a statement. “The Court rightly decided that the statutory standards used decades ago to subject democratically-elected state legislatures to second-guessing by unelected federal bureaucrats no longer survives constitutional scrutiny.”

In states that have been subject to the rules, Republicans were more measured, mostly opting to praise the progress they see in their states.

“Mississippi has come a long way since 1964, and today has the highest number of African American elected officials in the country,” Mississippi Rep. Alan Nunnelee said. “This is strong evidence that rules designed to right the wrongs of previous generations have outlived their usefulness. Mississippians are focused on the future, growing our economy and creating opportunity for all people, regardless of race. Rather than live in the past, we will continue to move forward together and make Mississippi the best place in the world to call home, for all our people.”

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham even praised the stricken section.

“Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was a necessary tool to preserve voting rights, but due to the reform and advances in South Carolina election law, it is no longer necessary,” he said in a statement. “The Supreme Court noted this tremendous progress in South Carolina’s electoral system and it was the underpinning of their decision. I concur with the Court that our state has made tremendous progress.”

It wasn’t like Republicans fell silent entirely on Tuesday, somehow unable to send out press releases or respond to the day’s news. Widespread conservative criticism of President Barack Obama’s climate change speech bombarded reporters’ inboxes.

But Tuesday’s decision wasn’t the court ruling for which most conservatives are waiting. They’re saving their ammunition for expected rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act and gay marriage in California. For every silent response on the VRA on Tuesday, a gay marriage ruling on Wednesday — no matter what the outcome — will likely draw loud conservative responses.