An Open Letter to Rev. Jesse Jackson
Dear Reverend Jackson.
You don’t know me. I’m not an African-American, and I am not a registered Democrat.
I wanted you to know that up front, because I don’t want you to think I am writing because I have some political ax to grind. I’m not.
I actually marched a time or two some years back. But, I have a sincere and honest disagreement with your statements today, which were quoted in part;
Even if this court rules against counting our vote, it will simply create a civil rights explosion,…
People will not surrender to this tyranny…
This people will not stand by and accept this with surrender, we can afford to lose an election -- you win some, you lose some. You can't afford to lose your franchise…
The same forces that were against the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ... seek to disenfranchise us in 2000 and do not want to renew the Voting Rights Act in the year 2007…
Reverend Jackson, with all due respect, I believe you either have a misunderstanding or your intentions are less than honorable. I assume it is the former.
You have confused the word “vote” with the word “ballot.”
The definition of the word “vote” in the State of Florida is what is being argued back and forth right now in the courts. I think we can agree that the definition in question is at the very least nebulous if not totally subjective. (I’m talking about Florida, here…the thing that the courts are arguing about.)
The word “vote” has not been defined properly in the case of ballots that for whatever reason were cast and not recorded.
Your protest, as I understand it, is a protest of voters who were somehow thwarted in their attempt to legally cast their ballots. I, like any sane person that lives in this country, respect your right to vote. I respect everyone’s right to vote, and I sincerely believe that stopping someone from casting their vote is not only illegal, it is immoral.
But a vote and a ballot are two different things, Reverend Jackson…two very different things altogether.
I don’t know why you would publicly make inflammatory statements about a “civil rights explosion” at the same time that the United States Supreme Court is discussing the election. To be frank, your posture in doing so before they have made a ruling on the matter casts a shadow of hypocrisy on your argument about “tyranny”.
If I personally support a stance that the law as interpreted by the highest court in the United States should be followed, but that court makes some ruling that you personally disagree with, then, by your inference, I am a supporter of “tyranny” against you and those you represent, I am supporting your “disenfranchisement”, and I am against the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Nothing could be further from the truth, sir. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I strongly object to your inference. I trust you will reconsider branding me your enemy based on the fact that I will trust the Supreme Court of the United States to settle this conflict in the wisest way possible, and before that court has made a ruling.
You have a right to vote. A ballot is not always a vote.
Thank you.
asia.dailynews.yahoo.com |
