Sahil Kapur

Sahil Kapur is TPM's senior congressional reporter and Supreme Court correspondent. His articles have been published in the Huffington Post, The Guardian and The New Republic. Email him at sahil@talkingpointsmemo.com and follow him on Twitter at @sahilkapur.

Articles by Sahil

After House Republicans introduced their legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, one GOP congressman said he wants leadership to do what it takes to pass the domestic violence bill.

"I am prepared to vote for the Senate bill that's passed," Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) told TPM in an interview Friday. "At the very least I'd like to move on the House bill. The whole hangup is over the LGBT, U Visas and the tribal matters. I don't want to let these provisions impede the underlying bill."

Dent, who recently participated in a letter with 16 other House Republicans calling on GOP leadership to take up a bipartisan VAWA, said the conference has not yet had an in-depth discussion on VAWA but he expects there to be one next week. House Republican leaders have no intention of bringing up the Senate bill for a vote, but intend to fast-track their version to the floor next week.

"Republicans are for passing the Violence Against Women Act, too," Dent said. "The issues are the peripheral matters, not the substance of the bill."

President Obama told "The Black Eagle" radio show on Thursday that even if the Voting Rights Act loses in the Supreme Court, people won't lose their right to vote.

"I know in the past some folks have worried that if the Supreme Court strikes down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, they're going to lose their right to vote," he said, according to The Hill. "That's not the case. ... People will still have the same rights not to be discriminated against when it comes to voting, you just won't have this mechanism, this tool, that allows you to kind of stay ahead of certain practices."

Read More →

On March 15, 1965, a week after Alabama state troopers brutally attacked civil rights protesters in Selma, President Lyndon Johnson delivered a stirring speech to a joint session of Congress introducing a bill to end voter discrimination against blacks.

The law that it gave birth to, the Voting Rights Act, now hangs in the balance, with oral arguments next week before the Supreme Court. Five conservative justices are skeptical that a centerpiece of the nearly-half-century-old law is constitutional.

"I speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of democracy," Johnson said that night, nearly half a century ago. "A century has passed, more than a hundred years, since equality was promised. And yet the Negro is not equal. A century has passed since the day of promise. And the promise is unkept. The time of justice has now come."

Days later, he submitted legislation to Congress aimed at taking stringent, unprecedented steps to end voter discrimination and disenfranchisement. As Congress took it up, opponents rebelled.

Read More →

President Obama said Thursday on Al Sharpton's radio show that the Republicans' overarching priority is to protect affluent Americans from tax increases.

"Their basic view is that nothing is important enough to raise taxes on wealthy individuals or corporations," Obama said in a portion of the interview that was played on MSNBC. "And they would prefer to see these kinds of cuts that could slow down our recovery over closing tax loopholes."

Supporters of the Voting Rights Act are painting a bleak picture of what it would mean for the rights of minority voters if the Supreme Court were to strike down the landmark 1965 law's Section 5, which requires state and local governments with a history of disenfranchising minority voters (i.e. mostly in the south) to receive preclearance from the Justice Department or federal court before changing laws that affect voting.

"Broadly speaking, if we didn't have Section 5 we would find that minority voters are in many places around the covered jurisdictions will have their ability to equally participate in the political process severely compromised," Julie Fernandes, a civil rights activist and former deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, said this week. "We'll see a lot more of the diluting tactics that we used to have."

Read More →

Although he now blames President Obama for the draconian spending cuts set to take effect March 1, just days before it passed House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) characterized the so-called sequester to Republicans as a way to hold the president accountable.

A PowerPoint presentation that Boehner sent to his conference on July 31, 2011, reported by TPM at the time and resurfaced by The Daily Beast's John Avlon, cast the sequester and the rest of the deal in favorable terms. The seven-slide PowerPoint was titled "Two-Step Approach To Hold President Obama Accountable" and the final slide made the case for sequestration.

Read More →

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) responded Wednesday to a letter by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta about the adverse consequences of the sequester by blaming President Obama and Senate Democrats.

“I agree with the Secretary of Defense that the impact of the president’s sequester would be devastating to our military.  That’s why the House has acted twice to replace the president’s sequester with common-sense cuts and reforms that protect our national security, and it’s why I’ve been calling on the president for more than a year to press his Democratic-controlled Senate to do the same.  Despite dire warnings from his own Secretary of Defense for more than a year that the sequester would ‘hollow out’ our military, the president has yet to put forward a specific plan that can pass his Democratic-controlled Senate, and has exerted no pressure on the Democratic leadership of the Senate to actually pass legislation to replace the sequester he proposed.  As the commander-in-chief, President Obama is ultimately responsible for our military readiness, so it’s fair to ask: what is he doing to stop his sequester that would ‘hollow out’ our Armed Forces?”

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta wrote a letter dated Wednesday to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) warning that if sequestration goes into effect, it will cause furloughs and "do real harm" to national security.

"If faced with sequestration, the Defense Department will be forced to forego critical objectives," Panetta wrote, calling the cuts "destructive" and saying "the Department will have to consider furloughs across the entire defense civilian workforce in order to meet the fiscal target mandated by sequestration."

He warned that as a result, "the workload on each employee and the requirements for each position that will result from such furloughs will be increased beyond what can reasonably be achieved."

"The furloughs contemplated by this notice will do real harm to our national security," Panetta wrote.

When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments next week about the constitutionality of a key element of the Voting Rights Act, the Obama administration and other proponents of the law will be facing five very skeptical justices.

Shelby County v. Holder is the latest in a string of landmark cases that will shape the legacy of the Roberts Court. Proponents of the law are extremely nervous, and privately acknowledge that they face a steep uphill climb in winning over a majority of the justices.

Read More →