Upcoming editorials: Metro crash and the voting rights act
Here are previews of editorials we're working on for Wednesday's paper. Please let us know what you think. The best comments will be printed alongside the editorials in the print edition.
--It will take a long investigation to determine exactly what went wrong in Monday’s rush-hour Metro crash in Washington, an accident that has killed at least nine people. But the few details that have emerged so far raise some disturbing questions. The Metro is equipped with automatic signaling systems to prevent cars from coming so close to one another – did they malfunction in this case? Was the train being automatically controlled by the Metro’s central computer system, as is customary at that time of day? Did Metro’s decision not to strengthen its older cars, as the National Transportation Safety Board had advised, contribute in any way to the fatalities? Despite the horrific nature of Monday’s accident, commuting by rail remains significantly safer than doing so by car. But given Metro’s long and contentious history with the NTSB over safety issues, the public needs reassurance – and soon – that the protections built into the Washington area subway system are effective and sufficient.
--Supreme Court addressed the most highly anticipated decision of this term by avoiding the crux of the issue. By a vote of 8-1, the court declined to overturn key provisions of the Voting Rights Act but instead ruled that local jurisdictions can be exempted from federal voting rights supervision on a case-by-case basis. But the court did signal significant questions about the constitutionality of the act, which could provide the basis for future challenges. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion for the majority that the nation today is significantly different from the one that adopted the act 40 years ago. That’s certainly true in a broad sense – it would be hard to look at the results of last year’s election and conclude otherwise. But that doesn’t mean that supervision isn’t still necessary in certain areas. Enough questions have arisen in the last few years about the drawing of voting district lines, the purging of voter rolls and other matters to justify the continued constitutionality of this fundamental protection.
The court also ruled Monday in an important case related to the provision of special education. By a 6-3 majority, justices ruled that a federal law allows parents to be reimbursed for sending students who require special education to private school, even if they never received those services in public school. The decision is important in that it prevents school districts from effectively blocking students from getting the kind of education they need because of the costs involved. But it does leave questions about whether this provision of the law is one that is take advantage of equitably by parents across the socio-economic spectrum. Are public schools reimbursing savvy parents who could afford the tuition on their own while others are left in schools that are failing their kids?
Comments
My kids who studied at the University of Maryland at College Park took the red line frequently. This accident therefore hits home and chills me. I see the large highway reconstruction projects in Maryland. We are a nation on wheels, eating, shaving and texting in our cars. After grandstanding the government handed the auto companies billions for an undeserved rescue. But it won't invest adequately in the public transportation sector that sorely needs a shot in its arm. Government should stop expanding the highways and expand the railways instead. We need safer and speedier interstate and intrastate rail options. Europeans are mystified by America's stubborn rejection of mass transit, especially in the face of global warming, terrorist threats from oil producing countries and the exorbitant price of gas. This accident is no reason to reject mass transit; in fact it is all the more reason to embrace and invest in it so it can get out of the doldrums where the scheming automakers dumped it years back.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 23, 2009 1:31 PM
While the Voting Rights Act was passed to protect Blacks from disenfranchisement, since its inception other groups have joined the disenfranchised. Those who don't speak English well, prisoners, felons who have put their prison days behind them, those who don't possess a driver's license and the homeless continue to shafted by the voting process. The Voting Rights Act will never outlive its usefulness. In fact we should reform and expand it. There should be a uniform federal law regarding the right of felons to vote. Cumbersome voter ID laws should be scrapped by the Congress. And the ever rising homeless population should not be left out in the cold for want of a proper ID and address. None of this will happen because the Voting Rights Act is now the casualty of partisan politics. Disenfranchisement bothers either political party only when its own members are deprived of the vote.
Disillusioned voter
Posted by: Anonymous | June 23, 2009 4:03 PM
Anonymous: very valid points.
In another comment about voter registration I slammed the notion of spoon feeding the process to the unregistered (which I still agree with) but for those who desire and will actively seek to register on their own it is a whole other matter.
As with most aspects of our interaction with the government, the best thing it can do is just get the heck out of our way. Don't do us any favors... just get out of the way.
Posted by: MrRational | June 23, 2009 4:51 PM
National Safety Transportation Board, central computers, and human operators all work to make Metro travel as safe as possible. However, no means of transportation is without its dangers. The tragedy of Monday afternoon is horrific; my own child rides the Metro and MARC trains daily. However, overall, she is safe traveling that way; certainly safer than if she drove to DC everyday. Safety needs to be the number one priority for all of us when traveling. Sometimes however, accidents do occur. If there is finger pointing and blame (as I'm sure there will be) then you can be sure we will know about it. In the meantime, I pray for those who lost loved ones and those who were injured. In the long run, I for one, would love a better mass transit system instead of a lesser one.
Posted by: Cindy Lewis | June 23, 2009 5:17 PM
It's not just a matter of private school reimbursement - everything about special ed requires a savvy parent with the resources to navigate the system and seek legal aid when you hit an impasse. The special ed students of Baltimore have received such poor services for so long that even the most modest improvements (primarily better book keeping and just delivering the services that are in the student's plan) are hailed as monumental achievements. No one looks at the realities of the massive number of non-public placements that happen in the city. Or how many students are being segregated in more restrictive settings than they would be put into in other school systems.
Systemic solutions that bring improved services to all special needs students is the right answer. Until that happens the court's ruling at least makes it possible for some parents to save their kids from the tragedy of a poor and inappropriate education.
Posted by: a parent | June 23, 2009 7:52 PM
Those of us who ride Metro regularly are painfully aware that the safety systems are falling apart. The key issue is not really deteriorating equipment, but debilitating politics: split between three "states," nobody takes ownership of Metro. The system has no source of dedicated funding. The federal government, the District's major "industry", provides no significant tax base. And Maryland isn't interested in picking up DC's slack or compensating for Richmond's lack of interest.
Metro's a victim of the same political problem as all the citizens of DC when voting comes up: Maryland doesn't want them and DC can't afford them.
Posted by: CM, Rockville MD | June 23, 2009 10:54 PM