Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), who shed his own blood fighting for the passage if the Voting Rights Act in 1965, said he almost cried when he heard Justice Antonin Scalia’s comment Tuesday that the landmark civil rights law is a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Scalia made the comment during oral argument on the constitutionality of a key section of the law, suggesting that the law would always be passed by lawmakers too afraid to vote against it unless the court halted it. The Nation’s Ari Berman tweets:

Civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis told me he almost cried when Scalia called Voting Rights Act a ‘perpetuation of racial entitlement’

— Ari Berman (@AriBerman) February 28, 2013

And Lewis explained his disbelief to Al Sharpton on MSNBC:

It was unreal, unbelievable, almost shocking for a member of the court to use that language. I can see politicians and even members of Congress. But it was just appalling to me. It is an affront to all of what the civil rights movement stood for, what people died for, what people bled for, and those of us who marched across that bridge 48 years ago, we didn’t march for some racial entitlement. We wanted to open up the political process, and let all of the people come in, and it didn’t matter whether they were black or white, Latino, Asian-American or Native American.

The right to vote is precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent instrument that we have in a democratic society. And if the courts come to that point where they declare this section, section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, unconstitutional, it would be a dagger in the heart of the democratic process.

WATCH IT:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Lewis was one among many court-watchers and commentators who were shocked and appalled by Scalia’s comment. And not just because he trivialized the civil rights movement. His suggestion that the court must intervene to overturn legislation with too much support is also anathema to his own rigid textualist approach to reading the Constitution. As Ian Millhiser recently pointed out, even if Scalia’s perverse racial entitlements theory had some merit, it is nowhere to be found in the text of the Constitution.

At the DNC Thursday night, civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) recounted his fight for voting rights, the progress made, and the continued threat to ensuring the right to vote for all Americans. Lewis, who still bears scars from beatings in his struggle for racial equality told the DNC audience “we have come too far together to ever turn back.” Yet he warned that Republican-led voter suppression laws are taking America back in that direction:

Brothers and sisters, do you want to go back? Or do you want to keep America moving forward? My dear friends, your vote is precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful, nonviolent tool we have to create a more perfect union. Not too long ago, people stood in unmovable lines. They had to pass a so-called literacy test, pay a poll tax. On one occasion, a man was asked to count the number of bubbles in a bar of soap. On another occasion, one was asked to count the jelly beans in a jar—all to keep them from casting their ballots.

Today it is unbelievable that there are Republican officials still trying to stop some people from voting. They are changing the rules, cutting polling hours and imposing requirements intended to suppress the vote. The Republican leader in the Pennsylvania House even bragged that his state’s new voter ID law is “gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state.” That’s not right. That’s not fair. That’s not just.

Watch it:

Courts recently struck down a series of voter suppression tactics spearheaded by Republicans in Florida, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin. Republicans defend many of these tactics as necessary to fight “voter fraud,” but the kinds of voter fraud addressed by the GOP’s favorite tactics are less common than people getting struck by lightning.

Catalist, a company that provides voting list data to progressive organizations, is among the closest observers of changes to voting rolls around the country. In analysis shared with ThinkProgress, the company observes that since November 2008, certain groups of living residents have been far more likely to be purged from the voting roles than others.

Their data suggests that beyond the wide variation in purge rates across states, there is significant variation within states:

In many states, certain parts of the state electorate, both geographically and demographically, are much more likely to be dropped off of the voter rolls than others. More specifically, some general trends that we see are focused on:
a. Urbanity – cities are getting disproportionately purged
b. Race – minorities are getting disproportionately purged
c. Marital Status – unmarried people are getting disproportionately purged
d. Age – younger (< 40 years old) and older (> 65 years old) voters are purged more frequently than middle-aged voters
e. County effects – there are big differences across county lines, pointing to sharp discontinuities based on arbitrary political boundaries that do not correspond with inherent behavioral differences

Catalist notes that more than 2.7 million living people who voted in 2008 have since been purged from the voter rolls. Among those, African American voters are “1.5 times more likely to be purged than Caucasian voters, nationally.”

These findings are consistent with what we have seen in Florida with Gov. Rick Scott’s (R) error-riddled purge attempts. A Miami Herald analysis showed that “Hispanic, Democratic and independent-minded voters [were] the most likely to be targeted” by that effort.

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), who led the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee’s efforts in the 1960s to ensure voting rights for all Americans, said last month that these purges of eligible voters from the rolls make him “want to just cry, after people gave a little blood, after some people were beaten, shot and murdered trying to help people become registered voters.” He lamented that “states throughout the nation come along with tactics to make it hard, to make it difficult for people to participate. We should be making it easy and simple and open up the political process and let all of the people come in.”

Instead, Scott and others are pushing efforts that may make it impossible for these millions of U.S. citizens to exercise their right to vote. These numbers show that regardless of whether the intent of these purges is discriminatory, their effect clearly is.

Four Members of Congress, Reps. John Lewis, (D-GA), Michael Michaud, (D-ME), Hank Johnson, (D-GA), and Keith Ellison, (D-MN) filed a lawsuit yesterday claiming that the filibuster is unconstitutional and must be blocked by federal courts. According to their complaint, the Constitution specifically lists only a handful of instances where a supermajority is required for Congress to act, and this list precludes such a requirement from being applied in other cases:

In the end, the Constitution proscribed six instances in which Congress would require more than a majority vote: impeaching the president, expelling members, overriding a presidential veto of a bill or order, ratifying treaties and amending the Constitution. . . . “The Framers were aware of the established rule of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and that by adopting these six exceptions to the principle of majority rule, they were excluding other exceptions.” By contrast, in the Bill of Rights, the Founders were careful to state that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

As a textual matter, this is a strong constitutional argument. Yet it is likely not to get off the ground because of something known as the “political question doctrine.” As the Supreme Court explained in Baker v. Carr, federal courts generally should avoid deciding questions where there is a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department” — meaning that the Constitution’s text suggests that an issue should be decided by the executive or legislative branch and not by the judiciary. Because the Constitution provides that “[e]ach House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,” the courts are likely — although not entirely certain — to dismiss this case because the Constitution reserves questions of Senate procedure to the Senate itself.

In other words, this lawsuit is likely to highlight why it is so important for the Senate itself to reform the filibuster to prevent the minority from shutting down America’s ability to effectively govern itself. And the Senate will have an opportunity to do so in about seven months. Once every two years, when the newly elected senators are sworn in, a brief window opens up when the Senate can reform its rules with only 51 votes.

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), the Georgia lawmaker who once described the Civil War as the “Great War of Yankee Aggression,” offered an amendment to a spending bill at 10pm last night that would have stripped the Department of Justice of its ability to enforce Second Five of the Voting Rights Act. Section Five requires certain areas with a history of race discrimination to “pre-clear” its voting policies with DOJ or a federal court in order to ensure that those laws do not target minority voters, and it was the basis for a few recent DOJ decisions to block voter ID laws.

Fortunately, it soon became clear that Broun’s attack on voting rights lacked support after Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), a hero of the Civil Rights Movement who still bears visible scars from when he was beaten by Alabama state troopers for marching in favor of voting rights, reminded the gathered lawmakers why we have a Voting Rights Act:

It is hard, and difficult, and almost unbelievable that any Member — but especially a Member from the state of Georgia — would come and offer such amendment. There’s a long history in our country, especially in the 11 states that are old Confederacy — from Virginia to Texas — of discrimination based on race, on color. Maybe some of us need to study a little contemporary history dealing with the question of voting rights.

Just think, before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it was almost impossible for many people in the state of Georgia, in the state of Alabama, in Virginia, in Texas, to register to vote, to participate in the democratic process. The state of Mississippi, for example, had a black voting age population of more than 450,000, and only about 16,000 were registered to vote. One county in Alabama, the country was more than 80 percent [black], and not a single registered African-American voter. People had to pass a so-called literacy test. . . . one man was asked to count the number of bubbles in a bar of soap. Another man was asked to count the number of jelly beans in a jar.

It’s shameful that you would come here tonight and say to the Department of Justice that you must not use one penny, one cent, one dime, one dollar, to carry out the mandate of Section Five of the Voting Rights Act. . . . . People died for the right to vote. Friends of mine. Colleagues of mine. I speak out against this amendment. It doesn’t have a place.

Watch it:

Broun withdrew the amendment after Reps. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Dan Lungren (R-CA) also chastised him for trying to sneak it into a late-night vote, rather than using the normal committee hearing process.

Republican lawmakers across the country have been waging an successful campaign to restrict the right to vote. States are cracking down on non-profit organizations’ registration drives, reducing early voting periods, and repealing laws allowing citizens to register to vote at the polls on Election day, leaving as many as 5 million voters facing disenfranchisement in the 2012 election. Perhaps the most radical restriction is the GOP’s push for voter ID laws that require citizens to obtain and present state-approved photo identification to vote. These laws disproportionately (and perhaps purposefully) affect minorities, seniors, and low-income people who typically make up the Democratic base. At least six states have passed such restrictions.

Incensed by the regressive trend, civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) put the Republican efforts into historical context. “In 2011, we should be ashamed,” he said Tuesday night on the House floor. “We should be making it easy, simple, and convenient to vote. Instead we’re creating barriers and making it more difficult.” Noting that “we cannot separate the dangerous trend across this nation from our history,” Lewis warned of our “step backward towards another dark time in our history.” Singling out the voter ID laws as a particular “threat,” Lewis reiterated, “Make no mistake, these voter ID laws are a poll tax. I know what I saw during the 60s“:

LEWIS: Each and every voter ID law is a real threat to voting rights in America. Make no mistake, these voter ID laws are a poll tax. I know what I saw during the 60s. I saw poll tax. And you cannot deny that these ID laws are another form of a poll tax. In an economy where people are already struggling to pay for the most basic necessities, there are too many citizens that would be unable to afford the fees and transportation costs involved in getting government issued photo Ids. Despite all the voter ID laws across the country, there’s no convincing evidence — no evidence at all — that voter fraud is a problem in our election problem.

The right to vote is precious — almost sacred — and one of the most important blessings of our democracy. Today, we must stand up and fight. The history of the right to vote in America is a history of conflict, of struggle, for that right. Many people died trying to protect that right. I was beaten and jailed because I stood up for it. For millions like me, the struggle for the right to vote is not mere history, it is experience.

Watch it:

Since he was 21 years old, Lewis has been a seminal leader in the non-violent struggle to achieve voter and racial equality in this country. He “endured brutal beatings by angry mobs and suffered a fractured skull,” and was nearly beaten to death to achieve a basic freedom that is once again being infringed upon today.

Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH), who has been leading the House effort against voter ID restrictions, reflected on Lewis’ words: “Congressman Lewis has risked his life to ensure that every American has the right to vote. His bravery should stand as an inspiration to us all to continue the fight against Republican efforts to suppress voting. His perspective on this issue is invaluable.”

Next Wednesday, Georgia death row inmate Troy Davis is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection. Davis’ case has drawn wide protests because seven out of the nine witnesses that testified against him have recanted their stories, and there is “no physical or scientific evidence” tying him to the death of the Savannah police officer he was convicted of killing.

Now, civil rights hero Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) has joined with 50 members of Congress to write an open letter to the Georgia State Board of Pardon & Paroles asking it to grant clemency to Troy Davis because of the “cloud of doubt” that exists over his case:

It is clear now that the doubts plaguing Davis’s case can never be adequately addressed; the lack of scientific or relevant physical evidence has made it impossible to resolve with any degree of certainty. Over the last four years, the inability of our courts to resolve these uncertainties has shaken public confidence in our judicial system, and an execution under such a cloud of doubt would do nothing but further undermine that confidence. Public faith in the integrity of justice in Georgia is at stake and it is for this reason that we urge you to grant clemency to Troy Davis.

The 51 members of Congress join a growing chorus of voices calling for Davis to not be executed under such circumstances. Individuals and organizations ranging from former president Jimmy Carter to the Vatican to former Republican Rep. Bob Barr (GA) have made similar pleas.

The NAACP and Amnesty International are both running campaigns to stop the execution, and Troy Davis’s sister started a petition on Change.org calling for the execution to be halted that has gained more than 200,000 signatures in five days. Amnesty International is organizing a global day of solidarity with Troy Davis today with scores of rallies planned across the United States and internationally. Find a rally here.