New Voting Rights Act Rewrite Would Revive Federal Oversight for Only 4 States

Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas would be required to earn DOJ approval of any changes to election law under the new proposal.

At the polls: Voting process under scrutiny.
National Journal
Jan. 16, 2014, 9:11 a.m.

Sev­en months after the Su­preme Court in­val­id­ated key sec­tions of the Vot­ing Rights Act for re­ly­ing on out­dated stand­ards of ra­cial dis­crim­in­a­tion, a bi­par­tis­an group of law­makers in­tro­duced a bill Thursday re­as­sert­ing fed­er­al over­sight of vot­ing in some states.

The bill, sponsored by Demo­crats Sen. Patrick Leahy and Rep. John Con­yers and by Re­pub­lic­an Rep. Jim Sensen­bren­ner, would amend Sec­tion 4 of the Vot­ing Rights Act to re­quire states to un­der­go pre­clear­ance changes if five or more vot­ing-rights vi­ol­a­tions have oc­curred with­in the last 15 years in the state, or a loc­al­ity with­in the state, with at least one vi­ol­a­tion be­ing com­mit­ted by the state it­self.

The Vot­ing Rights Amend­ment Act of 2014 would re­vive the Justice De­part­ment’s over­sight of elec­tion activ­it­ies in cer­tain states and would de­term­ine which states need to earn ap­prov­al from the de­part­ment for any change to elec­tion law, a pro­cess known as pre­clear­ance.

The for­mula pre­scribed un­der the bill would be less strict than the one used in the past, prompt­ing ire and de­bate among law­makers and civil-rights groups be­fore it was even of­fi­cially in­tro­duced. A con­gres­sion­al aide work­ing with the bill told Na­tion­al Journ­al that only four states would cur­rently be placed un­der pre­clear­ance in the pro­posed VRA re­write: Geor­gia, Louisi­ana, Mis­sis­sippi, and Texas. All or part of 15 states were covered un­der the first for­mula. Nine states were covered in full, along with parts of six oth­er states.

The re­in­stated pre­clear­ance re­quire­ment could be par­tic­u­larly un­pop­u­lar in Texas, where a strict voter-ID law was blocked by the Justice De­part­ment in March 2012 but went in­to ef­fect after the June court rul­ing.

The bill would also re­quire states tagged for pre­clear­ance to re­main un­der the Justice De­part­ment’s over­sight for 10 years.

The new for­mula in­cludes sev­er­al cri­ter­ia de­term­in­ing wheth­er a state falls back un­der Justice De­part­ment over­sight. If a court has de­term­ined that a state denied any cit­izen’s right to vote based on race or lan­guage, or if a court has found that a state im­posed a pre­requis­ite to vot­ing in a way that abridged the vot­ing rights of a cer­tain race, that state would fall un­der the pre­clear­ance re­quire­ment.

Loc­al jur­is­dic­tions could also fall un­der the pre­clear­ance re­quire­ment without their en­tire states be­ing in­cluded based on “per­sist­ent, ex­tremely low minor­ity turnout” rates span­ning the past 15 years.

The pre­clear­ance re­quire­ment would also ap­ply to any state in which At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Eric Hold­er has filed an ob­jec­tion to a vot­ing pre­requis­ite, un­less the ob­jec­tion was based on a state’s voter-ID law.

Already, the bill is cre­at­ing di­vides in Con­gress. Mem­bers of the Con­gres­sion­al Black Caucus have so far in­dic­ated their sup­port, but the His­pan­ic Caucus and some out­side civil-rights groups be­lieve the bill should be broadened to in­clude a “known prac­tices” for­mula, which would link fed­er­al over­sight not only to geo­graph­ic­al areas and past vi­ol­a­tions, but to spe­cif­ic prac­tices wherever they oc­cur.

The bill’s spon­sors have clout on this is­sue. Sensen­bren­ner, a Wis­con­sin Re­pub­lic­an, helped lead the reau­thor­iz­a­tion of the VRA in 2006. Con­yers, a Michigan Demo­crat, has been vo­cal on vot­ing rights for dec­ades, and Leahy, a Ver­mont Demo­crat, chairs the Sen­ate Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee.

“Through months of ne­go­ti­ation and com­prom­ise, Con­gress­men Sensen­bren­ner and Con­yers and I have agreed on a bi­par­tis­an and bicam­er­al pro­pos­al to re­store the pro­tec­tions of the Vot­ing Rights Act that were weakened by the Su­preme Court’s de­cision last sum­mer,” Leahy said in a state­ment. “Our sole fo­cus throughout this en­tire pro­cess was to en­sure that no Amer­ic­an would be denied his or her con­sti­tu­tion­al right to vote be­cause of dis­crim­in­a­tion on the basis of race or col­or.”

After the Vot­ing Rights Act passed in 1965, all or part of 15 states with a his­tory of dis­crim­in­a­tion had to pass all elec­tion changes through the Justice De­part­ment for pre­clear­ance. Voter-ID laws and even re­lo­ca­tion of polling places had to be ap­proved by the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment be­fore tak­ing ef­fect statewide in Alabama, Alaska, Ari­zona, Geor­gia, Louisi­ana, Mis­sis­sippi, South Car­o­lina, Texas, and Vir­gin­ia, and in parts of Cali­for­nia, Flor­ida, Michigan, New York, North Car­o­lina, and South Dakota.

But the Su­preme Court ruled in June that the for­mula de­term­in­ing which states had to go through the pre­clear­ance pro­cess — out­lined in Sec­tion 4 of the law — was un­con­sti­tu­tion­al be­cause it was based on cri­ter­ia from the 1960s, a com­bin­a­tion of which states used now-il­leg­al lit­er­acy tests and which had low voter re­gis­tra­tion and turnout among minor­it­ies. The Justice De­part­ment could still have over­sight of cer­tain states, the Court ruled, but only if Con­gress passes a law with an up­dated for­mula to de­term­ine which states need that over­sight.

Des­pite the op­por­tun­ity to re­in­state the pre­clear­ance re­quire­ment, civil-rights ad­voc­ates panned the Shelby County v. Hold­er rul­ing. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., said re­mov­ing the pro­vi­sion was “a dag­ger in­to the heart of the Vot­ing Rights Act.”

The high court em­phas­ized how strict the pre­clear­ance re­quire­ment was, say­ing it should only be placed on states that clearly need fed­er­al over­sight.

“While one state waits months or years and ex­pends funds to im­ple­ment a val­idly en­acted law, its neigh­bor can typ­ic­ally put the same law in­to ef­fect im­me­di­ately, through the nor­mal le­gis­lat­ive pro­cess,” said the court opin­ion, writ­ten by Chief Justice John Roberts.

What We're Following See More »
AVOIDS SHUTDOWN WITH A FEW HOURS TO SPARE
Trump Signs Border Deal
1 weeks ago
THE LATEST

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

Source:
REDIRECTS $8 BILLION
Trump Declares National Emergency
1 weeks ago
THE DETAILS

"President Donald Trump on Friday declared a state of emergency on the southern border and immediately direct $8 billion to construct or repair as many as 234 miles of a border barrier. The move — which is sure to invite vigorous legal challenges from activists and government officials — comes after Trump failed to get the $5.7 billion he was seeking from lawmakers. Instead, Trump agreed to sign a deal that included just $1.375 for border security."

Source:
COULD SOW DIVISION AMONG REPUBLICANS
House Will Condemn Emergency Declaration
1 weeks ago
THE DETAILS

"House Democrats are gearing up to pass a joint resolution disapproving of President Trump’s emergency declaration to build his U.S.-Mexico border wall, a move that will force Senate Republicans to vote on a contentious issue that divides their party. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Thursday evening in an interview with The Washington Post that the House would take up the resolution in the coming days or weeks. The measure is expected to easily clear the Democratic-led House, and because it would be privileged, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would be forced to put the resolution to a vote that he could lose."

Source:
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DRUG FORFEITURE FUND
Where Will the Emergency Money Come From?
1 weeks ago
THE DETAILS

"ABC News has learned the president plans to announce on Friday his intention to spend about $8 billion on the border wall with a mix of spending from Congressional appropriations approved Thursday night, executive action and an emergency declaration. A senior White House official familiar with the plan told ABC News that $1.375 billion would come from the spending bill Congress passed Thursday; $600 million would come from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund; $2.5 billion would come from the Pentagon's drug interdiction program; and through an emergency declaration: $3.5 billion from the Pentagon's military construction budget."

Source:
TRUMP SAYS HE WILL SIGN
House Passes Funding Deal
1 weeks ago
THE DETAILS

"The House passed a massive border and budget bill that would avert a shutdown and keep the government funded through the end of September. The Senate passed the measure earlier Thursday. The bill provides $1.375 billion for fences, far short of the $5.7 billion President Trump had demanded to fund steel walls. But the president says he will sign the legislation, and instead seek to fund his border wall by declaring a national emergency."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login