The Independent View: Is There Bipartisan Support to Restore the Voting Rights Act?

On June 2015, the second anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision gutting the Voting Rights Act (VRA), Congressional Democrats introduced ambitious new legislation to restore the VRA.

Rep. Sensenbrenner, a Republican, worked mostly with Democrats on the Voting Rights Amendment Act, which was seen by Democrats as a fairly watered down measure to restore a preclearance regime for voting changes which were lost when the Supreme Court decided Shelby County v. Holder. The measure has gone nowhere, in part because it was thought that Rep. Eric Cantor would have pushed it, but he lost in the 2014 Republican primary. In response to lack of movement on this legislation, Democrats pushed the Voting Rights Advancement Act, which is stronger in terms of which states get covered and how. Sensenbrenner would not sign on to this one.

Last night, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska became the first Republican to cosponsor this bill, known as the HR.2687 - Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015. The bill compels states with a well-documented history of recent voting discrimination to clear future voting changes with the Federal government, requires Federal approval for voter ID laws, and outlaws new efforts to suppress the growing minority vote.

Murkowski explained her support for the legislation:

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 brought an end to the ugly Jim Crow period in American history. It is fundamentally important in our system of government that every American be given the opportunity to vote, regardless of who they are, where they live, and what their race or national origin may be.

It’s significant that she’s the first Republican to back the legislation, but it remains to be seen whether other Republicans in Congress will follow her lead. The VRA has always had strong bipartisan support, from its passage in 1965 to re-authorizations in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2006. Only recently has that changed.

The 2006 re-authorization passed 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House, but the current Congress has been unwilling to hold a hearing on legislation to restore the VRA or bring the new bill to the floor for a vote. An earlier, weaker bill to restore the VRA, the Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014, had 12 Republican sponsors in the House but none in the Senate, and did not move legislatively.

Her co-sponsorship, which includes 31 Democrats and one Independent, of the bill was influenced by her home state of Alaska, which since 1965 had to approve its voting changes with the Federal government because of discrimination against Alaska Natives. Said Murkowski: “The question of whether Alaska Natives have fair access to the voting booth has been litigated multiple times over the past several years. Impediments to voting in many of our rural communities because of distance and language need to be addressed, and my hope is that this legislation will resolve these issues. Every Alaskan deserves a meaningful chance to vote.”

The Alaska Natives who have been assisted by the VRA’s preclearence and language minority provisions lobbied Murkowski to support the bill.

“Senator Lisa Murkowski’s decision to co-sponsor the Voting Rights Advancement Act sends a clear signal to Congress that, as history shows, both parties can work together to restore the VRA,” said Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. “Alaska is one of the most diverse states in the nation and Alaskans know just how tenuous voting rights are without federal protection.”

Murkowski’s announcement is a welcome sign for voting-rights advocates, who were dismayed that during the first GOP Presidential debate on August 6, 2015, on the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, the topic of voting rights never came up from the moderators on Fox News or GOP Presidential candidates. The 2016 election will be the first Presidential election in 50 years where voters will not have the full protections of the VRA, which adds urgency for Congress to take action.

HR.2687 - Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015

This bill amends the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to allow a representative official of an Indian tribe, with authorization from the governing body of the tribe, to request one or more polling places to be located on tribal lands. The state or political subdivision shall provide each requested polling place at no expense to the Indian tribe if certain criteria are met.

A Federal court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce constitutional voting guarantees, but also certain violations of the Act as well as of any Federal prohibition against discrimination on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group, for an appropriate period to prevent commencement of new devices to deny or abridge the right to vote.

Requirements are revised for determining which states and political subdivisions are or are not covered by criteria for declaratory judgments that they have not used devices to deny or abridge the right to vote.

Any state (and all of its political subdivisions) shall be subject to such requirements for a ten-year period if:

- 15 or more voting rights violations occurred there during the previous 25 years
or
- 10 or more voting rights violations occurred during the previous 25 years, at least one of which was committed by the state itself (as opposed to a political subdivision within it).

Any specific political subdivision of a state shall also be subject to those requirements for a ten-year period if three or more voting rights violations occurred in it during the previous 25 calendar years.

A state or political subdivision that obtains a declaratory judgment that it has not used a device to deny or abridge the right to vote shall be exempt from such requirements unless new violations occur after the declaratory judgment was issued.

Each state and each political subdivision shall: (1) identify any newly enacted or adopted law, regulation, or policy that includes a voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or a voting-related standard, practice, or procedure (covered practice); and (2) ensure that no such covered practice is implemented unless or until the state or political subdivision complies with certain preclearance requirements.

This bill prescribes transparency requirements, including reasonable public notice, regarding any changes to: (1) voting prerequisites, standards, or procedures; (2) polling place resources; or (3) demographics and electoral districts.

Department of Justice authority to assign observers receives new extensions, including authority to assign observers to enforce bilingual election requirements.

Courts shall grant preliminary injunctive relief if a complainant raises a serious question whether the challenged covered practice violates the Act or the Constitution and, on balance, the hardship imposed upon the defendant by the relief will be less than the hardship on the plaintiff if the relief were not granted.