One Year After The Voting Rights Act Was Gutted

A year ago today, in a 5-to-4 ruling on Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court invalidated a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.  Jurisdictions with histories of racial discrimination subject to preclearance, or special review by the Justice Department or a federal court before enforcing any new voting laws, were now free to legislate as the wished.

Though the conservative Justices may disagree, voting discrimination is not largely a thing of the past.  Since 2010, nearly two-thirds of the states previously covered under Section 5 of the VRA, nine of fifteen, have passed new voting restrictions.

And between 2000 and June 2013, there were 148 Section 5 objections or other VRA violations recorded in 29 states, mostly concentrated in the South.



Meanwhile, Congress which voted to renew the Voting Rights Act in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2006, each time with increasingly larger margins, has yet to fix it this time around.

The Senate has introduced the Voting Rights Amendment Act.  In the House, it has languished.  House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte apparently thinks that a fix to the Supreme Court’s Shelby decision is not needed.

BOTTOM LINE: Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that we no longer need the Voting Rights Act.  Today offers a good opportunity to remind them, and the legislators dragging their feet in Congress, that we do.  States continue to pass laws designed to erect barriers to voting and suppress voter turnout, often targeted disproportionately at minority communities.  There may no longer be literacy tests or poll taxes, but the modern voting restrictions are just as insidious and we need strong federal protections to prevent states from enacting them.

The best way to handle this is during the census.  Every ten years during the census all states are put on preclearance.  Under the law, a jurisdiction can get out from under Sections 4/5 if it can show a ten-year record of non-discrimination, so they get 90 days to file their bailout 10 year record.  After the Justice Department review, the preclearance map will change.  This will then affect those states put on preclearance when they file their redistricting maps.

The key to this concept is the creation to an independent review board to modify the Section 5 rules to keep up with future voter suppression laws.

The current laws are:

1. The first element in the formula was that the state or political subdivision of the state maintained on November 1, 1964, a "test or device," restricting the opportunity to register and vote.

2. The second element of the formula would be satisfied if the Director of the Census determined that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age voted in the presidential election of November 1964.

3. Proof that any proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.

4. In 1970, Congress adopted an additional coverage formula, identical to the original formula except that it referenced November 1968 as the date to determine if there was a test or device, levels of voter registration, and electoral participation.

5. In 1975, the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act were broadened to address voting discrimination against members of "language minority groups."  An additional coverage formula was enacted, based on the presence of tests or devices and levels of voter registration and participation as of November 1972.  In addition, the 1965 definition of "test or device" was expanded to include the practice of providing election information, including ballots, only in English in states or political subdivisions where members of a single language minority constituted more than five percent of the citizens of voting age.

So we need to expand the formula to include new voter I.D. laws, reductions in early voting, and any other laws that state's can come up with in the future.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Clock Ticking on Fix to Voting Rights Act

H.R.3899 - Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014

Time is running out for Congress to fix the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court last year struck down major parts of the voting law, and a bipartisan fix has stalled in Congress.  The justices ruled that the formula used to designate which parts of the country must face heightened federal voting clearances was outdated and unconstitutional.

New legislation, H.R.3899 - Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014, introduced earlier this year, seeks to update the procedures.

Advocates believe the bill will pass both chambers of Congress if it is brought up to a vote, but that looks unlikely.  In the House, conservative Republicans, especially those from Southern states that are singled out for the extra scrutiny, are skeptical of the measure Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) hammered out with House and Senate Democrats.

If the bill were signed into law soon, it would be in effect for this November 2014 elections.

Some Democrats are unhappy with compromises struck to win GOP support related to voter identification.  Others on the left are concerned with the scope of the bill.

Previously, nine states with histories of voter discrimination were required to get federal approval before they changed their election procedures.  Under the new plan, only four states would be forced to seek such approval.

Still, most Democrats would back the bill if it comes up for a vote.  A number of senior Democrats, including members of the Congressional Black Caucus, are on board.

The House legislation has 22 co-sponsors, including Reps. John Lewis (D-Ga.), Sean Duffy (R-Wis.), Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), Fred Upton (R-Mich.), John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Scott Peters (D-Calif.).

The big question is whether House GOP leadership is willing to bring the bill to a floor vote if a large number of Republicans plan to defect.

“The process is similar to immigration,” a Republican House leadership aide said.  “There’s no real discussion on scheduling floor time at this point, we’re working with members to address concerns.”

In a major concession to House Republicans, Democrats agreed to add exemptions for the state voter identification laws the Justice Department has been zealously fighting, a move that frustrated some civil rights groups, including the NAACP.

The Obama administration hasn’t thrown its support behind the bill.  Republicans say the DOJ’s silence could actually help the bill’s prospects because some conservatives would oppose anything Holder supported.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the Wisconsin Republican, is a former chairman of the Judiciary panel, has been in close contact with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who has expressed desire to fix the law.  But Cantor has stopped short of endorsing the bill.  House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburn (S.C.) are also heavily involved in the talks.

“The fact is, the leadership has been overwhelmed with other issues.  I have every confidence that the House and Senate will pass this bill before the year is out,” Sensenbrenner said.  He said the legislation may succeed or fail depending on what Cantor and GOP leadership decides to do.

“He controls the floor; everybody knows that,” he said.

Cantor’s office has not laid out a timeline to bring the bill to a vote.

“We still want to try to get something on it, but there are objections on both sides, and we’re talking to folks to see what can be worked out,” Cantor deputy chief of staff Doug Heye said.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), whose panel has jurisdiction on the bill, remains tight-lipped about timing as well.  His office refused to say when, or if, the committee will mark it up.  “I fully support protecting the voting rights of all Americans.  As Congress determines whether additional steps are needed to protect those rights, I will carefully consider legislative proposals addressing the issue,” he said.

While Republicans say specific issues are being hammered out, they refused to comment on what legislative sticking points exist, a sign GOP members are resistant to the bill conceptually and not just to details of it.

They’ll have to do a lot of work to win over conservative lawmakers who have yet to review the bill and are dubious about how pressing the issue is.  Many also don’t trust Attorney General Eric Holder, with some seeing the law as a political cudgel for Democrats to turn out their base.

Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Texas) voted for the law’s re-authorization in 2006, but says he won’t again.  “Back at home, my constituency has shifted significantly and does not believe Texas should be singled out.  They believe elections are being done properly.  They believe redistricting is being done properly.  They don’t have the same concerns they did eight or nine years ago when I voted for it,” he said.

With a tight legislative calendar in an election year, supporters of the bill admit that time is an obstacle.

“We’re certainly in a cautious period where every day counts and it’s important that we take advantage of the calendar days to get things done and move the bill forward,” said Nicole Austin-Hillery, the Brennan Center for Justice’s Washington director, who has been meeting with Republican members to try to win support for the bill.

While Democrats are remaining publicly optimistic, they’re getting impatient.

“Time is of the essence for Congress to take action to restore critical protections for minorities, seniors, and students, and the bipartisan Voting Rights Amendment Act serves as an important first step toward achieving that goal,” Hoyer said.

“I’ve had positive conversations with Majority Leader Cantor and remain hopeful that House Republicans will schedule consideration of this important bill soon so that we can provide reassurance to all Americans that their right to vote will be protected this November and for years to come.”

My solution would take a different track.

I would take this out of the hands of Congress by making it part of the Census.

1. Every ten years, all states are set to pre-clearance.
2. Each state has 90 days to submit their prior ten years voting statistics.
3. Those states that fail would stay on pre-clearance.
4. The states that stay on pre-clearance would be able to opt-out in future years if they can show they corrected the issues that put them on pre-clearance.
5. Citizens can always submit opt-in requests if they think a state or local districts added local or state laws that would put them back on pre-clearance.
6. The pre-cleance rules must be flexible to adjust over the years to new attempts to reduce the voting rights of citizens.

What do you think of my ideas?










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us