Trichome

thcscience_admin
John Lewis Voting Rights Act
Great Seal of the United States
Long titleTo amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to revise the criteria for determining which States and political subdivisions are subject to section 4 of the Act, and for other purposes.
Enacted bythe 116th United States Congress
Sponsored byRep.Terri Sewell (D - AL)
Number of co-sponsorsHouse: 229
Senate: 47
Codification
Acts affectedVoting Rights Act of 1965
Legislative history
Rep. Terri Sewell and Rep. John Lewis in 2017 on the 4th anniversary of the Shelby County v. Holder decision

The John Lewis Voting Rights Act (also known as H.R.4 and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act) is proposed legislation introduced in the 116th Congress, named after late Georgia Representative and voting rights activist John Lewis. The legislation would restore and strengthen parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, certain portions of which were struck down by the United States Supreme Court in 2013 by Shelby County v. Holder.[1] Particularly, it would bring back the Voting Rights Act of 1965's requirement that certain states pre-clear certain changes to their voting laws with the federal government.[2]

Background

On June 25, 2013, the United States Supreme Court struck down a key provision in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (also known as the VRA) in a 5-4 decision in the case of Shelby County v. Holder. Specifically, the court struck down Section 4(b) of the VRA because of the formula it provided to determine which states were subjected to Section 5's federal pre-clearance requirement. Invalidating section 4(b) made it so that the federal pre-clearance requirement in Section 5 could not function until a new formula was created to replace the one that was struck down.[3][4]

Section 5 of the VRA states that eligible districts needed to seek approval from the federal government to implement changes to election laws and procedures, and Section 4(b) defines eligible districts as places that had voting tests in place as of November 1, 1964 and a turnout of less than 50% in the 1964 presidential election.[5] To receive clearance for new election procedures, the district would have to prove to either a 3 judge panel of a Washington, D.C. Court or the U.S. Attorney General that the new procedure would not negatively impact the right to vote on the basis of race or other minority status.[3] After the VRA was passed, it caused an increase in minority turnout for elections.[6]

The Supreme Court ruling caused many states to begin putting in new restrictive laws regarding the right to vote. Texas had announced it would put in place a strict voter I.D. law less than 24 hours after the Supreme Court decision was announced. Many other states that were previously not allowed to enact voter I.D. laws because of the VRA's federal pre-clearance requirement were able to do so.[7][8]

The Supreme Court decision has also led to an increase in voters being purged from voter rolls. Research from the Brenan Center suggests that some 2 million more people were purged from voter rolls between 2012 and 2016 than would have been if Section 5 of the VRA had been left in place.[9][10][11]

Notably, after the Supreme Court's 2013 decision, North Carolina was able to pass HB 589, a bill which put in a strict photo I.D. requirement, eliminated same-day voting registration, and shortened the early voting period, among other restrictive policies. One policy in particular banned early voting on Sundays, which North Carolina admitted in court was because counties that offered it were likely to have higher black populations. HB 589 was struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on the basis that the law was designed to "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision."[12][13][14][15][16][17]

In order to prevent more restrictive laws from being passed without federal pre-clearance, it became necessary for the U.S. Government to find a new formula for the Voting Rights Act that would satisfy the Shelby v. Holder decision, which is what the John Lewis Voting Rights Act was written to do.

Key Provisions

Broadening the Scope of the Courts

The First provision in the John Lewis Voting Rights Act broadens cases in which the U.S. Attorney General may send federal observers to jurisdictions the courts have deemed necessary, as well as allow for the courts to block all new election policy in a wider range of circumstances. It does so by amending applicable portions of the VRA that say "violations of the 14th and 15th Amendment" to also include "violations of this Act, or violations of any Federal law that prohibits discrimination in voting on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.”[18][19]

Restoring Federal Pre-Clearance

The next portion of the act reinstates the federal pre-clearance requirement for new election procedures in certain states by creating a new formula that satisfies the Shelby decision. The act's new formula would subject jurisdictions to the requirement that have had either:

  1. Any state that has had 15 or more voting rights violations within the last 25 years.
  2. Any state that has had 10 or more voting rights violations and at least 1 of those violations were committed by the state itself (as opposed to a jurisdiction within the state) within the last 25 years.
  3. Any subdivision in a state that has had 3 or more voting rights violations within the last 25 years would also be subject to the requirement. [18]

The act counts any of the following as a voting rights violation:

  1. A standing court ruling that has found denial or abridgement of the right to vote on account of race, color, or being in a "language minority group" in a way that violates the 14th or 15th amendments anywhere within the state or subdivision.
  2. A standing court decision that has found that an election law or procedure that was either enacted or would have been enacted would have abridged the right to vote on account of race, color, or being in a "language minority group" in a way that violates the act itself anywhere in a state or subdivision.
  3. A standing court decision that denied a declaratory request and prevented any new election policy or procedure from taking effect anywhere within the state or subdivision.
  4. The Attorney General has a standing objection that prevented any new election policy or procedure from taking effect anywhere within the state or subdivision.
  5. A settlement or consent decree that caused the state or subdivision to alter or abandon a voting policy, if the policy was challenged because it abridged the right to vote on the account of race, color, or "membership in a language minority" in a way that violates the act itself or the 14th or 15th amendments.

The act states that the Attorney General will make the determinations as early as can be practiced within a calendar year, and keep an updated list of all voting rights violations. The determination becomes effective when it is published in the Federal Register.

Legislative History

116th Congress

The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Terri Sewell on February 26, 2019. The bill had 229 co-sponsors. The bill passed the House of Representatives (228-187) as the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019 on December 6, 2019. All Democrats voted in favor of the legislation, and all but one Republican voted against it.

The bill was introduced in the Senate as S.4253 by Senator Patrick Leahy after John Lewis' death in July 2020. The Senate, which was controlled by Republicans, did not bring the bill up for a vote.

The bill was originally titled the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019, but was renamed the John Lewis Voting Rights Act one week after his death in 2020.[20] No Senator had introduced the bill into the Senate at the time of his death, so when it was introduced in the Senate, it took his name. The bill had already passed the House of Representatives under its former name before John Lewis' death. H.Con.Res.107 was agreed to in the House to change the short title of the bill to the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act.

117th Congress

The John Lewis Voting Rights Act has not yet been introduced in the 117th Congress. The original sponsor of the bill Rep. Terri Sewell stated that this was an intentional move. Sewell stated in a press briefing from the SPLC that the House would hold many hearings in order to be able to defend the bill from any court challenges. Sewell stated that she doesn't see herself introducing the legislation before May or June 2021, and that she doesn't believe the bill will be voted on until September 2021.[21]

The bill is expected to face a major hurdle of getting through a Republican filibuster in the Senate. It would required 60 votes to break up the filibuster and proceed to an actual vote on the bill. Several politicians have already stated that they wish to get rid of the filibuster entirely, many having indicated that the passage of the bill is a part of the reason why they want to.[21]

See also

References

  1. ^ Leahy, Patrick. "John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act" (PDF). U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Retrieved January 27, 2021.
  2. ^ Cava, Marco della (July 25, 2020). "Activists working in John Lewis' shadow warn about voter suppression ahead of November vote". USA TODAY. Retrieved January 27, 2021.
  3. ^ a b "Shelby County v. Holder". Oyez. Retrieved 2021-03-20.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ Liptak, Adam (2013-06-25). "Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-04-04.
  5. ^ "Section 4 Of The Voting Rights Act". www.justice.gov. 2015-08-06. Retrieved 2021-03-27.
  6. ^ Ang, Desmond (July 2019). "Do 40-Year-Old Facts Still Matter? Long-Run Effects of Federal Oversight under the Voting Rights Act". American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. 11 (3): 1–53. doi:10.1257/app.20170572. ISSN 1945-7782.
  7. ^ "Texas rushes ahead with voter ID law after supreme court decision". the Guardian. 2013-06-25. Retrieved 2021-04-04.
  8. ^ "The Effects of Shelby County v. Holder | Brennan Center for Justice". www.brennancenter.org. Retrieved 2021-03-20.
  9. ^ 211; 214. "Purges: A Growing Threat to the Right to Vote | Brennan Center for Justice". www.brennancenter.org. Retrieved 2021-03-20. {{cite web}}: |last= has numeric name (help)
  10. ^ Feder, Catalina; Miller, Michael G. (2020-11-01). "Voter Purges After Shelby: Part of Special Symposium on Election Sciences". American Politics Research. 48 (6): 687–692. doi:10.1177/1532673X20916426. ISSN 1532-673X.
  11. ^ News, A. B. C. "Dramatic increase in voters purged from voter rolls between 2014 and 2016: Report". ABC News. Retrieved 2021-03-30. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  12. ^ "Did North Carolina Admit to Targeting Black Voters with a 'Voter ID' Law?". Snopes.com. Retrieved 2021-03-20.
  13. ^ "United States v. North Carolina". The United States Department of Justice. Retrieved March 20, 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  14. ^ "U.S. Appeals Court Strikes Down North Carolina's Voter ID Law". NPR.org. Retrieved 2021-04-04.
  15. ^ Wines, Michael; Blinder, Alan (2016-07-29). "Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down North Carolina Voter ID Requirement". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-04-04.
  16. ^ Gerstein, Josh. "Court strikes down North Carolina voter ID law". POLITICO. Retrieved 2021-04-04.
  17. ^ Sullivan, Julia Harte, Andy (2016-07-29). "U.S. court strikes down North Carolina voter ID law". Reuters. Retrieved 2021-04-04.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  18. ^ a b Sewell, Terri A. (2020-07-27). "Text - H.R.4 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019". www.congress.gov. Retrieved 2021-03-25.
  19. ^ "[USC02] 52 USC 10302: Proceeding to enforce the right to vote". uscode.house.gov. Retrieved 2021-03-25.
  20. ^ "NAACP | John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of 2020". NAACP. 2020-07-31. Retrieved 2021-03-20.
  21. ^ a b Montellaro, Zach. "Where (and what) is the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act?". POLITICO. Retrieved 2021-04-04.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Lewis_Voting_Rights_Act&oldid=1016040219

Leave a Reply