John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act 2024

Published On: July 30th, 2024

In 1965 Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, which protected a citizen’s right to vote. Among other provisions, it stated that if a state attempted thru their laws to suppress the vote of certain groups or made voting difficult through general incompetence of those overseeing the voting process, such a state would fall under a preclearance process for any changes that were made going forward to improve the voting experience.

Alaska Involvement in the Voting Rights Act

The State of Alaska was subjected to preclearance requirements under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 due to its history of discriminatory practices against Native Alaskan voters. Specifically, when the Voting Rights Act was amended in 1975 to include protections for language minorities, Alaska was added to the list of jurisdictions required to obtain federal preclearance for changes to voting laws or practices. This amendment addressed issues where jurisdictions with significant populations of language minorities, such as Native Americans and Alaska Natives, had histories of voting discrimination.

The preclearance requirement meant that Alaska had to get approval from the U.S. Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before making any changes to its voting procedures to ensure these changes were not discriminatory.

Thus, today, Alaska has some of the strongest voting rights protections of any of the US states.

US Supreme Court Ruling 2013

The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 came from the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder. The ruling specifically invalidated Section 4(b) of the Act, which contained the coverage formula determining which jurisdictions were subject to pre-clearance requirements under Section 5.

Reasons for the Decision

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, argued that the coverage formula in Section 4(b) was based on data from the 1960s and 1970s. The Court held that the conditions that justified the formula had changed dramatically since the time it was first enacted, rendering it obsolete and unconstitutional.

The Court emphasized the principle of “equal sovereignty” among states. It argued that the federal government should not subject some states to more stringent oversight than others based on outdated data and practices. This principle implies that states have equal authority and autonomy, and the pre-clearance requirement imposed on certain states violated this principle.

The decision noted that Congress had failed to update the coverage formula to reflect current conditions. While acknowledging the success of the Voting Rights Act in increasing voter registration and participation among minorities, the Court felt that any reauthorization of the Act should reflect contemporary data and not rely on historical injustices alone.

The ruling highlighted concerns about federalism and the balance of power between state and federal governments. The pre-clearance requirement was seen as an extraordinary measure that infringed on state sovereignty and was no longer justified by current conditions.

Dissenting Opinion

The dissent, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, argued that:

Discrimination in voting still existed and that the pre-clearance requirement was necessary to prevent backsliding.
The success of the Voting Rights Act demonstrated its necessity, and invalidating the coverage formula ignored ongoing issues of voter discrimination.
The decision undermined the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act, which had been reauthorized by Congress multiple times with strong bipartisan support.

Aftermath

The decision in Shelby County v. Holder significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act, as it effectively removed the requirement for certain jurisdictions to obtain federal approval before changing voting laws. This has led to numerous changes in voting laws and procedures in various states, some of which have been criticized as efforts to suppress minority votes.

Sources

Oyez: Shelby County v. Holder

SCOTUSblog: Shelby County v. Holder

The Atlantic: The Supreme Court Killed the Voting Rights Act

2019 Voting Rights Advancement Act

In 2019, the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019 (H.R. 4) was passed by the House of Representatives. Introduced by Representative Terri Sewell (D-AL) on February 26, 2019, the bill aimed to restore and update the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, particularly those that were weakened by the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision. However, it did not pass the Senate.

2024 Senate Bill 4 – John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Acts

The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2024 aims to restore and strengthen provisions of the original Voting Rights Act of 1965, addressing recent challenges to voting rights. The Act reintroduces federal oversight for changes to voting laws in jurisdictions with histories of voting rights violations, requiring them to obtain preclearance before enacting changes to ensure they do not discriminate based on race, color, or language minority status.

Key aspects of the Act include:

Criteria for Coverage: The Act stipulates that states with 15 or more voting rights violations in the past 25 years, or those with 10 or more violations including one by the state itself, will be subject to preclearance. Additionally, subdivisions with three or more violations in the same period will also be covered.

Expanded Coverage: The Act expands the types of voting changes requiring preclearance, particularly in areas with significant racial or language minority populations.

Retrogression: It addresses “retrogression,” ensuring that any new voting qualification or standard that diminishes minority voters’ ability to participate or elect preferred candidates will be scrutinized and potentially blocked.

Legal Protections: The Act provides stronger legal tools to challenge discriminatory voting laws, removing the need to prove discriminatory intent if the impact of a law is discriminatory.

Reasons for the opposition of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act

The Republicans in the House and Senate oppose the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act for several reasons:

Federal Overreach: Republicans argue that the Act represents a federal takeover of state election laws. They believe it gives too much power to unelected officials in the Department of Justice (DOJ) to oversee and potentially block changes in state voting laws, which they see as undermining state sovereignty and local control over elections.

Invalidation of State Laws: The Act would invalidate many voting restrictions enacted by Republican-led states since the 2020 elections, such as those in Georgia and Texas. GOP lawmakers argue that these state laws are necessary to ensure election integrity and prevent voter fraud.

Historical Context: Critics within the GOP contend that the historical context used to determine which states require federal preclearance is outdated. They argue that the conditions which necessitated such measures during the civil rights era no longer exist and that the preclearance requirement is a punitive measure against certain states.

Partisan Politics: The debate over the Act has become highly partisan. Republicans claim that the bill is a political tool for Democrats to gain an electoral advantage by increasing federal oversight over elections, which they argue could be used to strike down state laws they believe are legitimate and necessary for election security.

Overall, the opposition is rooted in concerns about federalism, the validity and necessity of current state voting laws, and the potential for partisan misuse of the Act’s provisions.

Reasons for the support of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (JLVRAA)

Those who say that the JLVRAA is not needed overlook the following current events. Since the Shelby vs Holder decision, states have tried to discourage voting by:

Strict voter id requirements that may involve expense for the voter
Polling place consolidations or changes without proper voter notification
Polling place consolidations resulting in long lines of waiting voters
Attempts to require documentary proof of citizenship, a difficult requirement for some elderly rural folks who may not have birth certificates.
Restricted voter registration drives, making the act of registration more difficult
Reduction of early voting times, making it difficult for working moms and dads to vote.
Increased residency requirements for registration.
Aggressive voter purges
Inadequate number of polling places and/or equipment in minority communities.