Against the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act

Contact Your Elected Officials

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  1. In the latest attempt to amend the Voting Rights Act, Senator Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) recently introduced the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
  2. The real aim is to reverse the 2013 SCOTUS decision in Shelby County v. Holder and to give the political allies of Democrats control over state election rules.
  3. The Leahy bill is unjustified and unneeded, and would be a dangerous violation of state sovereign

In the latest attempt to amend the Voting Rights Act, Senator Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) recently introduced the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. It sounds great until you realize it will be used to achieve partisan political gains rather than prevent racial discrimination.

The real aim is to reverse the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder and to give the political allies of Democratsโ€”the radicals who inhabit the career ranks of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department (where I used to work), and advocacy groups such as the ACLUโ€”control over state election rules.

It is a dangerous bill that violates basic principles of federalism. It also illustrates what could happen if Demoยญcrats gain control of Congress and the White House, to the detriment of secure, fair elections administered by the states.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) is probably one of the most successful pieces of legislation ever passed by Congress. It helped eliminate the widespread discriminatory practices that were preventing African Americans from registering and voting in the 1960s. There are no longer any such barriers or practices that block black Americans (or anyone else) from registering and voting, despite the mythical claims of โ€œvoter suppressionโ€ promulgated by the Left. In the 2012 presidential election, for example, blacks voted at a higher rate than whites nationally (66.2 percent vs. 64.1 percent), according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The main provision of the VRA is Section 2, which prohibits any voting โ€œstandard, practice or procedure . . . which results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or colorโ€ or membership in certain language-minority groups. It is permanent, applies nationwide, and can be enforced by the Justice Department as well as private parties. It was also completely unaffected by the Shelby County decision and remains in full force today.

Shelby County wasโ€”and the Leahy bill isโ€”about another provision in the VRA: Section 5. Section 5 was originally an emergency five-year provision that required โ€œcoveredโ€ jurisdictions to get preapproval of any changes in their voting laws and practices (even simple changes such as the location of a polling place) from the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal court in Washington, D.C., a process known as โ€œpreclearance.โ€ Section 5 was renewed for an additional five years in 1970; for an additional seven years in 1975; for an additional 25 years in 1982; and finally for an additional 25 years in 2006. At the time of the Shelby County decision in 2013, Section 5 covered nine states and parts of six others.

Shelby County dealt specifically with Section 4 of the VRA, which determined the states and smaller jurisdictions that were subject to Section 5 preclearance. The coverage formula was based on a jurisdictionโ€™s having voter registration and turnout by all voters of less than 50 percent in the 1964, 1968, or 1972 elections. The formula was designed to capture states engaging in blatant discrimination by taking into account black votersโ€™ low registration and turnout caused by those discriminatory practices.

Congress did not update the coverage formula in 2006. Why not? Perhaps because, if it had, all of the covered jurisdictionsโ€”mostly (but not exclusively) southern statesโ€”would have dropped out of the Section 5 preclearance requirement owing to the vast improvement of voting conditions since 1972. By 2006, the registration and turnout rates of black voters were on par with or even exceeded those of white voters in many of the covered states. So states such as Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi remained under the onerous preclearance requirement based on information that was almost 40 years out of date.

But the Left loved Section 5 because of the central role played in its enforcement by its friends and political allies in the career ranks of the Civil Rights Division, many of whom were hired from the ACLU, the NAACP, and other groups allied with the Democratic Party. They could easily refuse to preclear any voting change opposed by the Leftโ€”such as voter-ID lawsโ€”without having to go to court with a Section 2 lawsuit, where they would have to prove that a law was discriminatory.

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 5 was unconstitutional because it had not been updated in 2006 to reflect modern conditions. The Suยญpreme Court said, โ€œHistory did not end in 1965, . . . yet the coverage formula that Congress reauthorized in 2006 . . . ke[pt] the focus on decades-old data relevant to decades-old problems, rather than current data reflecting current needs.โ€Thereโ€™s another reason Section 5 preclearance was needed. Prior to 1965, states were actively evading federal-court decrees ordering them to stop discriminatory practices. And the only way a state could overcome an objection by the Justice Department was to file a lawsuit in the District of Columbiaโ€”no other federal courtโ€”because Congress did not trust federal judges in the southern states to enforce the VRA.

According to the Supreme Court in Shelby County, because Section 5 blatantly invades state sovereignty over elections, Congress would, in order to justify its continuation, have to show that there were still โ€œblatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees,โ€ โ€œvoting discrimination on a pervasive scale,โ€ or โ€œflagrantโ€ or โ€œrampantโ€ voting discrimination. None of that was present in 2013 when the case was before the Supreme Court, and there is no evidence of such behavior today, either.

Yet the Leahy bill would reimpose the Section 5 preclearance based on a new coverage formula even more onerous than the prior one and keep the D.C.-court requirement as if it were still 1965. States would be covered in their entirety for ten years if the attorney general determined that ten โ€œvoting-rights violationsโ€ occurred during a 25-year period, even if the state was responsible for only one of them and the rest were committed by city or county governments over which the state had no authority.

Voting-rights violations would inยญclude objections made by the attorney general, which donโ€™t require any finding of intentional discrimination. A claimed discriminatory effect based purely on a statistical disparity would count as a violation. Such โ€œdisparate impactโ€ liability has been misused in many areas besides voting. The Justice Department has a troubling history under Section 5 of making unwarranted objections and being castigated by courts for its behavior, as evidenced by a 2012 federal-court decision overturning the DOJโ€™s frivolous objection to South Carolinaโ€™s voter-ID law.

Consent decrees and lawsuit settlements would also count as voting-rights violations. This would provide an incentive for the Justice Department and advocacy groups to file as many lawsuits as possible against states, even if they had little or no merit, in order to obtain quick settlements that could then be used to trigger preclearance coverage.Certain voting changes would automatically trigger preclearance requirements for jurisdictions. These would include any change in political boundaries during redistricting that resulted in reducing the population of a particular racial-minority group by three or more percentage points. They would also inยญclude any change requiring โ€œproof of identity to voteโ€ or โ€œproof of identity to register to vote,โ€ as well as any โ€œchange that reduces, consolidates, or relocates voting locationsโ€ in jurisdictions with a certain minimum percentage of minority voters. This is an obvious attempt to outlaw state voter-ID requirements.

In addition, the Leahy bill would make it almost impossible for any state or local jurisdiction to defend itself against a lawsuit filed by the Justice Department or an advocacy group such as the ACLU. It would create a unique and novel legal standard for injunctive relief. Courts would be directed to grant an injunction under the VRA if the plaintiff had โ€œraised a serious questionโ€โ€”as opposed to providing actual evidenceโ€”about whether the challenged voting change violated the VRA or the Constiยญtution. This is like requiring a defendant in a criminal case to prove his innocence because the government simply claims he violated the law.

Since the Shelby decision, there has been a false clamor about a supposed loss of voting rights. That is a myth created by the Left and abetted by the media. That myth has been perpetuated as a way of opposing reforms intended to improve the integrity of the election process, such as voter-identification requirements and the cleanup of stateยญwide voter-registration lists, and to justify the reimposition of federal control over state election procedures by reviving the Section 5 preclearance requirement.

There is no voter-suppression epidemic. Americans today have an easier time registering and voting than at any time in our nationโ€™s history. On the increasingly rare occasions when discrimination actually occurs, Section 2 of the VRA provides a more than adequate remedy. The Leahy bill is unjustified and unneeded, and would be a dangerous violation of state sovereignty.

This piece originally appeared in National Review on October 15, 2020

By Hans A. von Spakovsky

About Hans von Spakovsky

Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow, Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issuesโ€”including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration.

Read Original Article on Heritage.org

The Thinking Conservative
The Thinking Conservativehttps://www.thethinkingconservative.com/
The goal of THE THINKING CONSERVATIVE is to help us educate ourselves on conservative topics of importance to our freedom and our pursuit of happiness. We do this by sharing conservative opinions on all kinds of subjects, from all types of people, and all kinds of media, in a way that will challenge our perceptions and help us to make educated choices.

AI: A Double-Edged Sword?

AI produces innovation, revolutionizing industries from education to entertainment, yet AI tools also cause a gradual decline in human cognitive skills.

Why is the Epstein Victim List Longer than the Client List?

Bondi said her responsibility is to protect identities of underage girls sexually abused by Epstein, but a good number of victims have come forward.

Stirring the gravy

โ€œYou might be a Pennsylvanian-Italian if you claim Italian ancestry and participated in San Marziale festivities at Holy Angels Church in Kulpmont, PA.

Flood of Lies

The tragedy still unfolding after the historic Texas floods should be cause for unity, but Democrats weaponize the catastrophe for themselves.

Now Lawyers Are Looking for the Epstein List, Too!

So it turns out that when FBI Director Kash...

A Year After Trump Rally Shooting, Town Still Seeks Healing, Answers

A western PA community has rallied around the family of Corey Comperatore who was fatally shot when a gunman opened fire at a Trump rally.

5 States Discussing Plans to Build Prisons Like โ€˜Alligator Alcatrazโ€™: Noem

Homeland Security Sec Kristi Noem said five Republican-led states were discussing plans to build detention sites similar to Floridaโ€™s โ€œAlligator Alcatraz.โ€

Wyoming Opens Dual Mine: Coal for Power, Rare Earths for Everything Else

Brook Mine will be the first new coal mine to open in Wyoming in 50 years and first critical mineral and rare earth mine to open in the US in 70 years.

Los Angeles Mayor Signs Order Reaffirming Sanctuary City Policy, Proposes Cash Aid to Illegal Immigrants

LA Mayor Karen Bass has issued an executive directive reaffirming the cityโ€™s self-proclaimed sanctuary status in response to ongoing ICE operations.

EU Wonโ€™t Retaliate to Trumpโ€™s 30 Percent Tariff, Countermeasures on Hold Until August

EC President Ursula von der Leyen said EU will extend suspension on countermeasures to U.S. tariffs until next month while trade negotiations continue.

Trump Announces 30 Percent Tariff on EU, Mexico

President Donald Trump has announced a 30 percent tariff on imports from the European Union and Mexico, to go into effect on Aug. 1, 2025.

Tariff Windfall Drives Surprise $27 Billion US Budget Surplus in June

New data from Treasury Dept show that surging tariff revenues in June helped U.S. government post an unexpected budget surplus of $27 billion.

State Department Says Reorganization Plan to Move Ahead Quickly After Supreme Court Ruling

State Dept to reorganize plans following Supreme Court's allowing Trump admin to proceed with layoffs of fed workers and overhaul of federal agencies.
spot_img

Related Articles