John Lewis Voting Rights Act

Last updated

John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2023
Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg
Long titleAn Act to 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.
Sponsored by Terri Sewell (D-AL)
Number of co-sponsors215
Citations
Public law 52 USC Ch. 103
Codification
Acts affected Voting Rights Act of 1965
Legislative history

The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2023 (H.R. 14) is proposed voting rights legislation named after civil rights activist John Lewis. The bill would restore and strengthen parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, most notably its requirement for states and jurisdictions with a history of voting rights violations to seek federal approval before enacting certain changes to their voting laws. [1] The bill was written in response to the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, which struck down the system that was used to determine which jurisdictions were subject to that requirement. [2] [3]

Contents

On August 24, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill by a margin of 219–212. [4] On November 3, 2021, the bill failed to pass the Senate after falling short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture. [5] A second attempt to pass it on January 19, 2022, as part of a combined bill with the Freedom to Vote Act, also failed. Again falling short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture, the bill then failed to pass a vote to be exempted from Senate filibuster rules. [6]

Representatives Terri Sewell and John Lewis in 2017 on the fourth anniversary of the Shelby County v. Holder decision 4th Anniversary of the Shelby decision rally 03.jpg
Representatives Terri Sewell and John Lewis in 2017 on the fourth anniversary of the Shelby County v. Holder decision

Background

Shelby County v. Holder

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (also known as the VRA) stated that some jurisdictions needed to seek approval from the federal government to implement certain changes to their election laws. Section 4(b) had the formula for determining which jurisdictions were subjected to this requirement. It applied the requirement to any jurisdiction that had voting tests in place on November 1, 1964 and a turnout of less than 50% in the 1964 presidential election. [7] To receive approval for new election laws, the jurisdiction would have to prove to either a three judge panel of a Washington, D.C. court or the US Attorney General that the new procedure would not negatively impact the right to vote on the basis of race or other minority status. [8]

On June 25, 2013, the United States Supreme Court struck down section 4(b) by a 5–4 decision in the case of Shelby County v. Holder . The court found Section 4(b) of the VRA unconstitutional because it was outdated. Invalidating section 4(b) left the federal pre-clearance requirement in Section 5 without a formula to determine what jurisdictions were subject to it. This had the effect of rendering the pre-clearance requirement inoperant until a new formula replaced the one that was struck down. [8] [9]

Voting laws enacted after the Shelby decision

The Supreme Court ruling allowed 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. [a] [10] 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. [11]

The Supreme Court decision has also led to an increase in voters being purged from voter rolls. [12] Research from the Brennan 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. [13] [14]

Notably, North Carolina passed HB 589, [b] 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. [15] One policy in particular limited early voting on Sundays, which North Carolina admitted in court was because counties that offered it were likely to have higher black populations. [16] [17] 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". [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

For the US Government to be able to prevent more restrictive laws from being passed without federal pre-clearance, it would need to find a new formula for the Voting Rights Act that would satisfy the Shelby County v. Holder decision, which is what the John Lewis Voting Rights Act was written to do. [23]

Voting laws enacted after the 2020 election

After the 2020 presidential election and efforts to overturn it, many Republican-controlled state legislatures began passing bills that made it harder to vote without proper planning and identification, which opponents of the bills alleged would disproportionately deter racial minorities from voting. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

Key provisions

Updates to Section 2

The first provision in the John Lewis Voting Rights Act strengthens voter protections in Section 2 in response to Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee .

Broadening the scope of the courts

The next portion 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." [30] [31]

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 Shelby County v. Holder . The act's new formula would subject jurisdictions that meet these criteria to the requirement:

  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. [30]

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 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. [30]

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. [30]

Representatives Terri Sewell, John Lewis, and Judy Chu speak on the bill in 2017
Terri Sewell speaks at a Restore the Vote press conference in 2015 Terri Sewell speaking at a Restore the Vote press conference in 2015.jpg
Terri Sewell speaks at a Restore the Vote press conference in 2015
Comparison of states requiring pre-clearance at the time of the Shelby County decision with those which would require it under the John Lewis Voting Rights Act
StateCovered by VRA of 1965 [32] Covered by John Lewis VRA [c] [33]
Alabama As a wholeAs a whole
Alaska As a wholeNot covered
Arizona As a wholeNot covered
California Certain countiesAs a whole
Florida Certain countiesAs a whole
Georgia As a wholeAs a whole
Louisiana As a wholeAs a whole
Michigan Certain townshipsNot covered
Mississippi As a wholeAs a whole
New York Certain countiesAs a whole
North Carolina Certain countiesAs a whole
South Dakota Certain countiesNot covered
South Carolina As a wholeAs a whole
Texas As a wholeAs a whole
Virginia As a wholeAs a whole

Expanding covered practices

The bill would also expand the changes to election procedure that would require federal pre-clearance, occasionally with unique standards for being subject to the requirement (i.e. the percentage of the population that is considered a racial minority). [30]

Election seats and jurisdiction boundary changes

Any state or subdivision that has either:

  1. Two or more racial or language minorities that each represent 20% or more of the voting-age population.
  2. A single language minority that represents 20% or more of the voting-age population on Native-American lands that are located entirely or partially in the state or subdivision.

Must get federal pre-clearance before implementing any of the following policies:

  1. Changes to the number of seats that are elected at-large in the state or subdivision.
  2. Conversion of one or more seats from a single-member district to one or more at-large districts or to multi-member districts.
  3. Any change (or series of changes) to the boundaries of a jurisdiction that reduces by 3 or more percentage points the proportion of the voting-age population of any one racial or language minority group. [30]

Redistricting

Any change to the boundaries of electoral districts in a state or subdivision would need federal pre-clearance if they meet either of the criteria:

  1. The state or subdivision had a population increase of 10,000 or more in any racial or language minority since the previous census.
  2. Any racial or language minority sees an increase of at least 20% of the size of the voting age population since the previous census. [30]

Voter I.D. requirements

Protestor uses John Lewis's signature catchphrase at a protest in favor of voting rights Rally for Voting Rights (67) (51169514222).jpg
Protestor uses John Lewis's signature catchphrase at a protest in favor of voting rights

Any change to voter I.D. requirements that is stricter than the one described in the Help America Vote Act, or any change that will make voter I.D. requirements more stringent than on the day the John Lewis Voting Rights Act is enacted, would be required to seek federal pre-clearance before being implemented. [30]

Multi-lingual voting materials

Any alteration that reduces the amount of multi-lingual voting materials or changes the way in which multi-lingual voting materials are given out to people would need to seek federal pre-clearance, unless a similar alteration occurs in the English voting materials for an election. [30]

Voting locations and voting opportunities

Any change that would reduce, relocate, or consolidate voting locations (including early, absentee, and election day voting locations), or reduce the number of days or hours of early voting on Sundays would be subjected to the pre-clearance requirement if they meet either of these criteria:

  1. Census data finds that two or more racial or language minority groups each make up 20% of the voting age population in the jurisdiction.
  2. Census data finds that 20% of the voting-age population on a Native-Americans land is in one language minority group. [30]

Voter roll maintenance

Any change to election policy that adds a new reason to remove a person from a voter roll or puts in place a new process to remove a person from the voter roll must seek federal pre-clearance (if it is a jurisdiction within the state):

  1. Two racial or language minorities make up 20% of the population.
  2. 20% of the population is a single language minority on Native-American lands.

And if the state itself is imposing such a change then it must seek pre-clearance if:

  1. The population of the state contains 2 minorities that make up 20% of the population.
  2. A subdivision in the state meets the same requirements, but the subdivision itself would be the only place affected. [30]

Pre-clearance for states already covered

For the states that already met the requirements for federal pre-clearance under the new formula provided, the bill states that they will also have to seek approval for any new procedure under the new covered practices. It allows states that are covered to seek approval from a three-judge panel or the Attorney General, and allows any appeals of either of these to go to the Supreme Court. [30]

Enforcement

The bill allows both the Attorney General or any ordinary person to sue a state if they believe that they are avoiding federal pre-clearance. The act says that a three-judge panel will determine if a policy needs federal pre-clearance, and until the court has made that determination, the policy is blocked from going into effect. [30]

Reactions and statements

External videos
Nuvola apps kaboodle.svg President Joe Biden advises Congress to pass John Lewis Voting Rights Act

Support

The bill has been supported by Senators Raphael Warnock (who used to his first floor speech to advocate for its passage), [34] [35] and Joe Manchin. [d] [36] [37] President Joe Biden advocated for the passage of the bill in his first address to Congress. [38] [39] Senator Jeff Merkley said that the best way to honor the legacy of John Lewis was to pass the bill, and tweeted that passing the bill was his "top priority". [40] [41] Senator Blumenthal cited several recent restrictive voting laws as being part of the reason for his support. [42] Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf also called on the Senate to pass the bill, and to consider "suspending" the filibuster if it was necessary for it to pass. [43]

In July 2021, over 150 companies signed a letter supporting the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, including Amazon, Apple, Best Buy, PepsiCo, IKEA, Nestlé USA, Macy's, and Target, among many others. [44] [45]

Opposition

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has expressed opposition to passage of the bill, and said that its passage is "unnecessary" because there is currently "no threat to the voting rights law". [46] [47] Republicans have argued that the act is an attempt to federalize control of state elections to the Democrats' advantage. [48] [49]

Legislative history

Summary

CongressShort titleBill number(s)Date introducedSponsor(s)# of cosponsorsLatest status
114th Congress Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015 H.R. 2867 June 24, 2015 Terri Sewell

(D-AL)

179Died in Committee.
115th Congress Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2017 H.R. 2978 June 21, 2017 Terri Sewell

(D-AL)

193Died in Committee.
116th Congress John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of 2020 H.R. 4 February 26, 2019 Terri Sewell

(D-AL)

229Passed the House.
John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act S. 4263 July 22, 2020 Patrick Leahy

(D-VT)

47Died in Committee.
117th Congress John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 H.R. 4 August 17, 2021 Terri Sewell

(D-AL)

223Passed the House.
S. 4 October 5, 2021 Patrick Leahy

(D-VT)

48Cloture not invoked.
Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act H.R. 5746 October 27, 2021 Don Beyer

(D-VA)

5Cloture not invoked.
118th Congress John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2023 H.R. 14 September 19, 2023 Terri Sewell

(D-AL)

215Referred to committees of Jurisdiction
S.4 February 29, 2024 Richard Durbin

(D-IL)

49Referred to committees of Jurisdiction

116th Congress

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaks at the funeral service for John Lewis Nancy Pelosi speaking at the funeral of John Lewis 01.jpg
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaks at the funeral service for John Lewis

The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Terri Sewell on February 26, 2019, as H.R. 4. Originally planned to have been included in the For the People Act, Democratic leadership decided to keep it separate because of anticipated court challenges. [23] The bill had 229 co-sponsors. [50] 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.4263 by Senator Patrick Leahy after John Lewis' death in July 2020. The bill received 47 co-sponsors. All Democrats in the Senate had co-sponsored the bill. [e] The only Republican to co-sponsor the bill was Lisa Murkowski. 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. [51] 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's 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 act was introduced in the House on August 17, 2021 by Terri Sewell. [52] It received 223 co-sponsors. [53] The bill passed the House of Representatives on August 24, 2021 (219–212). All Democrats voted in favor of the legislation, and all Republicans voted against it. The bill later failed in the Senate after it was unable to receive enough votes to invoke cloture. [5] A second attempt, where Democrats embedded the act into a combined bill with the Freedom to Vote Act, also failed. Democrats then attempted to change the rules to exempt the bill from the filibuster, but Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema opposed the change. [54] [6]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ "Strict", meaning that a voter would have to present (any) government-issued ID at a polling place before being allowed to cast a ballot.
  2. ↑ North Carolina was not covered as a whole by the VRA. However, North Carolina would be covered as a whole under the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.
  3. ↑ John Lewis VRA coverage predictions are for “states as a whole” only, meaning this prediction does not consider subdivisions in a state that may be required to comply.
  4. ↑ Every Senate Democrat had also shown support for the bill in 2020 by having co-sponsored it, but these are some of the most outspoken advocates for passage.
  5. ↑ This assessment counts the bill's original sponsor, Patrick Leahy.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Voting Rights Act of 1965</span> US federal legislation that prohibits racial discrimination in voting

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the civil rights movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections. Designed to enforce the voting rights protected by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act sought to secure the right to vote for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of federal civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country. The National Archives and Records Administration stated: "The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the most significant statutory change in the relationship between the federal and state governments in the area of voting since the Reconstruction period following the Civil War".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil Rights Act of 1964</span> Landmark U.S. civil rights and labor law

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark civil rights and labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools and public accommodations, and employment discrimination. The act "remains one of the most significant legislative achievements in American history".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Voting rights in the United States</span>

Voting rights, specifically enfranchisement and disenfranchisement of different groups, have been a moral and political issue throughout United States history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Voter Registration Act of 1993</span> United States federal law

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), also known as the Motor Voter Act, is a United States federal law signed into law by President Bill Clinton on May 20, 1993, that came into effect on January 1, 1995. The law was enacted under the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution and advances voting rights in the United States by requiring state governments to offer simplified voter registration processes for any eligible person who applies for or renews a driver's license or applies for public assistance, and requiring the United States Postal Service to mail election materials of a state as if the state is a nonprofit. The law requires states to register applicants that use a federal voter registration form, and prohibits states from removing registered voters from the voter rolls unless certain criteria are met.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil Rights Act of 1960</span> United States law

The Civil Rights Act of 1960 is a United States federal law that established federal inspection of local voter registration polls and introduced penalties for anyone who obstructed someone's attempt to register to vote. It dealt primarily with discriminatory laws and practices in the segregated South, by which African-Americans and Tejanos had been effectively disenfranchised since the late 19th and start of the 20th century. This was the fifth Civil Rights Act to be enacted in United States history. Over an 85-year period, it was preceded only by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, whose shortcomings largely influenced its creation. This law served to more effectively enforce what was set forth in the 1957 act through eliminating certain loopholes in it, and to establish additional provisions. Aside from addressing voting rights, the Civil Rights Act of 1960 also imposed criminal penalties for obstruction of court orders to limit resistance to the Supreme Court's school desegregation decisions, arranged for free education for military members' children, and banned the act of fleeing to avoid prosecution for property damage. The Civil Rights Act of 1960 was signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (VAEHA) P.L. 98-435, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973ee–1973ee-6, is a United States law passed in 1984 that mandates easy access for handicapped and elderly person to voter registration and polling places during Federal elections. The law also mandates registration and voting aids, such as printing instructions in large font.

Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193 (2009), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court regarding Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and in particular its requirement that proposed electoral-law changes in certain states must be approved by the federal government. In a 9–0 decision, the Court concluded that the district was eligible to apply for an exemption (bailout) from this section per Section 4(a), because the definition of "political subdivision" in Section 14(c)(2) included a district of this nature. In an 8–1 opinion, the Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of that provision, citing the principle of constitutional avoidance.

Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that a three-judge federal district court panel did not consider all of the requisite relevant factors when it examined whether the 2001 Georgia State Senate redistricting plan resulted in retrogression of black voters’ effective exercise of the electoral franchise in contravention of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5, which only applies to those states or political subdivisions that are considered “covered” under Section 4(b) of the VRA, requires that before any change in voting procedure can take effect, it must be precleared by the federal government by a demonstration that the change would not "lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.” The Court held that the district court analysis was incorrect “because it focused too heavily on the ability of the minority group to elect a candidate of its choice in the [safe] districts,” without giving proper consideration to other factors such as the state's creation of additional influence and coalition districts. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case to the district court to examine the facts using the new standard announced in its opinion.

Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a unanimous Court found that "the legacy of official discrimination ... acted in concert with the multimember districting scheme to impair the ability of "cohesive groups of black voters to participate equally in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice." The ruling resulted in the invalidation of districts in the North Carolina General Assembly and led to more single-member districts in state legislatures.

Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and subsection (b) of Section 4, which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subject to preclearance based on their histories of racial discrimination in voting.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965</span> Amendments to U.S. legislation

The U.S. Congress enacted major amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992, and 2006. Each of these amendments coincided with an impending expiration of some of the Act's special provisions, which originally were set to expire by 1970. However, in recognition of the voting discrimination that continued despite the Act, Congress repeatedly amended the Act to reauthorize the special provisions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 United States redistricting cycle</span>

The 2020 United States redistricting cycle is in progress following the completion of the 2020 United States census. In all fifty states, various bodies are re-drawing state legislative districts. States that are apportioned more than one seat in the United States House of Representatives are also drawing new districts for that legislative body.

Abbott v. Perez, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the redistricting of the state of Texas following the 2010 census.

Ballot collecting, also known as "ballot harvesting" or "ballot chasing", is the gathering and submitting of completed absentee or mail-in voter ballots by third-party individuals, volunteers or workers, rather than submission by voters themselves directly to ballot collection sites. It occurs in some areas of the U.S. where voting by mail is common, but some other states have laws restricting it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">For the People Act</span> Election reform and anti-corruption bill in the 117th Congress

The Freedom to Vote Act, introduced as H.R. 1, is a bill in the United States Congress intended to expand voting rights, change campaign finance laws to reduce the influence of money in politics, ban partisan gerrymandering, and create new ethics rules for federal officeholders.

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case related to voting rights established by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), and specifically the applicability of Section 2's general provision barring discrimination against minorities in state and local election laws in the wake of the 2013 Supreme Court decision Shelby County v. Holder, which removed the preclearance requirements for election laws for certain states that had been set by Sections 4(b) and 5. Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee involves two of Arizona's election policies: one outlawing ballot collection and another banning out-of-precinct voting. The Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision in July 2021 that neither of Arizona's election policies violated the VRA or had a racially discriminatory purpose.

The Voting Rights Act of Virginia is a Virginia law that prohibits racial discrimination in voting and establishes a preclearance provision for proposed changes to election administration, among other provisions. It is modeled after the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, as well as the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and is the first voting rights act enacted in the American South.

Allen v. Milligan, 599 U. S. 1 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court case related to redistricting under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The appellees and respondents argued that Alabama's congressional districts discriminated against African-American voters. The Court ruled 5–4 that Alabama's districts likely violated the VRA, maintained an injunction that required Alabama to create an additional majority-minority district.

The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA) is a State Voting Rights Act (SVRA) modeled after the federal Voting Rights Act that is designed to prevent racial voter suppression and discrimination. It is named after the late civil rights activist and Congressman John Lewis. The act prohibits voter suppression, including vote dilution, voter intimidation, voter deception, and voter obstruction. It also establishes preclearance requirements for certain jurisdictions as well as expanded requirements for jurisdictions with a certain number of adult citizens with limited English proficiency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">State Voting Rights Act</span>

In the United States, a State Voting Rights Act (SVRA) is a state-level provision (either state constitutional amendment or state statute) that addresses racial discrimination in voting and provides protections beyond those offered by the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. SVRAs seek to mitigate the impact of court decisions that have weakened the federal VRA, such as the 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder. By implementing preclearance measures and combating racial vote dilution, SVRAs create stronger protections for minority voters at the state level.

References

  1. ↑ Cava, Marco della (July 25, 2020). "Activists working in John Lewis' shadow warn about voter suppression ahead of November vote". USA Today . Archived from the original on January 7, 2021. Retrieved January 27, 2021.
  2. ↑ Leahy, Patrick. "John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act" (PDF). U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 25, 2021. Retrieved January 27, 2021.
  3. ↑ Millhiser, Ian (July 21, 2021). "How America lost its commitment to the right to vote". Vox . Archived from the original on August 19, 2021. Retrieved August 19, 2021.
  4. ↑ Summers, Juana (August 24, 2021). "The House Has Passed a Bill to Restore the Voting Rights Act". NPR. Archived from the original on August 28, 2021. Retrieved August 28, 2021.
  5. 1 2 "John Lewis Voting Rights Act Fails to Pass Senate". Forbes . Archived from the original on November 20, 2021. Retrieved November 20, 2021.
  6. 1 2 Clare Foran, Ali Zaslav and Ted Barrett (January 19, 2022). "Senate Democrats suffer defeat on voting rights after vote to change rules fails". CNN . Retrieved February 3, 2022.
  7. ↑ "Section 4 Of The Voting Rights Act". www.justice.gov. August 6, 2015. Archived from the original on March 24, 2021. Retrieved March 27, 2021.
  8. 1 2 "Shelby County v. Holder". Oyez. Archived from the original on March 21, 2021. Retrieved March 20, 2021.
  9. ↑ Liptak, Adam (June 25, 2013). "Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act". The New York Times . ISSN   0362-4331. Archived from the original on May 25, 2019. Retrieved April 4, 2021.
  10. ↑ "Texas rushes ahead with voter ID law after supreme court decision". The Guardian . June 25, 2013. Archived from the original on April 15, 2021. Retrieved April 4, 2021.
  11. ↑ "The Effects of Shelby County v. Holder | Brennan Center for Justice". www.brennancenter.org. Archived from the original on March 16, 2021. Retrieved March 20, 2021.
  12. ↑ Feder, Catalina; Miller, Michael G. (November 1, 2020). "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. S2CID   221131969. Archived from the original on January 9, 2022. Retrieved March 30, 2021.
  13. ↑ "Purges: A Growing Threat to the Right to Vote". www.brennancenter.org. Archived from the original on March 25, 2021. Retrieved March 20, 2021.
  14. ↑ "Dramatic increase in voters purged from voter rolls between 2014 and 2016: Report". ABC News. Archived from the original on February 28, 2021. Retrieved March 30, 2021.
  15. ↑ "Voter Information Verification Act" (PDF). North Carolina General Assembly. HB 589 (2013–2014). Archived (PDF) from the original on April 26, 2021. Retrieved April 26, 2021.
  16. ↑ "Did North Carolina Admit to Targeting Black Voters with a 'Voter ID' Law?". Snopes.com. October 22, 2018. Archived from the original on January 9, 2022. Retrieved March 20, 2021.
  17. ↑ "United States v. North Carolina". United States Department of Justice . July 29, 2016. p. 39. Archived from the original on November 1, 2020. Retrieved April 26, 2021.
  18. ↑ "United States v. North Carolina". The United States Department of Justice . July 29, 2016. p. 11. Archived from the original on November 1, 2020. Retrieved March 20, 2021.
  19. ↑ Domonoske, Camila (July 29, 2016). "U.S. Appeals Court Strikes Down North Carolina's Voter ID Law". NPR . Archived from the original on March 9, 2021. Retrieved April 4, 2021.
  20. ↑ Wines, Michael; Blinder, Alan (July 29, 2016). "Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down North Carolina Voter ID Requirement". The New York Times . ISSN   0362-4331. Archived from the original on March 19, 2021. Retrieved April 4, 2021.
  21. ↑ Gerstein, Josh. "Court strikes down North Carolina voter ID law". Politico . Archived from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved April 4, 2021.
  22. ↑ Harte, Julia; Sullivan, Andy (July 29, 2016). "U.S. court strikes down North Carolina voter ID law". Reuters . Archived from the original on July 18, 2021. Retrieved April 4, 2021.
  23. 1 2 Nilsen, Ella (December 6, 2019). "The House has passed a bill to restore key parts of the Voting Rights Act". Vox . Archived from the original on December 7, 2019. Retrieved May 10, 2021.
  24. ↑ Beauchamp, Zack (April 6, 2021). "Yes, the Georgia election law is that bad". Vox . Archived from the original on May 31, 2021. Retrieved May 30, 2021.
  25. ↑ Newkirk II, Vann R. (July 17, 2018). "Voter Suppression Is Warping Democracy". The Atlantic . Archived from the original on September 21, 2020. Retrieved June 6, 2021.
  26. ↑ "Texas Republicans' sweeping voting restrictions bill passes state Senate". CBS News . May 30, 2021. Archived from the original on May 30, 2021. Retrieved May 30, 2021.
  27. ↑ Rakich, Nathaniel (May 11, 2021). "Where Republicans Have Made It Harder To Vote (So Far)". FiveThirtyEight . Archived from the original on June 1, 2021. Retrieved May 30, 2021.
  28. ↑ "Opinion | How the Supreme Court paved the way for Texas to target Black and brown voters". NBC News . June 2021. Archived from the original on June 7, 2021. Retrieved June 7, 2021.
  29. ↑ "State and local party leaders in Bell County weigh in on Senate Bill 7". KXXV. June 2, 2021. Archived from the original on June 7, 2021. Retrieved June 7, 2021.
  30. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Sewell, Terri A. (July 27, 2020). "H.R.4 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019". www.congress.gov. Archived from the original on March 17, 2021. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
  31. ↑ "[USC02] 52 USC 10302: Proceeding to enforce the right to vote". uscode.house.gov. Archived from the original on April 16, 2021. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
  32. ↑ "Jurisdictions Previously Covered By Section 5". United States Department of Justice. August 6, 2015. Archived from the original on May 4, 2021. Retrieved May 3, 2021.
  33. ↑ "The states facing federal preclearance under proposed Voting Rights Act fix". Institute for Southern Studies. March 13, 2019. Archived from the original on May 3, 2021. Retrieved May 3, 2021.
  34. ↑ "In Honor of John Lewis, Warnock Calls on Congress, Fellow Candidates to Restore the Voting Rights Act". Warnock for Georgia. July 21, 2020. Archived from the original on July 18, 2021. Retrieved June 10, 2021.
  35. ↑ Folley, Aris (March 17, 2021). "Warnock uses first Senate floor speech to urge Congress to pass voting rights legislation". The Hill . Archived from the original on June 10, 2021. Retrieved June 10, 2021.
  36. ↑ "John Lewis voting rights bill faces bleak future in the Senate after McConnell deems it "unnecessary"". CBS News . Archived from the original on June 10, 2021. Retrieved June 10, 2021.
  37. ↑ "Joe Manchin: the conservative Democrat with leverage in a split Senate". The Guardian . January 17, 2021. Archived from the original on June 10, 2021. Retrieved June 10, 2021.
  38. ↑ Santucci, Jeanine. "Voting rights: Where do the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and For the People Act stand?". USA Today . Archived from the original on June 10, 2021. Retrieved June 10, 2021.
  39. ↑ Greenwood, Max (April 28, 2021). "Biden calls on Congress to pass voting, elections reform bills". The Hill . Archived from the original on June 10, 2021. Retrieved June 10, 2021.
  40. ↑ Merkley, Jeff (January 12, 2022). "My top priority is passing the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to make sure every American has equal access to the ballot box". Twitter . Retrieved October 17, 2022.
  41. ↑ "Wyden, Merkley Introduce The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act | U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon". www.merkley.senate.gov. July 23, 2020. Retrieved October 17, 2022.
  42. ↑ "Blumenthal Urges Passage of John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to Honor Legacy of Civil Rights Hero | U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut". www.blumenthal.senate.gov. July 21, 2021. Retrieved October 17, 2022.
  43. ↑ "Gov. Wolf Urges U.S. Senate to Pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act". Governor Tom Wolf. January 18, 2022. Retrieved October 27, 2022.[ permanent dead link ]
  44. ↑ "More than 150 companies back update to Voting Rights Act". NBC News . July 14, 2021. Archived from the original on August 6, 2021. Retrieved August 6, 2021.
  45. ↑ "More than 150 companies urge U.S. Congress to pass voting rights act". Reuters . July 14, 2021. Archived from the original on August 6, 2021. Retrieved August 6, 2021.
  46. ↑ Daniel Dale (June 13, 2021). "Fact check: Breaking down Mitch McConnell's spin on the John Lewis voting rights bill". CNN . Archived from the original on August 6, 2021. Retrieved August 6, 2021.
  47. ↑ Homan, Timothy R. (June 8, 2021). "McConnell: John Lewis voting rights bill 'unnecessary'". The Hill . Archived from the original on August 6, 2021. Retrieved August 6, 2021.
  48. ↑ Behrmann, Savannah (November 3, 2021). "Republicans block John Lewis Voting Rights Act in Senate vote". USA Today . Retrieved January 19, 2022.
  49. ↑ Allison, Natalie (September 15, 2021). "Tennessee attorney general joins opposition to John Lewis Voting Rights Act". The Tennessean. Retrieved January 19, 2022.
  50. ↑ "Cosponsors - H.R.4". Congress.gov. Retrieved October 27, 2020.
  51. ↑ "John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of 2020". NAACP . July 31, 2020. Archived from the original on March 1, 2021. Retrieved May 25, 2021.
  52. ↑ Sewell, Terri A. (August 17, 2021). "H.R.4 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021". www.congress.gov. Archived from the original on August 19, 2021. Retrieved August 19, 2021.
  53. ↑ Sewell, Terri A. (August 24, 2021). "Cosponsors - H.R.4 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021". www.congress.gov. Archived from the original on August 19, 2021. Retrieved August 28, 2021.
  54. ↑ Kim, Caitlyn (January 12, 2022). "Democrats plan a procedural maneuver to open Senate debate on voting rights bills". NPR . Retrieved February 3, 2022.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.