State Voting Rights Act

Last updated
Michael Pernick Testimony - Public Hearing on the New York Voting Rights Act before the New York State Senate Standing Committee on Elections, March 3, 2020. Michael Pernick Testimony - New York Voting Rights Act Hearing.png
Michael Pernick Testimony - Public Hearing on the New York Voting Rights Act before the New York State Senate Standing Committee on Elections, March 3, 2020.

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. [2] 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.

Contents

The first SVRA was enacted in 2002 in California. [3] Nearly two decades later, the Washington Voting Rights Act was passed, [4] followed by the Oregon Voting Rights Act a year later. [5] In 2021, Virginia became the first southern state to do more than federal law requires to prevent racial discrimination in voting. [6] In 2022, New York enacted what was then the most comprehensive SVRA, [7] which served as a template for a similar law enacted in Connecticut in 2023. [8] A pared down version of the NYVRA was passed in Minnesota in 2024. [9]

Background

The federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 was a critical tool in addressing racial discrimination in voting, particularly in southern states. Its most potent provision was the preclearance requirement under Section 5, which mandated that certain jurisdictions with histories of discrimination obtain federal approval before changing voting laws. [10] However, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) invalidated the formula used to determine which jurisdictions were subject to preclearance, effectively weakening the VRA's protections.

After Shelby County , many states moved quickly to implement restrictive voting laws that had previously been subject to federal oversight. Since 2013, at least 29 states have passed 94 restrictive voting laws, including stricter voter ID requirements, reductions in early voting periods, and restrictions on mail-in voting. [11] In 2023 alone, more than 322 restrictive voting bills were introduced in 45 states. [12] The consequences of these laws have been especially harmful for minority voters. Research indicates that the racial turnout gap has grown significantly since the Shelby County decision. For example, in the 2022 midterm elections, the racial turnout gap was larger than in any midterm since at least 2006. [13] Additionally, redistricting cycles following the Shelby County decision have led to significant dilution of political power for communities of color, with fewer opportunities to elect candidates of their choice. [14]

General Provisions of SVRAs

State Voting Rights Acts (SVRAs) primarily aim to combat racial vote denial, racial vote dilution, and retrogression, which are the same principal harms addressed by the federal Voting Rights Act. SVRAs often go beyond the protections offered by the federal Voting Rights Act by adopting stronger safeguards against voting discrimination. [2]

Preclearance

Both the New York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA) and the Connecticut Voting Rights Act (CTVRA) include provisions that require certain electoral changes in covered jurisdictions to undergo preclearance before they can take effect. [15] [16] Preclearance was the key feature of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 before it was rendered inoperable by the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder . Under the VRA, preclearance required jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting to receive approval from the federal government before implementing any changes to voting laws. [17]

The Virginia Voting Rights Act (VAVRA) includes an opt-in preclearance system. [6] Political subdivisions in Virginia may voluntarily choose to submit certain electoral changes, such as the relocation of polling places or the implementation of at-large elections, to the Virginia Attorney General for approval. If the changes are found to have a discriminatory purpose or effect, they are not allowed to be implemented. [18]

Cause of Action

Like the Voting Rights Act of 1965, SVRAs provide an affirmative cause of action for plaintiffs to challenge discriminatory vote practices in state court. Most SVRAs strengthen protections against racial vote dilution beyond those offered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Racial vote dilution involves electoral practices that reduce the electoral power of minority groups without preventing them from voting. The California Voting Rights Act (CAVRA) and similar laws in other states have removed the first Gingles precondition, which requires that a minority group be geographically compact enough to constitute a majority in a single-member district. [19]

Racial vote denial refers to laws or practices that disproportionately prevent minority voters from casting ballots. While Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits such practices, the 2021 Supreme Court decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee introduced new factors making it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in these cases. In response, some SVRAs, like those in New York and Connecticut, omit or replace the more restrictive Brnovich factors, providing broader protections for voters of color. [20]

Enacted SVRAs

Several states have enacted SVRAs, providing protections that go beyond the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965:

Proposed SVRAs

Several states have proposed SVRAs modeled after existing laws, but these proposals have not yet passed:

Impact and Litigation

SVRAs have had a significant impact, especially in states like California, where over 100 jurisdictions have switched to district-based elections under CAVRA. In other states, SVRAs have become vital tools for challenging restrictive voting laws that disproportionately affect minority voters. [2]

See also

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".

South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that rejected a challenge from the state of South Carolina to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required that some states submit changes in election districts to the Attorney General of the United States. The preclearance provisions were ruled constitutional and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enforced in full.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Voter identification laws in the United States</span>

Voter ID laws in the United States are laws that require a person to provide some form of official identification before they are permitted to register to vote, receive a ballot for an election, or to actually vote in elections in the United States.

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.

Penda D. Hair is an American lawyer. She is the Legal Director of Forward Justice, a law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South. A frequent television and radio commentator, she speaks regularly on issues of race and democracy. Previously, she was a founding co-director of the civil rights group Advancement Project.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gerrymandering in the United States</span> Setting electoral district boundaries to favor specific political interests

Gerrymandering is the practice of setting boundaries of electoral districts to favor specific political interests within legislative bodies, often resulting in districts with convoluted, winding boundaries rather than compact areas. The term "gerrymandering" was coined after a review of Massachusetts's redistricting maps of 1812 set by Governor Elbridge Gerry noted that one of the districts looked like a mythical salamander.

<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.

Edward Jay Blum is an American conservative litigant who opposes classifications and preferences based on race and ethnicity.

<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.

Texas Senate Bill 5 is a bill that implements a form of voter identification law in the state of Texas. It is a revamped version of a previous Texas voter ID law that was introduced in 2011.

Presley v. Etowah County Commission, 502 U.S. 491 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court voting rights case where the Court held by a 6—3 majority that the abolition of road districts did not violate the Fifteenth Amendment or the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Lewis Voting Rights Act</span> Proposed voting rights legislation

The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2023 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. 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.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">CROWN Act of 2022</span> 2022 Act of US Congress prohibiting hair discrimination

The Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2022 was a bill in the United States Congress intended to prohibit discrimination based on an individual's hair texture or hairstyle by classifying such discrimination illegal under federal law. It applied to federally assisted programs, housing programs, public accommodations, and employment. The act was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) on March 19, 2021. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced a companion bill in the Senate on March 22, 2021. The CROWN Act of 2022 marked the second time the legislation was introduced in Congress.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Private Attorneys General Act</span>

The Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) is a California statute that authorizes aggrieved employees to bring actions for civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the State of California against their employers for California Labor Code violations. PAGA's purpose is not to recover damages or receive restitution, but rather to allow citizens to act as private attorneys general and enforce the Labor Code. Because PAGA suits are fundamentally law enforcement actions, aggrieved employees must notify the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA)—the state agency that enforces California labor laws—of any alleged Labor Code violations. An aggrieved employee can only file a PAGA lawsuit after the LWDA elects not to pursue its own action against the employer.

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.

The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of Connecticut (CTVRA) is a Connecticut state statute and State Voting Rights Act (SVRA) designed to protect voting rights. It is modeled after the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. It codifies many of the requirements of the federal act into state law and contains provisions designed to prevent discrimination. This includes preclearance provisions, the federal version of which is currently inoperable following the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder.

References

  1. ↑ Michael Pernick (2020-03-05). Michael Pernick Testimony - New York Voting Rights Act Hearing (March 3, 2020) . Retrieved 2024-10-07– via YouTube.
  2. 1 2 3 Greenwood, Ruth M.; Stephanopoulos, Nicholas O. (2023). "Voting Rights Federalism". Emory Law Journal. 73 (2): 299–364. Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  3. ↑ "California Voting Rights Act, S.B. 976, 2001-2002 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2002)" . Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  4. ↑ "Washington Voting Rights Act, H.B. 6002, 2017-2018 Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2018)" . Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  5. ↑ "Oregon Voting Rights Act, H.B. 3310, 2019 Reg. Sess. (Or. 2019)" . Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  6. 1 2 "Virginia Voting Rights Act, H.B. 1890, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Va. 2021)" . Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  7. ↑ "John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York, S. 1046-E, 2021-2022 Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2022)" . Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  8. ↑ "John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of Connecticut, S.B. 1226, 2023 Gen. Assemb., Jan. Sess. (Conn. 2023)" (PDF). Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  9. ↑ "Minnesota Voting Rights Act, H.F. 4772, 93rd Leg., Reg. Sess. art. 3 (Minn. 2024)" . Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  10. ↑ "About Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act". United States Department of Justice. Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  11. ↑ "Voting Laws Roundup: June 2023". Brennan Center for Justice. June 2023. Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  12. ↑ "Voting Laws Roundup: June 2023". Brennan Center for Justice. June 2023. Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  13. ↑ "Growing Racial Disparities in Voter Turnout, 2008–2022". Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  14. ↑ "How This Redistricting Cycle Failed to Increase Representation for People of Color — and Could Even Set It Back". FiveThirtyEight. March 30, 2023. Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  15. ↑ "John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York, S. 1046-E, 2021-2022 Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2022)" . Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  16. ↑ "John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of Connecticut, S.B. 1226, 2023 Gen. Assemb., Jan. Sess. (Conn. 2023)" (PDF). Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  17. ↑ "Civil Rights Division | About Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act". www.justice.gov. 2015-08-06. Retrieved 2024-10-07.
  18. ↑ "Virginia Voting Rights Act, H.B. 1890, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Va. 2021)" . Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  19. ↑ "California Voting Rights Act, S.B. 976, 2001-2002 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2002)" . Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  20. ↑ "John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York, S. 1046-E, 2021-2022 Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2022)" . Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  21. ↑ "California Voting Rights Act, S.B. 976, 2001-2002 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2002)" . Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  22. ↑ "Washington Voting Rights Act, H.B. 6002, 2017-2018 Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2018)" . Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  23. ↑ "Oregon Voting Rights Act, H.B. 3310, 2019 Reg. Sess. (Or. 2019)" . Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  24. ↑ "Virginia Voting Rights Act, H.B. 1890, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Va. 2021)" . Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  25. ↑ "John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York, S. 1046-E, 2021-2022 Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2022)" . Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  26. ↑ "John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of Connecticut, S.B. 1226, 2023 Gen. Assemb., Jan. Sess. (Conn. 2023)" (PDF). Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  27. ↑ "Minnesota Voting Rights Act, H.F. 4772, 93rd Leg., Reg. Sess. art. 3 (Minn. 2024)" . Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  28. ↑ "Michigan Voting Rights Act, S.B. 401-404, 102nd Leg., Reg. Sess. (Mich. 2023)" (PDF). Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  29. ↑ "Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Florida Voting Rights Act, H.B. 1035/S.B. 1522, 2024 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2024)" . Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  30. ↑ "John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New Jersey, A. 904, 2024 Gen. Assemb., 221st Leg., § 12(c)(4) (N.J. 2024)" . Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  31. ↑ "Maryland Voting Rights Act of 2024, S.B. 660, 2024 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Md. 2024)" . Retrieved October 7, 2024.
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.