HOW TO KEEP THE LEGACY OF THE LATE CONGRESSMAN JOHN LEWIS? ROCK THE VOTE! (273 hits)
For Immediate Release From Rock The Vote!
The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act: An Explainer
What is The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act?
The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (JLVRAA), originally named The Voting Rights Advancement Act (VRAA), is a critical piece of proposed federal legislation. If passed, the JLVRAA would restore The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and create more free and fair elections. Nearly 70% of voters support its passage.
The bill was renamed after the passing of Congressman and civil rights leader John Lewis who led marchers on Bloody Sunday, which became a turning point for the passage of The Voting Rights Act a few months later.
While there was an earlier version of the VRAA, today the acronyms JLVRAA and VRAA can be used interchangeably.
Why is the VRAA needed?
The Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). Designed to prevent racial discrimination in voting, the VRA is widely considered one of the most important pieces of legislation in our country’s history.
The Supreme Court’s decision invalidated Section 4b of the VRA essentially saying it was outdated. Section 4b outlined the formula that determined which jurisdictions had to seek preclearance from the federal government. Preclearance required these jurisdictions to obtain federal approval before making any changes to their election laws. Preclearance proactively prevented discriminatory policies from ever going into effect in the first place and was considered the real power of the VRA.
The Supreme Court placed the responsibility of updating the formula in the hands of Congress. Despite multiple attempts, Congress has failed to pass legislation to update the formula and restore the VRA.
How has the Shelby County v Holder decision impacted voter access?
By invalidating the formula, the 2013 decision effectively made it so no jurisdiction has to seek preclearance. In other words, jurisdictions with a long history of discrimination are able to pass election laws we have not seen since before 1965. As a result, there has been a wave of discriminatory changes to election policy since Shelby Co. v Holder.
Even election officials, those tasked with the administering of elections, have reported difficulty keeping up with the constantly changing election policies and the logistical implementation of such policies.
Many of these laws would not have been allowed if the Voting Rights Act was still in full effect. Enacting strict voter ID requirements; closing polling locations in communities of color; reducing early vote days and hours; and voter roll purging under the guise of cleaning voter rolls are just a few of the discriminatory practices seen since Shelby Co. v Holder.
The wave of changes to election policy has resulted in a growing racial turnout gap in several states. The gap has grown by at least 9% in five of the six states originally covered by preclearance since Shelby County. The Washington Post found that the white-Black turnout gap rose to 11% in 2022, the largest it has been since at least 2000. Alabama, Georgia, and Texas are among the states that have seen the largest gap increases.
Contrary to popular belief, elections are often won by a small margin. Voter suppression works by making it harder and preventing certain groups of voters from casting a ballot, thereby influencing the election.
What is the process for challenging discriminatory policies?
Under preclearance, the jurisdiction had to petition the U.S. Department of Justice to change election law. The petitioning jurisdiction had to proactively demonstrate that their proposed changes would not discriminate against voters. Voting and civil rights organizations would become aware of the proposed change and often make a recommendation based on their own analysis. The Department of Justice would conduct its own review and determine whether or not to allow the change.
Since 2013, discriminatory laws can be enacted without the awareness of civil and voting rights organizations and without the scrutiny of organizations or The Department of Justice.
As a result, organizations must monitor voting policies all over the country and challenge discriminatory policies in court, often after they’ve been enacted. This is more difficult, expensive, and time-consuming for voters and voting rights organizations. This includes gathering evidence, proving standing, filing a lawsuit, and potentially going through a lengthy court battle.
These legal battles may not even start until after an election has been held with the discriminatory policy in place. By affecting who is able to vote through discriminatory policies, jurisdictions can skew election results and influence the outcomes of elections.
How would The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (JLVRAA) impact voting and election policy?
The JLVRAA proposes a new, updated formula for determining which state and local governments have a consistent pattern of discrimination in voting. With a new formula, these jurisdictions would once again be subject to preclearance, thereby preventing discriminatory voting policies before they are implemented.
