What’s the Problem with the John Lewis Voting Act?

8/26/21

So the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act passed in the House this week by a vote of 219 to 212. That’s 219 Democrats in favor; 212 Republicans against. Hard to understand how this bill could generate such a party-line divide, particularly since the 1965 Voting Act was unanimously reauthorized in the Senate in 2006. I’m trying to understand what could possibly be in this bill that would foster such a dramatic change of heart on the part of Republicans.

The objectives of the bill are clearly stated: to restore Federal oversight to states and localities that have a demonstrated history of employing voter suppression tactics. Doesn’t sound unreasonable to me. This oversight had been in place as a consequence of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which imposed a “pre-clearance requirement.” This condition affected 15 states that had shown a history of racial discrimination. For these entities, federal approval was required before any change in voting laws could be instituted, and states would have to demonstrate that any proposed voting rule changes would not have a discriminatory effect relating to race or language minority group.

As you might imagine, since that Voting Rights Act had been passed in 1965, a number of challenges were made, with several reaching the Supreme Court. Each time, the law was upheld — until 2013. At that time, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court declared Section 4(b) of the act to be unconstitutional. This section of the Act set the criteria for defining the localities that would require pre-clearance; but without section 4(b), no jurisdiction could be subject to federal oversight. The Court’s justification was effectively that times had changed, and the criteria that served as the basis for the coverage of the Act were too out of date to justify the imposition of federal oversight.

The decision was 5–4 — hardly a slam dunk. In any case, our system of checks and balances motivated the John Lewis Act. Feeling that the Court’s majority opinion was ill considered, Democrats drafted new legislation to reinstitute the efforts to combat racial discrimination in voting, while addressing the Court’s concerns. To that end, the John Lewis bill offered a “new coverage formula” that would base coverage on states or localities that demonstrated racial discrimination during the most recent 25 years of history.

Patrick Leahy’s office posted a fact sheet that summarizes the other major provisions of the bill:

I have a hard time understanding what’s not to like, or what’s so objectionable as to keep every single Republican in the House in the “anti” column. Still, the bill passed in the House, but to become law, passage in the Senate is still required. Whether any Republican Senator will buck the trend initiated by their House colleagues remains to be seen. However, it doesn’t seem likely.

How could it be that with a goal of restricting the effects of discrimination, no contingent of Republicans appears ready or able to step up to find a way to make an accommodation and foster a bipartisan outcome? Some might surmise that Republican opposition to this legislation is simply due to racism on their part or, if not racism, a complete disregard of the historical record and a lack of empathy… But that can’t be! Republicans are surely better than that!

Although I’m loath to play the race card, I find this indifference to the prospect of institutional racism worming its way into our democratic processes breathtaking.