The Voting Rights Amendment Act

Elanna Cahn — June 27, 2014 – 10:54 am | Civil Rights | Congress | Democrats Comments (0) Add a comment

June 25^th, 2014 marked the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Shelby County v. Holder. In this case, the Court ruled that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was used to determine the states and political subdivisions subject to Section 5 preclearance, was unconstitutional. Certain jurisdictions had been subjected to preclearance based upon their histories of discrimination in voting.  

Just after the Shelby County v. Holder decision, the voting rights of millions of voters were put in peril. Texas implemented voter ID and restricting laws previously held invalid. Alabama and Mississippi moved forward with voter ID laws that had been previously held up. North Carolina acted to eliminate same-day voter registration, restricted early voting and enacted one of the toughest voter ID laws in the Country. Virginia added more regulations to its voter ID law.

Racial discrimination in voting remains a significant problem throughout our country. A report by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights demonstrates this.

The Bi-Partisan Voting Rights Amendment Act will update the VRA with common sense, forward-looking safeguards for states and counties with patterns of discrimination. The VRAA provides for reviews that would then remove such safeguards when they are no longer needed. To those who argue that such protection is not needed, we ask them to consider recent history:

Since 2008 over 30 states considered laws that would require voters to present government-issued photo IDs in order to vote, undermining the voting rights of up to 11% of American citizens who lack such ID. Tennessee, Kansa, and Alabama passed laws requiring documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote, which could impact as many as 7% of American citizens who do not have such proof.

In 2011, Florida, Wisconsin, Georgia, Maine, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Ohio shortened early voting time frames, which could discourage over 30% of Americans who vote early.

This past year at least 83 restrictive bills were introduced in 29 states whose legislatures have had floor activity. Of those, two restrictive bills, a photo ID law and a proof of citizenship law, are currently active in New Hampshire and South Carolina. While Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin have passed five restrictive bills this session already, including the prohibition of early voting on the same day a person registers to vote, the prohibition of voting for individuals who lack ID or a Social Security number, and the reduction of early voting period and hours.

On Wednesday, June 25, 2014, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on bipartisan Voting Rights Amendment Act. The House Judiciary Committee has yet to act on this important piece of legislation. 

The Jewish community has always been a strong supporter of voting rights, representative democracy, and political pluralism. NJDC has criticized and outright opposed voter suppression laws and efforts nationwide, calling for more voting rights protections in response to these politically motivated and highly partisan actions.

The time to move this Voting Rights Amendment Act forward is now - not tomorrow, not next month, not next year. That is the mandate of the House Judiciary Committee.

Comments

There are no comments for this entry