01/23/14: Strengthening the Voting Rights Act

This op-ed appeared in The Virginian-Pilot on the date shown.

A NEW VERSION of the Voting Rights Act was introduced in Congress earlier this month. The bill, from a bipartisan group of lawmakers, seeks to address the concerns the U.S. Supreme Court aired when it invalidated the coverage formula in Section 4 of the act.

The court effectively eliminated the preclearance rules of Section 5, which required covered jurisdictions to get Department of Justice approval prior to implementation.

There’s a lot to like in this bill. The most important part is the new coverage formula. Instead of just looking to states with a history of discrimination, the bill establishes a nationwide standard.

Five voting rights violations within a 15-year period would trigger the preclearance provisions, which would remain in place for 10 years unless the state qualified for bailout. Four states — Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas — would qualify under the new coverage provision.

There is a separate provision for localities. Three or more violations over the past 15 years would trigger coverage. So would one violation, combined with “persistent, extremely low minority turnout during the previous 15 calendar years.” The bill provides a definition of the latter, and it includes comparisons of the minority turnout to that of the nation and the state.

Section 3 provides a trigger for “bailing in” jurisdictions after the finding of intentional discrimination, a fairly high bar that has led to its infrequent use. The new bill removes the requirement that the discrimination be intentional.

The bill also creates a new section of the Voting Rights Act — Section 6, which would require more transparency. Public notice of election changes would have to be made in every jurisdiction across the country. Notice in the local media and online would be required for changes due to redistricting, changes made within 120 days before a federal election and changes to polling places.

Lastly, the bill would make it easier for plaintiffs to obtain an injunction prior to the implementation of discriminatory voting laws and before the challenge is heard in a trial. To obtain the injunction, plaintiffs need show only that the hardship to them outweighs the hardship to the state.

As is true of everything, this bill isn’t perfect. States with a history of voting discrimination, like Virginia, may not be covered. And the bill contains a special carve-out for voter identification laws, which have proliferated in recent years.

In covered states, only federal court judgments against such laws would count as one of the violations; objections to such laws filed by the Justice Department would not. This provision was aimed squarely at trying to obtain bipartisan support for its passage.

But the bigger question is whether this bill will ever see the light of day.

One of those who introduced the bill was Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican and former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

The current chairman of the committee, which is where the bill will be heard, is Rep. Bob Goodlatte, from Virginia’s 6th Congressional District. Goodlatte has been silent on this attempt to fix the Voting Rights Act.

At a time when our political system is highly polarized, protecting the right to vote should be a priority.

I would hope that Goodlatte not only allows a hearing of this updated bill but becomes — as Sensenbrenner did the last time the Voting Rights Act was updated — an advocate for it.