About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (August 20, 2021)

handle is hein.crs/goveekf0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Service l~ b I ~n V~14 August20, 2021 Voting Rights Act and H.R. 4 (117th Congress): An Overview The Voting Rights Act(VRA) was enacted to protect equal access to elections for all eligible Americans. In particular, and in response to widespread disenfranchisement between the pos t-CivilWar period and the 1960s, the VRA protects voters in racial and language minority groups. The VRA rests principally on congressional authority to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits voting denial or abridgment based on color, race, or previous condition of servitude. H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 (VRAA), proposes several VRA amendments. This In Focus provides an overview of H.R. 4's proposed changes to key sections of the VRA, primarily Sections 2 and 4. Applying nationwide, Section 2 prohibits voting discrimination b ased on race, color, or membership in a language minority. Before the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, Section 4 established criteria, known as a coverage formula, for determining those jurisdictions required to obtain prior approval orp reclearance for proposed voting changes. H.R 4 proposes new standards for Section 2 claims and a new Section 4 coverage formula. As discussedbelow, two recent Supreme Court rulings have substantialimplications for the VRA and appear to formthe basis for many of H.R. 4's provisions. Those favoring H.R 4 generally argue that the bill is consistent with previous statutory changes to protect minority voting rights andresponds to Supreme Court rulings. Opponents generally argue that H.R 4 infringes on state election authority and is unnecessary because nationwide VRA protections still apply. Background Congress passed the Voting Rights Act (P.L. 89-110) in 1965. Congress amendedthe actseveraltimes between 1970 and 2006. Among other provisions, the VRA (52 U.S.C. §§10101-10702) currently prohibits states and political subdivisions (e.g., cities or counties) fromusing race- or color-based qualifications, standards, or practices in registration, voting, or redistricting; prohibits tools previously used to disenfranchise voters, such as poll taxes or literacy tests; permits voting assistance andpromotes polling place access for elderly and disabled voters; and authorizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) to monitor elections to protect voting rights. Recent Congressional Developments Throughout the spring and summer of2021, the House Judiciary Committee and the Committee on House Administration held hearings on voting and election administration issues, including the VRA and effects on members of various groups of voters. Representative Sewell introduced H.R. 4 on August 17, 2021. The bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. In the 116th Congres s, theHousepassed (228-187) a precursorbill, also numbered H.R.4, on December 6, 2019. The Senate considered a companion measure, S. 4263. Brnovich v. DNC and Section 2 Claims Historically, Section 2ofthe VRA has beeninvoked primarily to challenge redistrictingmaps, known as vote dilution cases. Forthe first time, in July 2021, in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (DNC) (141 S. Ct. 2321), the Supreme Court interpreted Section 2 in the context ofstatevoting rules, known as vote denial cases. The Court held that two Arizona voting rules do notviolate Section 2. Interpreting the language of Section 2, the Court held that voting must be 'equally open' to minority and non-minority groups alike and that courts should apply a broad totality of circumstances test to determine whether state voting rules violate Section2. The Court did not establish a standard to govern all Section 2 challenges to voting rules, but identified certain guidepo sts, including five specific circumstances for courts to consider. Shelby County v. Holder and Section 4 Coverage In a 2013 ruling, Shelby County v. Holder (133 S. Ct. 2612), the Supreme Court invalidated the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the VRA, thereby rendering the preclearancerequirements in Section5 inoperable. Under Section 5, nine states and jurisdictions within sixother states were covered under Section 4(b). Those jurisdictions were required to obtain preclearance fromeither DOJ or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for any proposed change to a voting law, including changes to congressionalredistricting maps. The coverage formula was based on voter turnout and regis tration datafromthe 1960s and early 1970s. The Court held that the application of the coverage formula to the covered states and juris dictions departed fromthe fundamental principle of equal sovereignty amongthe states withoutjustification in light of current conditions. Overview of H.R. 4 (1 7t' Congress), as introduced Section 2. Vote Dilution, Denial, and Abridgement Section 2 of H.R. 4 would amend Section 2 of the VRA (52 U.S.C. § 10301), which authorizes the federal government and individuals to challenge discriminatory voting practices https s//t sreports~corigress.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most