In the Nation’s Capital: Democrats Continue Fighting for Voting Rights Legislation
Congress is gearing up for another major fight for federal voting rights legislation. On Tuesday, Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) formally introduced the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4). From a press conference in Selma, standing in front of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, Rep. Sewell introduced the bill named after the civil rights giant, which would restore vital provisions of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and has 190 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives. “By preventing states with a recent history of voter discrimination from restricting the right to vote, this bill restores the full promise of our democracy and advances the legacy of those brave Foot Soldiers like John Lewis who dedicated their lives for the sacred right to vote,” Sewell said in a statement.
In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the VRA in Shelby County v. Holder, ruling that the formula used to determine which states were subject to federal “preclearance” requirements when passing new election laws was unconstitutional. Striking down Section 4 in turn gutted Section 5, which was the enforcement mechanism behind preclearance. A new formula has not been passed yet, leaving the federal government without any pathway to vet discriminatory voting laws before they are enacted. H.R. 4 establishes a new formula and restores many of the provisions of the VRA that have since been hollowed out. The newest version of the legislation also includes the provisions of a bill previously introduced by Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.) that would restore Section 2, which was recently weakened by the Court’s ruling in Brnovich v. DNC.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced that the House will vote on the bill next week. Versions of the bill have already passed the House twice in previous sessions of Congress with negligible Republican support, but have so far failed in the Senate. “Congress has not only an ironclad Constitutional mandate, but a moral responsibility to enact H.R. 4 to combat destructive and discriminatory voter suppression,” Speaker Pelosi said in a statement. Read H.R. 4 here.
|
|
In the States: Republican Legislators Return With New Voter Suppression Bills
Ohio: Republicans in the Ohio House of Representatives introduced a new bill last week, House Bill 387, which would require all voters to register to vote in person, eliminate no-excuse absentee voting, limit the forms of acceptable photo ID, shorten the state’s early voting period and ban mail ballots returned via drop box from being counted, among other provisions. Currently, Ohio voters can present any form of government-issued documentation that meets various requirements (such as including their photo and address). Under H.B. 387, only three forms of identification would be accepted: an Ohio driver’s license or ID, military ID or U.S. passport. The bill also includes language that would ban the counting of absentee ballots if they are returned via drop box — effectively eliminating the use of drop boxes altogether. “Any absent voter’s ballots returned to a drop box of any kind shall not be processed and counted,” the bill reads. Voters must mail back their ballots or return them in person to their board of elections office. Drop boxes have been a frequent target of Ohio Republicans’ voter suppression efforts. In May, Republicans proposed an omnibus suppression bill that would limit the number of drop boxes to one location per county and only allow drop boxes to be used in the 10 days leading up to Election Day. Read H.B. 387 here.
Arizona: Republican lawmakers in Arizona are rallying behind a new ballot measure that would impose strict voter ID requirements on early ballots. The measure, which is sponsored by a conservative group called Arizona Free Enterprise Club, takes a failed piece of legislation proposed by Republicans in the state Senate and repackages it as a ballot measure that the group is campaigning to have included on the 2022 Arizona general election ballot. They need over a quarter of a million signatures in favor of the effort by next July in order to place the measure on the ballot. New identification requirements for early ballots would affect most Arizonans. 3 million of the state’s 3.4 million voters cast a ballot early last election. The ballot measure also increases ID requirements for voters casting a ballot in person. Read the proposed ballot measure here.
|
|
In the Courts: Fights Over Redistricting Have Begun
Wisconsin: Last week, a group of voters sued Wisconsin to ensure the state enacts new district maps before the next election cycle. The suit asks that the court permanently enjoin the current district maps, preventing their use in any future elections (including the state’s upcoming elections in 2022), and implement new maps that fairly and constitutionally represent today’s population in Wisconsin after the Census Bureau released their 2020 census data. The judiciary gets involved in redistricting if the legislature and governor are unable to come to an agreement on new maps. Even though the census data was released only last week, the complaint points out that Wisconsin has a long history of “partisan gridlock” when it comes to enacting new maps: the courts had to intervene to enact apportioned maps in the 1980, 1990 and 2000 redistricting cycles. Right now, Republicans control both chambers of Wisconsin’s Legislature, and Democrats hold the governorship. The complaint argues that this divided government makes it very unlikely that new congressional and legislative maps will be enacted in time for the 2022 election cycle, potentially depriving Wisconsin voters of their constitutional right to cast an equal vote. Read the complaint here.
Across the Country: Although the Census Bureau just released their demographic data last week, the redistricting fight began in the courts earlier this year. We’re tracking redistricting litigation in multiple states — here’s a summary of where things stand. In Oregon and Michigan, state officials sued for extensions to the mandated redistricting deadlines in order to accommodate the delay in census data. The Oregon Supreme Court granted this request; the Michigan Supreme Court did not. In Illinois, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) filed a federal suit challenging the 2021 redistricting maps signed into law by Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D) earlier this year, alleging that the maps, which were drawn using preliminary population estimates after the delayed release of census data, were not drawn to ensure districts are “substantially equal in population.” This may lead to Latino and other minority groups being unfairly underrepresented in the Illinois Legislature, according to the complaint. The Illinois GOP has also filed suit challenging the maps. And in four states (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Louisiana), individual voters sued after the release of census data, asking the courts to declare the current legislative and congressional district maps unconstitutional and implement new maps that adhere to the constitutional requirement of one person, one vote. These suits were filed in states with governments that have historically not been able to come to an agreement on new maps, necessitating that the courts step in. By suing early the plaintiffs hope to get the courts involved in time for new maps to be implemented for the 2022 election cycle.
Plus, don’t miss our newest explainer, “Nine Redistricting Cases That Shaped History.” Want to better understand the history of redistricting cases in America, but don’t know where to start? We break down the most important cases to know — who was involved, what the Supreme Court ruled and what it meant for voting rights. Learn the difference between partisan and racial gerrymandering, and where the Court has come down on both. Read “Nine Redistricting Cases That Shaped History” on Democracy Docket now.
Arizona: On Tuesday, Mi Familia Vota, Arizona Coalition for Change, Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA) and Chispa Arizona filed a lawsuit challenging two new voter suppression laws in Arizona. The voting rights groups allege that Arizona is attempting to restrict the voices of marginalized groups and Arizonans of color. The lawsuit challenges two laws passed by Arizona’s Republican-controlled Legislature after the 2020 general election. Senate Bill 1485 purges voters from the state’s Permanent Early Voting List (PEVL) if they do not vote by mail in two consecutive elections. Senate Bill 1003 changes the cure process for mail-in ballots, requiring ballots without a signature to be cured by 7:00 pm on Election Day (despite the fact that ballots with inconsistent signatures can be cured up to five days after Election Day). The plaintiffs allege that these laws violate the First, 14th and 15th Amendments as well as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by burdening the right to vote, particularly among voters of color in Arizona. The complaint asks the court to prohibit the enforcement of these provisions. Read the complaint here.
And More:
- Georgia: The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed counterclaims brought by right-wing group True the Vote against Fair Fight, which filed suit against True the Vote in December 2020 to challenge their voter intimidation tactics in Georgia. In response, True the Vote filed five counterclaims against Fair Fight. After Tuesday’s order, none of True the Vote’s counterclaims remain in the case, which will now move forward to address Fair Fight’s initial claims of voter intimidation by True the Vote. Read the order here.
- Virginia: Virginia State Senator T. Travis Hackworth (R) and individual voters filed a lawsuit challenging how the state will count prisoners in the redistricting process. The suit argues that counting prisoners at their last known address (as opposed to the prison in which they are incarcerated) will dilute the voting power of Republicans in rural Virginia. Read the petition here.
|
|
What We're Doing
Three things to do today to stay engaged in the fight!
We’re taking action:
The International Rescue Committee is working to aid, evacuate and resettle Afghan refugees. You can donate to their efforts here.
We’re reading:
“I can confidently say that the [2022] midterm elections will be the most litigated midterm elections, and the 2021 redistricting cycle will be the most litigated redistricting cycle.” Read Marc’s interview with The Hill about the upcoming redistricting cycle.
We’re watching:
Department of Justice (DOJ) Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke testifies to a House committee on the DOJ’s commitment to protecting voting rights. "For the Justice Department, restoration of the Voting Rights Act is a matter of great urgency." Watch here.
Plus:
Join Marc and Democracy Docket for another weekly Twitter Spaces! Tune in today at 1PM ET to the @DemocracyDocket Twitter account on your iPhone or Android.
|
|
Spotlight: The Federal Government Must Act To Protect Our Democracy
In this week’s Spotlight, Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX) writes about the importance of federal protections for voting rights. Allred, a voting rights attorney who worked to protect Texans’ rights during the 2014 election before being elected to Congress, argues that smaller, subtler changes to election law in states across the country may get less media coverage, but they have profound impacts on voters. Republicans are working to restrict early voting and mail-in voting in order to “put pressure on Election Day, creating longer lines and limiting opportunities for folks to vote,” writes Allred. “Black, Brown and young voters will be disproportionately impacted and will have a harder time voting,” as lines get longer and those less able to stand in the hot sun for five or six hours find themselves disproportionately disenfranchised. “We are faced with a very clear choice: The federal government can once again intervene and set national standards to protect our democracy or we can enter a new era of anti-democratic darkness.” Read “The Federal Government Must Act To Protect Our Democracy” on Democracy Docket now.
|
|
Ask Marc
Each week, we pick a few questions from our readers for Marc to answer. Got a question? Submit it here!
Carol asks: Will court battles delay new maps past the 2022 elections?
Marc: A lot of these lawsuits have been filed already just for this reason. If a state has a divided government, or a history of not coming to an agreement on redistricting maps, voting rights groups can sue so that courts step in and ensure that maps are drawn in time for the 2022 elections, and voters aren’t electing representatives based on maps that are no longer constitutional.
Meg asks: I know why states like Texas are the primary focus of voting rights lawsuits, but will there be a point where states like Indiana, which have been passing restrictive voting laws for years, are in the spotlight?
Marc: The media may only focus on states where voter suppression is new, but at Democracy Docket, we are watching all 50 states. Voting rights advocates recently won a case in Indiana that protected voters from registration purges without written notice. Read more about the case here.
|
|
What Bode's Barking About
“Even Republicans themselves gush that they can recapture the House via gerrymanders. Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Tex.) recently enthused that GOP control of “most” redistricting across the country “alone should get us the majority back.” If Jackson understood this as an admission that Republicans must rig the playing field in glaringly anti-majoritarian ways to be competitive, it certainly didn’t seem to trouble him. He openly boasted about this as a sign of Republican strength.” The Washington Post
“Population size determines, to some degree, the power you wield. The only option left to white supremacists at this point is to find ways to help white people maintain their grip on power even as they become a minority in the population, and the best way to do that is to deny as many minorities as possible access to that power.” The New York Times
“Perry’s role in undermining the legitimacy of Joe Biden’s election victory has become increasingly clear in the months since Election Day, dividing Republicans in his Harrisburg-based district and giving Democrats hope of knocking off the five-term congressman in 2022.” CNN
|
|
Like getting our exclusive recaps on all things democracy? We depend on the support of our readers to keep bringing you the latest on the fight for democracy. We can’t do this without you.
