Welcome to the August edition of The Lever, where we explore the potential impact of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4), which the U.S. House passed last week. How would its passage have affected the state legislative landscape in 2021?
You’ll also find an op-ed by our partners in Texas for accessible voting for all, and a new, detailed chart that documents election subversion and politicization legislation in all 50 states. Let’s get right to it.
|
|
On August 24, the House passed H.R. 4, also known as the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. This federal legislation would require states and jurisdictions to obtain certification, or “preclearance,” before making changes to election procedures in certain circumstances to ensure that the proposed changes are not discriminatory.
In this month’s Hot Policy Take, we look at some of the changes states made in 2021 that would have been subject to H.R. 4’s preclearance requirements. If H.R. 4 had been in place in 2021, states would be required to submit these changes for preclearance – and would be prohibited from implementing them until they were approved. Read the analysis on our blog.
|
|
Our friends at the Coalition of Texans with Disabilities published a powerful op-ed in the Texas Tribune last week. They articulate a compelling case for making voting easier and more accessible for all:
“The common theme of the regular [legislative] session was a need to restore trust and integrity in our elections. For voters with disabilities, though, Texas is still falling short on its potential to lead when it comes to running secure elections while also protecting every Texan’s sacred right to vote.”
|
|
BY THE NUMBERS
40 Bills
40 bills have been introduced across 13 states that would threaten election officials with felony prosecution or create penalties for election administrators who try to increase voter access or who make inadvertent mistakes.
Why does it matter? Rather than protecting our election officials, these bills threaten them with serious criminal penalties and risk increasing the national exodus of experienced election administrators – dedicated civil servants who are vitally important to maintaining our democracy.
Check out our brand new 50-state chart, Election Subversion and Politicization of Elections, for a breakdown of these provisions by state – powered, as always, by our team of policy experts and the State Voting Rights Tracker.
|
|
WHAT WE'RE READING
In their article, NC court grants voting rights to thousands of people on probation or parole for a felony, The Raleigh News & Observer reported that a recent court order restored voting rights to an estimated 55,000 North Carolinians on parole or probation.
‘“Our biggest quarrels in this state have been over what groups of people have a voice at the ballot box to be included in ‘We the People,’” Atkinson [co-director of Durham civil rights group Forward Justice and a lawyer for the challengers in this case] said at a press conference Monday, later adding: “Today, we enlarged the ‘we’ in ‘We the people’.”’
|
|
THE MARKUP
In addition to this monthly newsletter, you can also sign up for The Markup, a weekly update for insiders on state election legislation. Here’s a snippet from this Monday’s edition of The Markup – a sample of what you can expect each week:
Texas House passes S.B. 1. After adopting several amendments, the House passed the omnibus anti-voter bill, S.B. 1 on Friday and sent it back to the Senate for concurrence. Later that evening, the Senate refused to concur and appointed five senators to a conference committee where the final bill will be negotiated behind closed doors. The House appointed its five conferees before adjourning Friday night.
If you’d like to get insights like this straight to your inbox each Monday, head here to sign up. We won't be publishing next week, but we'll be back at it on Monday, September 13.
|
|
|
|
