11/05/2021

Senate Republicans Don’t Want to Talk About Voting Rights

On Wednesday, Senate Republicans opposed a procedural vote to open debate on the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, S. 4. The vote failed 50-49, with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) voting against the motion for procedural reasons. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was the only Republican to join the Democratic caucus in voting to advance the bill, but it was insufficient to reach the 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster. Tuesday, Murkowski, along with Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-V.t.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) proposed a compromise bill, which was “crafted to encourage the support of both parties, and stays true to the same bipartisan blueprint followed by Congress in each of the 5 times it has previously enacted legislation to Restore the [Voting Rights Act (VRA)].”

Following the failed vote, Schumer said, “This is a low, low point in the history of this body. A few moments ago, Senate Republicans, for the fourth time this year, were presented with a simple question: Will you start a debate on voting rights in this country?” S. 4 would restore a key section of the VRA that provides crucial federal oversight to ensure states do not enact discriminatory voting laws after it was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013. The bill contains noticeable changes from the one passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 4, in August. In addition to some slight changes in the preclearance formula and requirements, S. 4 includes the Native American Voting Rights Act and the Election Worker and Polling Place Protection Act.

What Went Down on Election Day?

Tuesday was Election Day, and it was not the night that Democrats were hoping for. From Republicans exceeding expectations in Virginia to a closer-than-expected gubernatorial race in New Jersey, the results in some of the most high-profile races were disappointing. And while you’ve probably heard all about Virginia, what happened across the rest of the country?

In special elections to the U.S. House, key judicial races in Pennsylvania and a sweep of historic firsts, read our “Election Day 2021 Recap” to catch up on all the notable results from Election Day.

With the 2021 elections behind us, we are now a year out from the crucial midterms in November 2022. The biggest story of the midterms will be the battle for control of Congress, with all 435 House seats and 34 Senate seats up for election. We also highlight the importance of state government races and the often overlooked office of secretary of state. Republicans who supported Trump’s “Big Lie” are already launching campaigns to become secretary of state in some of the most contested states of the 2020 election. To find out where, read our latest, “Three Things at Stake for Democracy in 2022.”

More States Finish up Redistricting, and It’s Not Looking Good

Illinois — Last Friday, the Illinois Legislature approved a new congressional map. Illinois lost one congressional seat due to population loss over the past decade, but the maps will send more Democrats to Congress and eliminate two Republican seats. The current congressional delegation contains 13 Democrats and five Republicans; analysis suggests that the new map will likely have 14 Democratic seats and three Republican seats. The map maintains the state’s three predominately Black districts and adds a second predominately Latinx district. Notably, one of the last-minute revisions moved Rep. Marie Newman (D-Ill.), a freshman progressive who won an upset primary last fall, out of the district of Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) and into the heavily Latinx district of Rep. Chuy García (D-Ill.). The approved congressional map now heads to the desk of Gov. J. B. Pritzer (D), who is expected to sign it into law.

Alabama — On Wednesday, the Alabama Legislature approved new congressional and state legislative maps, which Gov. Kay Ivey (R) signed into law the following day. The new maps will maintain Republican supermajorities in both the state House and Senate, and keep control of six of Alabama’s seven U.S. House seats. Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) is the state’s lone Democrat in Washington, elected from Alabama’s only district with a majority Black population. Yet, with a population that is over 25% Black, lawmakers and advocates argued that Alabama should draw a second majority-minority district. A lawsuit was filed earlier this fall against the map passed in the 2011 redistricting cycle for this very reason, alleging that it unconstitutionally “packs” Black voters into one majority-minority district to weaken their voting power in other districts.

North Carolina — On Thursday, the Republican-controlled North Carolina General Assembly approved new congressional and state legislative maps. Because Gov. Roy Cooper (D) has no role in the redistricting process, these maps will immediately become law. Despite North Carolina’s near-even partisan split, all three maps are expected to favor Republicans. The new congressional map, for instance, creates 10 Republican-leaning districts, three Democratic-leaning districts and one competitive district. Notably, it dismantles Rep. Kathy Manning’s (D) Guilford County-based district and reduces the Black voting population of Rep. G. K. Butterfield’s (D) district. Democrats objected to all three plans for being partisan gerrymanders — illegal under the state constitution — and for wrongly ignoring racial demographics. Republicans also ignored comments from the public criticizing the maps, particularly those from Guilford County who objected to being split into multiple districts. Redistricting is historically contentious in North Carolina. Both the state’s congressional districts and legislative districts were found unconstitutional by courts multiple times over the last decade. Litigation over the new maps is expected — one lawsuit has already been filed over the “race-blind” process the General Assembly used to draw new legislative districts.

AND MORE:

• Last Thursday, the Iowa Legislature approved a second set of maps prepared by the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency (LSA), which Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) signed into law yesterday. In Iowa, the LSA is responsible for drafting new maps, although the Legislature can reject proposals — which it did on Oct. 5, rejecting the LSA’s first proposal. The second set of congressional districts is more favorable to Republicans than the first proposal, which would have created two Republican districts, one Democratic district and one highly competitive district that President Biden narrowly won in 2020. Instead, the approved plan aligns more closely to the state’s current congressional plan with one Republican district and three competitive ones.
• This week, Delaware approved their state legislative districts, consequently completing redistricting as they only have one at-large congressional district. New congressional map proposals were released in Ohio, Oklahoma, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Ohio’s congressional proposal is coming under fire for being an especially egregious Republican gerrymander.

Colorado Approves Maps, Alabama and Texas Get Sued

Florida — Last Friday, a federal court filing revealed that the University of Florida (UF) is prohibiting three of its professors from testifying in a case challenging Florida’s new voter suppression law, Senate Bill 90. The professors, Daniel A. Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Wright Austin, had submitted requests to UF in order to testify as experts in Florida Rising Together v. Lee, a case brought by civil rights organizations challenging multiple provisions of S.B. 90. The professors sought to provide testimony on how the new law may burden voters of color in Florida, among other topics. The university rejected the requests, writing that testifying about S.B. 90 poses a “conflict of interest” because, since “UF is a state actor, litigation against the state is adverse to UF’s interests.” This decision resulted in a wave of backlash, particularly given that the “university has routinely allowed academic experts to offer expert testimony in lawsuits, even when they oppose the interests of the political party in power.” A New York Times article reported that the plaintiffs and professors are questioning whether UF acted under pressure from Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) given that he has close ties to some of UF’s faculty. In response to public outcry, UF released a statement on Saturday, Oct. 30, stating that professors would still be allowed to testify if they were not compensated for their work, even though this was not stated in their initial rejection of the professors’ requests.

Colorado — On Monday, the Colorado Supreme Court unanimously approved the state’s new congressional map, concluding that the Colorado Independent Redistricting Commission did not abuse its discretion in applying the constitutionally-required criteria. The state Supreme Court is required to review the map to ensure it complies with the state’s redistricting criteria. The criteria include compliance with the VRA and making a “good-faith effort” to achieve population equality between districts, preserve communities of interest and political subdivisions, create compact districts and maximize the number of politically-competitive districts. In its opinion, the Colorado Supreme Court summarized that “the ultimate question for this court is not whether the Commission adopted a perfect redistricting plan, or even the ‘best’ plan among the options presented to it; rather, we examine whether the final adopted plan ‘fell within the range of reasonable options’” consistent with the constitutional requirements. The Colorado Supreme Court is also reviewing the state legislative maps that the legislative redistricting commission approved in mid-October.

Alabama — On Thursday, several Alabama voters sued over the state’s new congressional map, which was signed into law by Gov. Kay Ivey (R) earlier that day. The lawsuit argues that the new map intentionally dilutes the voting strength of Black Alabamians by only creating one majority Black district when a second one could also be drawn. The plaintiffs, all Black voters, argue that the configuration of the state’s new congressional districts “pack” and “crack” Black voters in order to dilute their voting power in violation of Section 2 of the VRA, which prohibits any law that is intended to or results in the “denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” The lawsuit asks the court to declare the recently-passed map invalid and order the creation of a new map that includes a second majority-minority congressional district.

Texas — Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Texas over its new voter suppression law, Senate Bill 1.The DOJ challenges two provisions of S.B. 1: new voter assistance requirements and strict rules that require the rejection of mail-in ballot applications and ballots for “immaterial errors or omissions.” The complaint argues that the first provision limits how eligible voters can receive assistance when casting their vote and therefore makes it harder for Texans to receive federally-protected assistance while voting. Given that Texas has a substantial number of voters who do not speak English as their first language or who have disabilities, the DOJ asserts that S.B. 1 violates Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, which “guarantees that voters who require assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write may receive assistance by a person of the voter’s choice.” Second, the DOJ argues that strict new requirements for accepting mail-in ballot materials violates the Civil Rights Act by “requiring rejection of mail ballot materials—thereby denying the right to vote—because of errors or omissions not material in determining whether such individuals are qualified to vote.” The DOJ asks the court to block the enforcement of the two challenged provisions.

AND MORE:

• On Monday, a judge in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas formally denied a motion to dismiss League of Women Voters of Arkansas v. Thurston, a case challenging four voter suppression laws enacted earlier this year. The defendants, Arkansas Secretary of State John Thurston (R) and six members of the Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners, sought to have the case thrown out. The court rejected their arguments, holding that the plaintiffs do have standing. Finally, the court held that since the case raises state constitutional questions, the defendants are not protected by sovereign immunity. The defendants have already sought to file an appeal directly with the Arkansas Supreme Court.
• The Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives (MALC) filed two lawsuits on Wednesday, challenging Texas’ newly-passed state and federal districts. The state court lawsuit focuses on how Texas House districts are drawn, arguing that the Republican-controlled Legislature ignored the “county line rule” of the Texas Constitution, which requires that counties with sufficient populations be kept whole in drawing House districts. In its federal lawsuit, MALC challenges Texas’ new congressional, state House and state board of education maps under the 14th and 15th Amendments, as well as Section 2 of the VRA.
• Also on Wednesday, a group of Texas voters and Texas State Sen. Beverly Powell (D) filed a federal lawsuit against Texas’ newly-passed state Senate map. The complaint focuses on Tarrant County and Senate District 10, the district of Sen. Powell. The suit argues that “the mapdrawers acted with racially discriminatory intent in drawing” the new district lines, creating a map that “cracks apart Tarrant County’s minority populations, diluting their voting strength by submerging them in Anglo-controlled senate districts.” You can find all of the ongoing lawsuits against Texas’ maps here.

Three things to do today to stay engaged in the fight!

We’re staying informed: The 2021 elections aren’t over in every state. In Louisiana, the primary election will take place Saturday, Nov. 13, after being delayed one month due to Hurricane Ida. There are four statewide constitutional amendments on the Louisiana ballot and numerous other high-profile races, including New Orleans City Council and sheriff. To stay informed on the upcoming elections, including several runoffs, check out this elections calendar.

We’re reading: November is Native American Heritage Month. As we celebrate and honor Indigenous peoples, it’s important to amplify Indigenous voices — not just this month, but all year long. Here’s an article by Dakota/Lakota Sioux writer Ruth Hopkins on the Do’s and Don’ts of Native American Heritage Month.

We're watching: We know that there is a lot at stake in the 2022 midterm elections, but what can we each do to protect voting rights in the year ahead? Join Marc and other voting rights advocates for One Year Till the Midterms: A Voting Rights Briefing hosted by The Meteor at 6 pm EST on Nov. 8. Learn more and register here.

State Lawmakers Must Step in to Remedy Supreme Court Voting Rights Blunder

In this week’s Spotlight, authors Jarret Berg and Rachel Landy discuss how a single technical rule can potentially disenfranchise thousands of voters: not counting “out of precinct” ballots. In the 2020 election, for example, the ballots of nearly 14,000 registered New Yorkers were voided merely because they were cast at a different polling site from the one these voters were assigned. In nearly all cases, these disqualifications disproportionately impact non-white communities in population-dense areas. And in light of the U.S Supreme Court’s decision this past June to uphold an Arizona law that disqualifies such ballots, Berg and Landy urge states to take proactive steps to fix this disenfranchising measure. For more analysis on what these laws look like across the country, read “State Lawmakers Must Step in to Remedy Supreme Court Voting Rights Blunder.”

Each week, we pick a few reader questions about all things elections and share Marc’s answers. Got a question? Submit it here!

Caroline asks: What’s the point of having a “bipartisan compromise” voting bill if only one Republican Senator is on board and Republicans still filibuster?

Marc: Excellent question. What was important about this week’s Senate vote was to demonstrate that every Democrat supports the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Whether Sen. Murkowski joins in supporting the final bill or not, Democrats have a majority to pass both this bill and the Freedom to Vote Act. The only question is whether all 50 Democratic Senators support some filibuster reform to protect voting rights.

Colin asks: Will Republicans reconsider their strategy of voter suppression since they won in Virginia on Tuesday, a state that improved voter access in recent years?

Marc: No. The Republican party is united in making voting more difficult. That is the core of the Big Lie and Trumpism.

“In the name of ‘free speech,’ Florida censors its educators; in the name of ‘democracy,’ it disenfranchises its citizens. This is because, as Florida’s so-called Redeemers understood, power does not need to resolve its contradictions when it can simply silence them.” The Atlantic

“What partisan gerrymandering does — both sides do it — is create more non-competitive or ‘safe’ seats, where members then play to their base and there’s less incentive to work across the aisle. If this every-ten-years process works out as it appears now, the House will be even more polarized in 2023.” The Hill

“Tuesday’s election marked the first general election in which people on parole in Connecticut could cast a ballot, the culmination of a yearlong effort to end felony disenfranchisement. Legislators passed the proposal — tucked into an 837-page budget implementer bill — in a special session days after the session ended. Now, Jeter said, those on parole have political power to wield, to make sure their interests are heeded by elected officials.” The Connecticut Mirror