#john r. lewis voting rights advancement act

[kp777]

By Brett Wilkins

Common Dreams

July 26, 2024

One group said it has registered over 100,000 new voters since U.S. President Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 race.

The group behind a popular get-out-the-vote technology platform said Friday that it's registered more than 100,000 new U.S. voters since President Joe Biden withdrew from the 2024 presidential race, a surge that came amid mounting Republican efforts to make it harder to register and vote.

Vote.org said that 84% of voters registered in the new wave are under age 35. Nearly 1 in 5 new registrees is 18 years old. Andrea Hailey, the group's CEO, said that "since 2020, we have led the largest voter registration drive in U.S. history," with more than 7.8 million people registered.

After dropping out, Biden endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to face former Republican President Donald Trump and Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) in the November election. The new presumptive Democratic candidate has already earned endorsements from many Democrats in Congress and groups advocating on issues including climate, labor, and reproductive rights.

Vote.org's success comes as Republicans at the federal level are proposing and passing legislation creating obstacles to the ballot box.

Earlier this month, U.S. House Republicans passed Rep. Chip Roy's (R-Texas) Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would require proof of American citizenship to vote in federal elections. Republicans claim the bill is meant to fix the virtually nonexistent "problem" of noncitizen voter fraud.

However, Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) slammed the bill as a "xenophobic attack" meant to silence "Black voices, brown voices, LBGTQIA+ voices, [and] young voices."

Lee said the SAVE Act underscores the need to pass her recently introduced Right to Vote Act, "which would establish the first-ever affirmative federal voting rights guarantee, ensuring every citizen may exercise their fundamental right to cast a ballot."

Earlier this year, U.S. Senate Democrats also reintroduced the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, legislation its sponsors say will "update and restore critical safeguards of the original Voting Rights Act."

Meanwhile, Republican-controlled state legislatures and red-state governors are enacting laws imposing tough restrictions on voter registration, with violations punishable by stiff fines that critics say are meant to dissuade people from registration drives and similar efforts.

Again under the guise of preventing fraud, Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis last year signed legislation limiting voter registration drives, with fines of up to $250,000 for violators.

"These draconian laws and rules are like taking a sledgehammer to hit a flea," Cecile Scoon, an attorney and president of the Florida chapter of the League of Women Voters, toldThe New York Times in an article published Friday.

Three years after Kansas passed a law making "false representation" of an election official a crime, campaigners say it's become extremely difficult to sign up new voters.

"In 2020, even with the pandemic, we had registered nearly 10,000 Kansans to vote. Now, we haven't been able to register anyone," Davis Hammet, president of the youth voter mobilization group Loud Light, told the Times.

In Louisiana, Republican state lawmakers quietly passed legislation making it easier for election officials to toss out absentee ballots with missing details, limiting how people can mail in other voters' ballots, and restricting the ability to assist people with disabilities with their ballots.

"What we've found is that these measures have a disproportionate impact on voters with disabilities, both Black and white," NAACP Legal Defense Fund senior policy counsel Jared Evans toldNola.com earlier this week.

"It's clear that their goal is to make it harder to vote, harder for specific communities to vote especially," Evans added. "What they don't realize is that these laws hurt white voters, too."

In Nebraska, Republican Secretary of State Bob Evnen last week ordered county election offices to stop registering voters with past felony convictions who have not received official pardons. The move came after the state's unicameral Legislature passed a bill granting voting eligibility to felons immediately after they have completed their sentences instead of waiting two years.

"We refuse to accept thousands of Nebraskans having their voting rights stripped away," ACLU of Nebraska legal and policy fellow Jane Seu said in a statement. "We are confident in the constitutionality of these laws, and we are exploring every option to ensure that Nebraskans who have done their time can vote."

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) said on Monday that he “won’t rest” until lawmakers pass national voting rights legislation, renewing his push for further reforms on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

“Nobody’s about to silence me on this issue of voting rights,” Warnock said in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “We’re going to get this done.”

In the last Congress, Democrats tried and failed to pass sweeping voting rights legislation that sought to fight back against state laws in a number of GOP states that had curtailed access to the ballot.

After the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act passed the House in September 2021, Democrats in the Senate were unable to get the bill through the chamber because of Republican opposition.

Now Warnock, who is also the senior pastor at Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, where King was pastor until his assassination in 1968, is pressing to get federal voting rights legislation passed, arguing on MSNBC that the issue should be at the top of his party’s agenda.

“Voting rights is not just some other issue alongside other rights,” Warnock said. “It’s the very framework in which we get to fight for all the things we care about.”

Warnock’s offensive on voting rights comes after President Biden during a speech on Sunday at Ebenezer Baptist Church on what would have been the slain civil rights icon’s 94th birthday that the U.S. is at an “inflection point” for the fight for democracy.

But with Republicans in control of the House of Representatives and Democrats holding a slim majority in the Senate, the prospects of passing sweeping voting rights legislation seem slim. Republicans have signaled instead that their legislative priorities include curtailing abortion access and repealing key parts of some of the Biden administration’s most prominent legislative victories over the last two years.

[ravnlghtft]

Legislation fights back against voter suppression, updates and restores critical safeguards of the original Voting Rights Act

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and her colleagues introduced the John R. Lewis Voting Advancement Act, legislation to stop state voter suppression efforts, safeguard critical voting rights protections, and restore and enhance the Voting Rights Act.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s damaging Shelby County decision in 2013—which crippled the federal government’s ability under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to prevent discriminatory changes to voting laws and procedures—states across the country have unleashed a torrent of voter suppression schemes that have systematically disenfranchised tens of thousands of American voters. The Supreme Court’s decision in Brnovich delivered yet another blow to the Voting Rights Act, by making it significantly harder for plaintiffs to win lawsuits under the landmark law against discriminatory voting laws or procedures.

“The right to access the ballot box and have your voice heard is foundational to how our democracy and country works. Unfortunately, we have seen targeted attacks on this right in Wisconsin and across the country, and we need to put an end to it,” said Senator Baldwin. “Our bill honors the legacy of the late Congressman John Lewis and continues his work by curbing voter suppression, protecting Americans’ right to the ballot box, and ensuring the power is in the hands of the people.”

The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is endorsed by hundreds of organizations, including the following leading civil rights organizations: Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, American Civil Liberties Union, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), MALDEF, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, and Demos.

The legislation is led by U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), and Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

[sleepyleftistdemon]

House Democrats on Tuesday unanimously introduced the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, a bill named for the late civil rights leader that would restore and expand the protections of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court's Republican-appointed majority gutted in two infamous rulings in 2013 and 2021.

The House had previously passed a version of the legislation in 2021, but it failed to advance in the Senate last year when Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema sided with every Republican to support a filibuster against it.

Once again sponsored by Alabama Rep. Terri Sewell, the revised bill would establish a new formula to determine which states and localities must "preclear" any proposed changes to election laws and procedures with the Justice Department or a federal court. The previous preclearance regime, which was struck down in 2013 by the Supreme Court, applied to states and localities—largely in the South—with a history of racial discrimination in their voting laws. Its dismantling sparked a wave of GOP-backed voter suppression laws, many of which have targeted people of color.

[mybookof-you]

2023.07.17

"The Freedom to Vote Act is popular. Seventy percent in one poll — including 54 percent of Republicans — supported its passage, while 63 percent of likely voters (including 42 percent of Republicans) supported passage of the combined Freedom to Vote Act and John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act in another poll. Voter support is even stronger on specific policies such as expanding early voting, ending gerrymandering, protecting election workers, and curbing dark money...

Passing landmark federal legislation is always a long process; the 1965 Voting Rights Act was the product of over a decade of advocacy and passed only on the heels of weaker laws. The Freedom to Vote Act demands similar perseverance. It is not just the right thing to do, but also what the American people want.

Introduced 09.14.2021 by Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota

S.2747 - Freedom to Vote Act

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

September 19, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

House Republicans appear to be barreling toward a government shutdown, unable to agree even to debate a bill to fund the military. That rejection made Republican leadership pull from the floor a continuing resolution to fund the government into October. Extremist members simply refuse to agree to any bill that doesn’t cave to their demands. And, as NBC News reporters note, “The House [Republican] chaos is worse than it may appear.” The bills over which they are currently fighting cannot possibly pass the Senate. Government funding ends on September 30.

And so a small minority of extremists are threatening to shut down our government. Such a shutdown would have global as well as domestic repercussions: the Pentagon warned that a government shutdown would disrupt U.S. military aid to Ukraine, including training for military forces. Hamstringing our ability to help Ukraine stand against Russia, refusing to fund the Pentagon, and Alabama senator Tommy Tuberville’s hold on military promotions that has left more than 300 top military positions vacant all undermine our national security. This is an astonishing position for Republicans, who used to pride themselves on their support for the military. 

That such a small number of extremists can shut down our country speaks to the power of voting. Four days ago, Vice President Kamala Harris kicked off a month-long tour of college campuses to mobilize younger voters to “fight for our freedoms.” Today is National Voter Registration Day, and in Reading, Pennsylvania, she noted that young people have spent their whole lives in the climate crisis, have seen the Supreme Court stop recognizing the constitutional right to abortion, and have spent their earlier years practicing active shooter drills. They are now stepping up to lead the country toward solutions.

Harris told a cheering, overflow audience at the Reading Area Community College that voting “determines whether the person who is holding elected office is going to fight for your freedoms and rights or not. Whether that be the freedom that you should have to just be free from attack, free from hate, free from gun violence, free from bias, free to love who you love and be open about it, free to have access to the ballot box without people obstructing your ability to exercise your civic right to vote, in terms of who will be the people holding elected office and leading your country.” 

The political power of young voters will be important in determining the outcome of the 2024 elections. In Pennsylvania today, Democratic governor Josh Shapiro announced automatic voter registration when people are getting or renewing a driver’s license. The governor tweeted: “We got traffic moving on I-95 in just 12 days. We delivered universal free breakfast for 1.7 million students. And today, we implemented automatic voter registration. There’s more to do, but we’re getting stuff done in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

In Congress today, the Democrats, led by Representative Terri Sewell (D-AL) reintroduced the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which passed the House in 2021 but was stopped by a Republican filibuster in the Senate. 

This measure would restore and modernize the 1965 Voting Rights Act after the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision gutted it. Until that decision, Congress had regularly reauthorized the Voting Rights Act on a bipartisan basis, but as soon as the decision was handed down, Republican-dominated state legislatures passed voter suppression laws, gerrymandered their states, and closed polling sites, measures that made it more difficult for Black Americans, many of whom backed Democrats, to vote. In the decade since the decision, Sewell noted, at least 29 states have passed a total of almost 100 laws restricting voting.

Sewell represents Selma, Alabama, where civil rights activist and, later, Georgia representative John R. Lewis was beaten by law enforcement officers when he crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge with other civil rights activists marching for the right to vote. She noted, “Generations of Americans—many in my hometown of Selma, Alabama—marched, fought, and even died for the equal right of all Americans to vote. But today, their legacy and our very democracy are under attack as MAGA extremists target voters with new laws to restrict voting access. Ten years after the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the fight for voting rights has never been more urgent.”

The reason for voter suppression was made clear again today when, in a pattern that has continued since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, no longer recognizing the constitutional right to abortion, Democrats won two elections. In New Hampshire, Democrat Hal Rafter flipped a state House seat formerly held by a Republican. And in Pennsylvania, Democrat Lindsay Powell won a special election in Pittsburgh, enabling Democrats to hold control of the Pennsylvania House.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[foreverlogical]

“Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever,” was Alabama Gov. George Wallace’s (D) pledge in 1963. It would be great if attitudes like that were buried long ago in the landfill of racist history. But looking at Alabama today, it can feel like not much has changed. 

Taking a page right out of Wallace’s 60-year-old playbook, Republican state legislators are fighting back against a direct order from the Supreme Court to redraw racially gerrymandered electoral maps that disadvantage Black voters.  

The legislature dragged its feet and finally responded to the court’s June ruling in Allen v. Milligan by submitting a new map with one hitch — legislators freely admit that it doesn’t meet the requirements for an additional majority-Black district. Earlier this month, judges on a federal district court panel threw out the new map and made a point of writing that they were “deeply troubled” by the legislators’ deliberate nose-thumbing.  

That was good news. But these Alabama lawmakers clearly think they can win by losing, because now they can appeal to the Supreme Court again. The Alabama House Speaker, unafraid to say the quiet part out loud, declared that since the court’s ruling against them last time was 5-4, “there’s just one judge” that needs to “see something different” for them to win this time around. 

Meanwhile, a federal court is ordering that yet another district map be drawn up by a special master and a cartographer. (When was the last time you heard of a cartographer?) The dispute sends the state's redistricting process back almost to square one. And if it isn’t resolved in time, elections could eventually go forward under the old, discriminatory map.  

And if anybody thought Alabama was alone in trying to turn back the clock, Florida has jumped into the fray. Just days before the federal court in Alabama rejected the legislature’s new map, a state judge in Florida nixed a redistricting plan there. That plan also would disenfranchise Black voters. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) is its biggest fan.   

Other states, including Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas, are embroiled in court cases over their maps, too.   

There are probably plenty of people who will brush this off as “just politics.” But for millions of 

Americans, this is personal. And painful. 

A couple of weeks ago I had the honor to speak at the 60th anniversary of the March on Washington. I’m a millennial, and in my speech, I told the crowd what I know in my heart: that my entire life was made possible by the people who fought 60 years ago for me. To see voting rights under attack again all these years later is a gut punch. 

So we do what civil rights advocates did decades ago, and we fight. Back in the 1960s, the remedy was federal legislation. It can be again; there have been two bills in Congress recently that are designed to protect voting rights against attacks, including redistricting abuses like the ones we’re seeing in places like Alabama and Florida. These bills, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, came really close to passing as a package before GOP opposition and failure to reform the filibuster killed them in the Senate last year.   

But that doesn’t mean giving up; the Freedom to Vote Act was reintroduced by Democrats in July. The John Lewis Act will be, too, as its sponsor Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) says she plans a reintroduction. Sewell, of course, is from Alabama — the eye of the storm.  

And while there might not be much chance that the current GOP-controlled House will do the right thing on voting rights — not when Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) falsely compares the latest Alabama map scheme to redistricting in New York —  we keep fighting.   

We can thank the courts for handing voters a partial victory with rulings against racist maps. But the real victory needs to come next November when we go to the polls with a clear focus: Only vote for those who will protect our voting rights. 

 Svante Myrick is president of People for the American Way.   

[meret118]

Southern Republican lawmakers in two states are calling into question who can officially call themselves Black. After decades of efforts to sublimate Black Americans with laws such as the “one-drop rule” that would limit their power and enforce a color line, the GOP now wants to erase Black Americans altogether. This is why we need Congress to pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act as soon as possible.Republicans in Louisiana and Alabama are challenging a section of the Voting Rights Act in an effort to whitewash the power of Black voters. As NPR’s Hansi Lo Wang reports, the fight is over redrawing congressional districts in Alabama and Louisiana in the wake of the 2020 census. How the Supreme Court rules on an Alabama case will set the stage for what it means to be “Black”—and how these states define someone

[rebeleden]

Rep. Sewell Speaks Out Against House Republicans’ Voter Suppression Legislation, Calls for Consideration of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act - Press Releases - U.S. Congresswoman Terri Sewell

[daisylovesrumble]

Urge Your Representatives to Support the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act | League of Women Voters

Since the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder that gutted the VRA, discriminatory voting laws have passed across the country. We must restore and strengthen the VRA by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, vital legislation that is needed to fully restore and modernize the VRA and ensure that discriminatory voting policies are stopped in their tracks.

[rjhamster]

Support the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act

Every. Single. Vote. is a non-profit organization that’s fighting to make voting easier and more accessible through statewide ballot measures. We really hope you’ll decide to join our fight, however, if you no longer wish to receive email updates, you can unsubscribe here. Last week, we asked if you wanted the newly-elected Congress to PASS the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act — and…

[robertreich]

The Real Reason Congress Gets Nothing Done

Why doesn’t Congress get anything done? Well, one chamber actually does. Hundreds of bills have been passed by the House of Representatives, but have been blocked from even getting a vote in the Senate. Bills like –

The Freedom to Vote Act,

The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act,

The Equality Act,

Background checks for gun sales,

Reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act,

The Protecting the Right to Organize Act.

The Build Back Better Act.

The list goes on…

So why aren’t these crucial bills getting a vote in the Senate? Because the filibuster makes it impossible.

******

Btw, if you’d like my daily analyses, commentary, and drawings, please subscribe to my free newsletter: robertreich.substack.com

******

All told, the House passed over 200 bills since the start of 2021 that have not been taken up in the Senate. Everything from investing in rural education to preventing discrimination against pregnant workers to protecting seniors from scams – bills that have real, tangible benefits for the public; bills that have widespread public support.

So don’t believe the media narrative that Congress is trapped in hopeless gridlock and

both sides

are to blame. One chamber of Congress, led by Democrats, is passing important legislation and delivering for the people. But Republicans in the Senate, and a handful of corporate Democrats, are hell-bent on grinding the gears of government to a halt.Why are Senate Republicans doing this? Because their midterm strategy depends on it. Republicans are blocking crucial legislation so they can point to Democrats’ supposed inability to get anything done, and claim they’ll be able to deliver if you give them majorities. Don’t fall for it.

[madamspeaker]

Speaker Nancy Pelosi gavels in legislation which combines the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act (13th January, 2022)

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Two things are clear about House Democrats’ new plan to undo a conservative Supreme Court’s efforts to restrict the right to vote: One is that Democrats are starting to recognize the existential threat that a 6-3 conservative Court could present to American democracy. The other is that, unless a handful of key Senate Democrats stop propping up the filibuster, the Court will win this engagement.

On Tuesday, Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL) introduced the plan, known as the “John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021,” with a strong endorsement from House leadership. The bill is expected to receive a House floor vote as soon as next week — but will likely die in the Senate, like other Democratic priorities sabotaged by a handful of Democratic senators who remain loyal to the filibuster.

Congressional Democrats have backed some version of the John Lewis Act for quite some time. Not long after Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives in 2019, they rallied behind an earlier version of the bill. That earlier version sought to restore “preclearance,” a practice from the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that required states with a history of racist election practices to submit their election rules to federal approval before those rules take effect.

The Supreme Court effectively struck down preclearance in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) — in a party-line vote with all of the Court’s Republican appointees in the majority and all of its Democrats in dissent.

The latest version of the John Lewis Act is far more ambitious than the one Democrats supported in 2019. Among other things, the new bill would undo the Supreme Court’s very recent decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021), which imposed new, seemingly made-up limits on the Voting Rights Act’s safeguards against racism in elections.

The new bill would also roll back the Court’s decision in Purcell v. Gonzales (2006), which drastically limits courts’ ability to protect voting rights as an election draws close. The bill creates a new process to block certain voting restrictions in all 50 states, and, it prevents the Court from changing the rules governing who may cast a ballot while an election is underway — and then retroactively disenfranchising voters who did not comply with the new rules.

The Supreme Court’s disregard for voting rights enabled a raft of legislation attacking the franchise in Republican-controlled states. Some of these bills erect hurdles between voters and the polls that might be overcome by Democratic political organizing, but others make structural changes to elections that could lock Democrats out of power. In Georgia, for example, the state Republican Party can take over local election boards that could potentially disenfranchise thousands of voters in Democratic strongholds like Atlanta.

If enacted, the new John Lewis Act would be one of the most ambitious voting rights laws ever enacted by Congress — though, again, its success depends on Senate Democrats unanimously concluding that protecting democracy is more important than preserving the filibuster. In either event, however, the bill is a giant middle finger to the Roberts Court, which has been extraordinarily hostile toward voting rights.

If nothing else, in other words, the latest version of the John Lewis Act recognizes that one of the greatest threats to American democracy is the Supreme Court of the United States — and that Congress needs to confront the Court’s recent decisions directly if it hopes to protect democracy in the United States.

The new John Lewis Act provides for preclearance on steroids

Under the original Voting Rights Act, states with a history of racist election practices had to “preclear” any new voting rules with a federal court in DC or with the US Department of Justice. The idea was to stop those laws from ever taking effect until federal officials reviewed them to ensure that they would not target minority voters.

In Shelby County, however, the Court’s Republican majority struck down preclearance. Notably, though, Shelby County did not hold that Congress could never pass new legislation imposing preclearance. Instead, Shelby County held that, if Congress wants to impose preclearance on some states but not others, it “must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions.”

The John Lewis Act seeks to meet this challenge by imposing preclearance — typically for at least 10 years — on states where “15 or more voting rights violations” occurred in the previous 25 years, or that committed 10 such violations if “at least one of which was committed by the State itself.” Local jurisdictions, such as counties or townships, can also be subjected to preclearance if they committed three or more violations during the previous 25 years.

Additionally, the latest draft of the John Lewis Act imposes preclearance on any state with only three violations, if they occur in a local jurisdiction where elections are administered by the state itself. This is likely a response to a new Georgia law, which allows the GOP-controlled State Elections Board to take over local election administration and potentially disenfranchise voters en masse.

The new version of the John Lewis Act also requires all 50 states — regardless of whether they have a racist history — to submit certain kinds of election rules to preclearance.

The list of election practices that must be submitted to federal review by all 50 states includes most laws that reduce “the proportion of the jurisdiction’s voting-age population” that belongs to a particular racial or language minority group by 3 percent or more. It includes all redistricting laws in areas with significant minority population growth. It includes certain voter ID laws, and it includes many attempts to close or reduce the hours of polling places.

Again, the mere fact that a state engages in one of these disfavored practices does not mean that the state’s new rule will be invalidated. But the election rule may not take effect until federal officials screen it to ensure that it “neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.”

The new bill would light Brnovich on fire

The Voting Rights Act prohibits states from enacting an election law that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right ... to vote on account of race or color.” Violations of this provision, which is often referred to as the “results test,” are typically enforced through litigation.

In Brnovich, however, the Supreme Court invented several new restrictions on the results test which appear nowhere in the text of the law. Among other things, Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Brnovich creates a strong presumption that voting restrictions that were commonplace in 1982 remain lawful. It fabricates a similar presumption favoring state laws purporting to fight voter fraud. And Brnovich suggests that a state law restricting one method of voting (such as, say, early voting) should be upheld if there are “other available means” to cast a ballot.

Much of the new version of the John Lewis Act appears to have been drafted by lawyers who went line by line through Alito’s opinion in Brnovich in order to cancel every new limit on voting rights made up by Alito and his colleagues.

Among other things, the bill would forbid courts from considering certain factors in Voting Rights Act cases, such as whether a particular voting restriction “has a long pedigree or was in widespread use at some earlier date,” whether the law is defended as an effort to fight “fraud,” and, in most cases, whether the state makes other methods of voting available.

Additionally, the bill contains a list of factors that courts should consider when hearing Voting Rights Act cases, including “the history of official voting-related discrimination in the State or political subdivision,” the degree to which voting is “racially polarized” in a jurisdiction (such as if white voters overwhelmingly prefer Republicans and Black voters vote overwhelmingly for Democrats), and “the extent to which minority group members bear the effects of discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health.”

Many of these later factors are derived from the Court’s pre-Brnovich decisions.

The bill would also cut off other, more subtle tricks that the justices used to restrict voting rights

Many of the Roberts Court’s voting rights cases involve subtle procedural attacks on the right to vote — the sort of attacks that nominally leave the right in place but that prevent courts from handing down orders protecting it.

Consider, for example, Purcell. That case held that courts should be reluctant to hand down orders impacting a state’s election practices as an election draws close. “Court orders affecting elections,” the Court warned in Purcell, “can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls. As an election draws closer, that risk will increase.”

There is some wisdom in Purcell’s warning that late-breaking election law decisions might create more problems than they are worth. But the Supreme Court’s more recent cases have treated Purcell less as a warning that judges should be careful when hearing voting rights cases, and more as a ban on election-related orders close to an election.

In Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee (2020), for example, the Supreme Court forbade lower courts from altering Wisconsin’s election practices in the midst of a pandemic, even as some localities were shutting down the overwhelming majority of their polling places because they did not have adequate poll workers to conduct a normal spring election.

The new version of the John Lewis Act provides that, except in extraordinary cases, “proximity of the action to an election shall not be a valid reason” to deny relief to a voting rights plaintiff.

Other provisions of the bill prevent appeals courts from disenfranchising voters who relied on a lower court’s order when they cast their ballot. In Andino v. Middleton, for example, a lower court suspended a South Carolina law requiring absentee voters to have another person sign their ballot as a witness. The Supreme Court eventually blocked that lower court’s decision, but not before thousands of voters had already cast a ballot.

Nevertheless, three justices would have disenfranchised any voter who did not have their ballot signed by a witness, even if those voters cast that ballot while the lower court’s order was in effect. The John Lewis Act prevents appeals courts from disenfranchising voters in this way by providing that “a reviewing court shall not order relief that has the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote of any citizen who has acted in reliance on” a lower court’s order.

It should be noted that these are only some of the provisions in House Democrats’ new, very detailed bill. The bill also includes safeguards against “retrogression,” where states enact laws that make voters of color worse off than they were before that law took effect. It imposes new disclosure requirements on states and localities. And it provides grants to smaller jurisdictions to help them comply with the new obligations imposed by this bill.

But the primary purpose of the bill appears to be rolling back the Roberts Court’s efforts to restrict voting rights. It’s a worthy effort — assuming that the Court does not invent some reason to strike down the bill.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Bill Day, Florida Politics   ::  [Scott Horton]

* * * *

"Citizenship is an act."October 3, 2022

Robert B. Hubbell

         The new Supreme Court term begins on Monday, October 3rd, 2022. The Court has granted review to a handful of cases that could reshape the face of American democracy in the near-to-medium term. Major media outlets are appropriately highlighting those cases with rising alarm. I will discuss the cases below, so you are laser-focused on what is at stake in the next year. But before I do, I want to highlight a point that most media discussions omit:

We are not helpless in the face of this challenge. There are multiple ways we can rein in the rogue Court. Our biggest obstacle is finding the courage to act boldly and imaginatively now. The solutions discussed below can (and undoubtedly will) be met with objections and explanations of practical difficulties and imagined fears of retaliation by the GOP when (and if) they control both chambers of Congress and the presidency. We cannot allow ourselves to become immobilized with fears of future contingencies that may never materialize. The threats we face will materialize during the 2022-23 term of the Supreme Court, and our solutions must match that timeline.

  How can we reform the Court and blunt the effect of its upcoming rulings

Abolish the filibuster. Virtually all of what follows depends on overcoming the most anti-democratic rule in an institution that is anti-democratic by design. If we can’t abolish the filibuster entirely, create carve-outs for legislation relating to voting rights, Supreme Court reform, and personal liberty. Creating a “carve-out” to the filibuster requires only a majority vote in the Senate—something that has already happened 161 times. See PolitiFact | How unusual would it be to create a filibuster carve-out for voting rights? Nothing can be more important or deserving of a carve-out than legislation to protect voting rights and protect personal liberty.

Enlarge the Supreme Court to 13 justices (at least). With an exception to the filibuster, enlarging the Court requires only a majority vote in both chambers of Congress and a president willing to sign the bill. This is the quickest and most plainly constitutional way to rein in the reactionary majority.

Pass the Electoral Count Reform Act. As explained in a newsletter last week, this bill will go some distance to eliminating ambiguities and loopholes that Trump tried to exploit in his 2021 coup attempt. This bill should pass even without a filibuster carve-out. This bill is relevant to the nascent “Independent State Legislature” theory that is embedded in Moore v. Harper.

Pass The Freedom to Vote Act. This act would establish uniform national rules for federal elections—a power granted to Congress in Article I Section 4. A filibuster carve-out would be needed, but this act would sweep away the dizzying array of inconsistent and deliberately confusing rules regarding absentee voting, drop-boxes, registration rules, and more.

Pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. This act would reestablish aspects of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 invalidated in Shelby County v. Holder. In particular, states with a history of racial discrimination in voting would be subject to a “pre-clearance” requirement as to redistricting, voter-ID laws, voter rolls, and much more.

Pass the DISCLOSE Act of 2021. This act would limit the fallout of Citizens United by requiring disclosure of the identities of donors to dark money PACs.

         There is more we can do, but you get the point. To paraphrase the memorable words of Brendan Sullivan, “We are not potted plants.” As we review the list of threats posed by the Court’s upcoming docket, be sure to remind yourself, “Hey, here’s an idea! Why don’t we abolish the filibuster, enlarge the Court, pass the Freedom to Vote Act, etc.?”

         If your instinct is to respond to the above suggestions with, “That will never work because . . . .”, then we are just potted plants at the mercy of the Supreme Court. That’s not the way our Constitution works. We need only to find the courage and imagination to act boldly to reclaim the promise of American democracy.

What’s on the Supreme Court’s 2022-23 docket?

Moore v Harper raises the question of whether state courts can invalidate laws passed by state legislatures when they regulate the “time, place, and manner” of holding elections for US Senators and Representatives under Article I, Section IV of the Constitution. Embedded in this case are certain aspects of the Independent State Legislature theory. The Freedom to Vote Act would supersede state laws regarding the time, place, and manner of federal elections and effectively overrule the provisions of North Carolina law at issue in Moore v. Harper.

Merrill v Milligan presents the Court with the opportunity to “topple the last remaining pillar of the Voting Rights Act [by requiring a showing] that racial discrimination was the primary intent behind how district lines were drawn.” As discussed above, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would reestablish protections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that were invalidated by Shelby County v. Holder and would help blunt an adverse decision in Merrill.

“Students for Fair Admissions.” University admissions policies are on the docket in two cases brought by the cynically named “Students for Fair Admissions.” The two cases seek to impose “color-blind principles” to admissions to colleges and universities. As one expert noted in The Guardian, “It’s been the law of the land now for 50 years that universities can take into account all aspects of a person’s background, including their race.” The reactionary majority may rule that every aspect of a person’s background except their race can be considered in the admissions process.

303 Creative v. Elenis raises the question of whether an artist can refuse—on the grounds of free speech—to make her web-design services available to same-sex couples despite a Colorado public accommodations law requiring equal treatment for all members of the public. The issue to be reviewed by the Court was limited to “whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.” In other words, the Court is looking for an additional ground to permit discrimination against same-sex couples besides the current religious exemption for discrimination.

Sacket v. EPA presents the Court with further opportunity to limit the ability of the EPA to regulate wetlands and waterways. See Talking Points Memo, SCOTUS Begins Its Term With Another High-Stakes Environmental Case.

         There are more cases of note, but I must move on to other topics in tonight’s newsletter. I will return to this topic in future newsletters. But remember, we are not potted plants. Whatever damage the reactionary majority inflicts can be undone by legislation and reform of the filibuster—if we maintain control of the House and Senate.