While Democrats’ sweeping democracy overhaul HR 1 has run into likely insurmountable obstacles in the Senate, attention has turned to the separate legislative push lawmakers are making to restore the part of the Voting Rights Act that was gutted by the Supreme Court in 2013.
This really will be a big deal if they can push it through, and considering how the last one passed Congress it should go through easily. Republicans will balk though, because they do most of the map drawing that violates the act, but having all districts require clearance would go a long ways to make sure the system is at least not biased. You can bet far worse will be coming when Republicans start their gerrymandering in the states they control.
We need even more, which is where HR 1 comes in, but restoring the VRA should be something every American gets behind.
”There is also a belief among some that HR 4 stands to get at least a few Republican votes…”
”Clap louder so Tinkerbell will live!!!”
This might be a winning strategy, if enough reps get behind it. As long as HR1 contains campaign finance reform,it’s going to be harder to get passed.
If you haven’t seen this you should take a few minutes to watch Sen. Kennedy get made a fool of .
Everything the GQP is going to do for the next year and half is try and scare the swing voters in suburbia by saying that Dems play the race card. FUll stop. Its all they have and it might work in certain districts.
He does a really good job of making a fool out of himself, she just adds to it be being so focused. OTOH if he ever gives up the political thing, Warner Bros should consider him for a live action Foghorn Leghorn movie.
Imagine for a moment if the media actually covered these hearings.
If the SCOTUS’ stated objection to the pre-clearance provisions was that it punished certain communities based on their behavior in 1964, what would be the risk to declaring that all communities be subject to pre-clearance before changing their voting regs?
Does HR 4 do that? If not, which communities are subject to pre-clearance? At least we do have a wealth of evidence from the last seven years to base our judgements on.
Oh, there’s a good number of southern-accented politicians I’d like to see in a baggy rooster costume!
I suppose, but so far none of their dire predictions about the invasion and desecration of suburbia have borne out, and those suburban voters seem pretty happy with what they’re getting: Government that works and no obscene orange gasbag in the Oval or on our screens.
The argument that would be made against it nationwide pre-clearance exceeds Congress’s authority to enforce Due Process and Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment. Not every jurisdiction is engaged in denying voting rights, so imposing preclearance on those jurisdictions goes beyond simple enforcement of the 14th, and preclearance is not otherwise among Congress’ enumerated powers.
I don’t know if the argument would succeed, but that’s what it would be.
Anyone who is against this but complains about Congress and DC being polarized needs a shovel to their head.
C-SPAN does. People make choices.
“There is also a belief among some that HR 4 stands to get at least a few Republican votes in its favor, particularly from the Republicans who supported the 2006 VRA authorization.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!! No it won’t. WTF?
Requiring pre-clearance to change what in many cases are already racist voting laws does not solve the problem.
What solves the problem is national voting standards. That is rules that everyone in every state must follow for national elections evens the playing field for all Americans.
That’s an argument to pass HR1 instead of HR4. I think we need HR1- all of it. But the thesis of the article is that house dems think maybe HR4 could get through the senate faster. Given the speed of restrictions, we definitely need to get one of them passed ASAP
I was wondering what unintended consequences might arise from requiring pre-clearance from everybody, since some of the states which amped up voter suppression over the last decade - eg Wisconsin- weren’t states that had historically done so.
So a future Republican administration objecting to an all mail ballot system would be one. Is that realistic? Is it a greater risk than leaving some northern jurisdictions unprotected?
The ones that favor Republicans.
Well,yes, of course. I was hoping for examples of what those might be.
Likelihood of a suit to challenge it up to the not-entirely-democracy-friendly SCOTUS.