Amid a string of legislative victories for Democrats, including the enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is still pushing for the passage of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. The bill would effectively re-establish previously dismantled portions of the Voting Rights Act.
“One year ago, House Democrats passed the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act,” Schiff said Wednesday. “But it’s been stuck in the Senate ever since, thanks to Republican abuse of an arcane, undemocratic rule. Abolish the filibuster. Get voting rights done. Our democracy depends on it.” The Senate’s filibuster rules demand the agreement of at least 60 Senators in the 100-member Senate before moving forward with most initiatives. The Inflation Reduction Act passed the chamber because Democrats formulated it as a budget reconciliation deal, and for particular legislative initiatives falling under that category, only a simple majority is needed.
One year ago, House Democrats passed the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
But it's been stuck in the Senate ever since, thanks to Republican abuse of an arcane, undemocratic rule.
Abolish the filibuster. Get voting rights done.
Our democracy depends on it.
— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) August 24, 2022
The bill Schiff referenced would restore requirements for federal approval of certain local changes to the electoral process. As for which jurisdictions would be subject to the requirements, a document from the office of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) says the bill “creates a new coverage formula that applies to all states and hinges on a finding of repeated voting rights violations in the preceding 25 years.” The 25-year period foundational to the law’s approach as described in the doc would be established on an essentially rolling basis, meaning it would include the 25 years up to whatever point in history at which those involved find themselves. The bill also includes limits on the kinds of proposed changes to the conducting of elections that would be subject to requirements for approval, and local authorities would also be permitted to argue for proposed changes to the electoral process in court if the Justice Department turns against their ambitions.
Attorney General Merrick Garland expressed support for putting pre-approval — otherwise known as preclearance — requirements back into place. “By any measure, the preclearance regime was enormously effective. While it was in place, the Justice Department blocked thousands of discriminatory voting changes that would have curtailed the voting rights of millions of citizens in jurisdictions large and small,” Garland said in an article last August. (Most measures up for pre-approval were, in fact, approved, meaning accomplishing this push-back against voter suppression didn’t mean a complete shutdown of effectively conducting state and local elections.) The U.S. Supreme Court upended the decades-old preclearance system established in the Voting Rights Act with a 2013 decision. Notably, the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized in Congress on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis in 2006 — but Republicans now mostly oppose this new voting rights effort.
