John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act

John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is a proposed federal legislation in the United States Congress designed to restore and strengthen key provisions of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. Named in honor of the late civil rights icon and longtime Congressman John Lewis, the bill is a direct legislative response to the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder. Its primary aim is to re-establish a modern formula for determining which jurisdictions with histories of voting discrimination must obtain federal preclearance before changing their election laws.

Background and legislative history

The legislative push for this act stems from the judicial erosion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, particularly the 2013 Supreme Court ruling that invalidated the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the act. This decision effectively halted the preclearance requirement of Section 5, which had required certain states and localities to obtain approval from the Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court for D.C. before implementing new voting procedures. Following this, many states, including Georgia, Texas, and Arizona, enacted a wave of new voting restrictions. The bill was first introduced in the 116th United States Congress as H.R. 4 by Representative Terri Sewell of Alabama, and was reintroduced in the 117th United States Congress following the 2020 elections and the subsequent passage of restrictive laws like Georgia's SB 202.

Provisions of the act

The act seeks to create a new, responsive preclearance formula to replace the one struck down in Shelby County v. Holder. Key provisions include establishing a practice-based trigger that would subject jurisdictions to preclearance if they have a certain number of voting rights violations over a 25-year period. It would also expand the types of changes subject to review, including alterations to methods of election, redistricting plans, and changes in documentation requirements. Furthermore, the bill enhances the ability of the Attorney General and federal courts to send observers to jurisdictions with a recent history of violations and increases transparency by requiring jurisdictions to publicly announce any proposed voting changes.

Legislative progress and status

In the 117th United States Congress, the bill, designated H.R. 4, was passed by the House of Representatives on August 24, 2021, largely along party lines. However, it faced significant obstacles in the Senate, where it failed to overcome the filibuster due to unified Republican opposition and the reluctance of some Democratic senators, namely Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, to alter filibuster rules. Companion legislation in the Senate, such as the Freedom to Vote Act, which bundled voting rights provisions, also failed to advance. As of the 118th Congress, the legislation has not been reintroduced in the same form, with the political landscape shifting following the 2022 midterm elections.

Support and opposition

The act has received strong endorsement from major civil rights organizations including the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the ACLU. It is championed by the Democratic Party leadership, including President Joe Biden and then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who frame it as essential to protecting democracy and honoring the legacy of John Lewis. Opposition is led by the Republican Party, which argues the bill constitutes a federal overreach into state election administration, with figures like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell criticizing it as unnecessary and partisan. Some conservative legal groups, such as the Heritage Foundation, contend that existing anti-discrimination laws like Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are sufficient.

Impact and analysis

Legal scholars and voting rights experts argue that the act's passage would significantly alter the landscape of election law litigation by shifting the burden of proof back onto jurisdictions with problematic histories. Analysts from institutions like the Brennan Center for Justice suggest it would act as a powerful deterrent against the adoption of discriminatory laws seen in states like Wisconsin and North Carolina. The debate over the bill has intensified discussions about the filibuster, federalism, and the role of the Supreme Court in electoral policy. Its failure to pass has been cited as a catalyst for increased litigation under Section 2 and has influenced state-level activism and legislation, shaping the ongoing national conversation about voting access following the 2020 presidential election and the January 6 Capitol attack.

Category:Proposed legislation of the 117th United States Congress Category:Voting rights in the United States