The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act stands as a landmark legislative effort to modernize and revitalize the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a cornerstone of American democracy. This crucial act directly addresses the setbacks inflicted upon the original Voting Rights Act by Supreme Court decisions, notably Shelby County v. Holder (2013) and Brnovich v. DNC (2021). These rulings significantly weakened the protections against discriminatory voting practices, necessitating a robust response to safeguard equal access to the ballot box for all Americans. The John Lewis Act aims to strengthen these protections, moving the nation closer to the ideal of fair and equitable elections, free from discriminatory barriers.
Key Provisions of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act
The John Lewis Act is structured around several key provisions designed to proactively combat voter discrimination and ensure every citizen’s right to vote is protected. These provisions fall into three primary categories: Preclearance, Vote Dilution and Vote Denial, and Retrogression.
Revitalizing Preclearance: Geographic and Practice-Based Coverage
At the heart of the John Lewis Act is the restoration of preclearance, a powerful tool originally included in the Voting Rights Act to prevent discriminatory voting changes before they could take effect. The Supreme Court’s Shelby County v. Holder decision eliminated the formula used to determine which jurisdictions were subject to preclearance, deeming it outdated. The John Lewis Act introduces a modernized framework to determine which states and localities require federal oversight of their voting laws.
Geographic Coverage Based on Contemporary Evidence:
The new framework for geographic coverage is based on recent and demonstrable evidence of voting discrimination. Jurisdictions with a documented history of discriminatory voting practices will once again be required to seek “preclearance” from the Department of Justice or the Federal Court in Washington, D.C. before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices. This ensures that these changes are reviewed in advance to prevent them from disproportionately impacting minority voters and hindering their access to the ballot. By updating the preclearance formula, the John Lewis Act ensures that oversight is directed where it is demonstrably needed, based on current patterns of discrimination.
Practice-Based Coverage Addressing Discriminatory Tactics:
Recognizing that certain voting practices are frequently employed to disenfranchise minority voters, the John Lewis Act establishes “practice-based coverage.” This provision mandates nationwide preclearance for specific types of voting changes that have historically been used to discriminate. These practices include:
- At-Large Districts: Creating at-large districts in jurisdictions with substantial minority populations can dilute minority voting power, making it harder for minority-preferred candidates to win.
- Jurisdiction Boundary Changes: Altering jurisdiction boundaries to exclude minority voters from a jurisdiction with a significant minority population is another tactic to reduce minority political influence.
- District Boundary Changes: Changing district boundaries where a minority group is sizable and experiencing population growth can be used to manipulate district lines to the detriment of minority voters.
- Strict Voter ID Requirements: Imposing stricter documentation or proof of identity requirements can disproportionately burden minority voters who may have less access to required forms of identification.
- Multilingual Voting Materials: Reducing the availability or altering multilingual voting materials creates barriers for voters with limited English proficiency, often impacting minority communities.
- Polling Place and Voting Opportunity Reductions: Reducing, consolidating, or relocating polling places, early voting options, Election Day voting opportunities, or absentee voting options in areas with significant minority populations can suppress minority voter turnout.
- Voter Roll Purges: Making it easier to remove voters from the rolls in jurisdictions with sizable minority populations increases the risk of eligible minority voters being wrongly purged.
Streamlined Bailout Process:
The John Lewis Act also refines the “bailout” process, which allows jurisdictions to be released from preclearance coverage if they demonstrate a consistent record of non-discrimination. The Act introduces a faster, more efficient bailout process that doesn’t necessitate a lawsuit. States with a sustained period free of discriminatory voting practices and meeting specific objective criteria can qualify for automatic bailout, incentivizing good faith efforts to ensure fair elections.
Strengthening Protections Against Vote Dilution and Vote Denial
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act provides a crucial avenue for voters to challenge voting laws and practices that are intentionally discriminatory or have a discriminatory effect. However, the Brnovich v. DNC Supreme Court decision made it more challenging to prevail in these lawsuits. The John Lewis Act directly addresses this by reinforcing protections against both vote dilution and vote denial, codifying established legal standards for Section 2 cases.
Combating Vote Dilution:
Vote dilution occurs when practices like gerrymandering or at-large districts weaken the collective voting strength of minority voters, making it more difficult for their preferred candidates to win elections.
The John Lewis Act codifies the “Senate Factors,” a set of nine criteria outlined in the 1982 Senate report accompanying amendments to the Voting Rights Act. These factors, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), have long been used by federal courts to assess vote dilution claims. These factors include considerations such as the history of official discrimination, the prevalence of racially polarized voting, and the success rate of minority candidates in the jurisdiction. By enshrining these factors into law, the John Lewis Act provides clearer guidance and strengthens the legal basis for challenging vote dilution.
Addressing Vote Denial:
Vote denial arises when voting restrictions create disproportionate obstacles for minority voters compared to nonminority voters, making it harder for them to cast a ballot.
The John Lewis Act clarifies the legal framework for vote denial claims, emphasizing the “Senate Factors” to determine if a voting rule places undue burdens on minority voters. Critically, the Act stipulates that unsubstantiated claims of “voter fraud” are insufficient justification for discriminatory voting rules. States must provide concrete evidence of actual voter fraud and demonstrate that the challenged law or practice is a necessary and narrowly tailored response. Furthermore, the Act clarifies that a voting rule intended to benefit a political party can still violate Section 2 if it intentionally results in vote dilution or vote denial for minority voters.
Preventing Retrogression: Safeguarding Against Worsening Discrimination
The John Lewis Act introduces a new legal recourse against retrogression, ensuring that states and localities cannot implement voting rules that are more discriminatory against minority voters than the rules they replace. This “anti-retrogression” provision allows voters to sue jurisdictions that enact voting changes that worsen the voting experience for minority communities, preventing backsliding on voting rights progress.
Conclusion: Advancing Equal Access to the Ballot
The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act represents a vital step forward in protecting and expanding voting rights in the United States. By modernizing preclearance, strengthening protections against vote dilution and denial, and preventing retrogression, this act aims to dismantle discriminatory barriers and ensure that every eligible American has an equal opportunity to participate in the democratic process. Enacting the John Lewis Act is crucial for upholding the promise of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and building a truly representative democracy where all voices are heard and all votes are counted.
