In Senate, emotional appeal to restore 'heart and soul' of Voting Rights Act

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) of Vermont, the committee chair, said he called the hearing on the Voting Rights Act quickly after the high court ruling to get the process moving. He said he would “work the phones” during the Senate’s August recess to lay the groundwork for a bill next fall.

“People die in other parts of the world trying to have a free country with a right to vote,” he said. “Americans should not be denied it just through the application of local [discriminatory] laws.”

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R) of Wisconsin, an outspoken supporter of the Voting Rights Act, testified with Lewis to urge passage of a new version of the law.

“I believe the Voting Rights Act is the most successful of all our civil rights acts passed since the 1950s,” he told the panel. “We can’t afford to lose it now.”

Michael Carvin, a Washington appellate lawyer, testified that the Supreme Court’s decision had left intact Section 2 of the VRA. He said that section of the law would be enough to continue effective efforts to counter any discrimination in elections or voting.

Justin Levitt, a voting rights specialist and professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, disagreed. He said the high court action “ripped a sizable hole” in the legal protections for minority voters.

Professor Levitt said lawsuits brought under Section 2 would be slower, more complicated, and more expensive to wage than proceeding under the old version of the VRA.

“Justice should never be too expensive. Justice should never be too slow … or dependent on the ability to find help,” he said.

“For a fundamental right that is not enough.”

At the center of the challenge for Congress is finding a way to set a new criterion that will identify those jurisdictions that engage in the most egregious discrimination in voting.

The high court said Congress must use current data and apply its new formula equally across the country.

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said the Supreme Court had taken up a similar challenge to the Voting Rights Act in 2009 and warned Congress that there were serious constitutional concerns about the measure.

“Congress could have drafted a new coverage formula to address those concerns,” Senator Grassley said. “We could have created a formula on 21st-century realities, not the dramatically different conditions that existed in the 1960s and 1970s.”

Grassley acknowledged that some Democratic members of Congress have stated that it will be impossible to gain support in the Republican-held House of Representatives for a new version of the VRA. But Grassley said rather than blaming Republicans for blocking a bill that does not exist, the Democratic majority should propose a way to update the coverage formula in a way that complies with the constitutional concerns raised by the high court.

“We could cover the whole country,” he suggested. “We could identify jurisdictions engaging in discrimination in the 21st century and where Section 2 is inadequate,” he added.

In his appearance before the committee, Lewis acknowledged that conditions had improved since the 1960s.

“It is true, we have made process,” he said. “We have come a great distance, but the deliberate, systematic attempt to make it harder or more difficult for many people to participate in the democratic process still exists to this very day.”

“The burden cannot be on those citizens whose rights were, or will be violated,” Lewis said. “It is the duty of Congress to restore the life and soul of the Voting Rights Act. We must do it. And we must do it now.”

Previous

1 | 2