Update III: GOP Rep.
Sensenbrenner (R-White People) is also one of only six serving in Congress today who opposed the federal holiday for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. What a hypocrite.
Update II:
The exemption for voter ID laws was written to win the support of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and other Republicans. The legislation strengthens Section 3 of the VRA, which has been described as the Act’s “secret weapon.” Under Section 3, jurisdictions not covered by Section 4 could be 'bailed-in' to federal supervision, but plaintiffs had to show evidence of intentional voting discrimination, which is very difficult to do in court. Under the new Section 3 proposal, any violation of the VRA or federal voting rights law – whether intentional or not – can be grounds for a bail-in, which will make it far easier to cover new states. One major caveat, again, is that court objections to voter ID laws cannot be used as grounds for “bail-in”under Section 3.) -
Sharon McClosky in The Progressive Pulse.
The legislation strengthens
Section 3 of the VRA, which has been described as the Act’s “
secret weapon.”
Under Section 3, jurisdictions not covered by Section 4 could be
“bailed-in” to federal supervision, but plaintiffs had to show evidence
of intentional voting discrimination, which is very difficult to do in
court. Under the new Section 3 proposal, any violation of the VRA or
federal voting rights law – whether intentional or not – can be grounds
for a bail-in, which will make it far easier to cover new states. (One
major caveat, again, is that court objections to voter ID laws cannot be
used as grounds for “bail-in” under Section 3.)
This
exemption for voter ID laws was written to win the support of House
Majority Leader Eric Cantor and other Republicans. - See more at:
http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2014/01/16/bipartisan-proposal-to-amend-the-voting-rights-act/#sthash.FYh5tURQ.dpuf
This
exemption for voter ID laws was written to win the support of House
Majority Leader Eric Cantor and other Republicans. - See more at:
http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2014/01/16/bipartisan-proposal-to-amend-the-voting-rights-act/#sthash.FYh5tURQ.dpuf
Update: That the idiot caucus in the GOP hates the bill is no cause for support for this codification of the GOP's voter ID obstruction project, a project that has yielded results.
The return of the Voting Rights Act? Try the championing of state Voter ID laws, the go-to voter obstructionist tool of the Republican party.
---
Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014: Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973a(c)) is amended by striking ‘‘violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment’’ and inserting ‘‘violations of the 14th or 15th Amendment; violations of this Act (other than a violation of section 2(a) which is based on the imposition of a requirement that an individual provide a photo identification as a condition of receiving a ballot for voting in an election for Federal, State, or local office) ... ."
The
Voting Rights Amendment Act (H.R.3899) should be renamed the Voter ID Obstruction Protection Act, which is why Rep. Sensenbrenner when he introduced the bill January 15, he made sure to note the legislation includes "provisions that continue to permit states to enact reasonable photo identification laws" in an act that would pit Sections of the Act against in each other.
From
Sensenbrenner's website:
Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014
Section by Section Description of VRA Draft Legislation
Section 2.
Violations Triggering Authority Of Court To Retain Jurisdiction
--
Provides that a court can “bail-in” a State or political subdivision based on a discriminatory result by amending Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to include violations of Section 2 of the VRA and violations of any Federal voting rights law that prohibits voting discrimination against racial and language minorities.It carves out from the new standard Section 2(a) cases that are based on a photo identification on requirement
Well, at least Sensenbrenner did not say "common sense" measures to obstruct voters this time, a tiresome phrase used by Scott Walker too often for my taste.
H.R.3899 is a terrible bill.
This is because HR 3899 crafts language of the section 4 formula of the Voting Rights
Act (VRA) narrowly, specifying as
Ari Berman points out that only states "with five violations of federal law to their voting changes over
the past fifteen years will have to submit future election changes for
federal approval."
Resurrecting Section 5 with an extraordinarily weak formula in Section Four is tantamount to getting raped five times before getting treatment, support and help from law enforcement, a terrible joke of the VRA, though the D.C. commetariat quietly applauds this bipartisan exercise in codifying state photo voter ID laws.
Should this bill be passed, one of
Wisconsin's two federal consolidated challenges to the GOP-crafted Wisconsin Act 23, the photo voter id law is imperiled if the
Voting Rights Amendment Act (H.R.3899) (2014) were to become law. The trial is now under submission to
Judge William M. Conley,
Western District of Wisconsin.
Maybe the Wisconsin case will make past the five GOP justices on the U.S. supreme court when it gets there.
Judge William M. Conley, who heard
Frank v. Walker, (Case 11cv1128) and
League of United Latin American Citizens of Wisconsin v. Deininger (Case 2:12-cv-00185) in Wisconsin in a
consolidated trial in November 2013 is taking the cases under submission (research, consideration and an intellectual enterprise to arrive at an order and opinion) that will involve a massive judicial undertaking.
In the Wisconsin
League case, which is the
first case to use Section 2 since
Shelby County v. Holder, civil rights plaintiffs argues "The evidence conclusively demonstrates that the burdens of Act 23 fall disproportionately on voters of color. Two different expert studies introduced at trial, using two different sound methodologies, confirm Act 23’s substantial racially disproportionate impacts. As plaintiffs’ expert Leland Beatty concluded, 'Wisconsin minority voters are at a substantial disadvantage under Wisconsin’s voter ID law, and ... the effect of that law imprints an unavoidable disparate impact on minority election participation.'"
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in the
League case may not find relief from the new
Voting Rights Amendment Act (H.R.3899) which in the words of Sensenbrenner, "includes strong, nationwide anti-discrimination protections and continues to permit states to
enact reasonable voter-ID laws."
Rep. John Conyers (D-Michican) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermount) demonstrate again why politicians fail to understand that when 100,000s of citizens are obstructed from voting, and their new legislation does nothing to prevent this, they may have been living the high life a bit too long.
"Our sole focus throughout this entire process was to ensure that no American would be denied his or her constitutional right to vote because of discrimination on the basis of race or color," Patirck Leahy said in a statement, cited by
Steve Benen and many others across the nation, all of whom ignore the plain language of
HR 3899 enshrining state Photo Voter ID laws: "other than a violation of section 2(a) which is based on the imposition of a requirement that an individual provide a photo identification as a condition of receiving a ballot for voting in an election for Federal, State, or local office."
As
Derick T. Dingle writes, "Legal scholars found the voter ID provision as a gaping hole in the
law (HR 3899), avoiding one of the major voter suppression issues of the day."
On the up side, the
League challenge is an "as-applied" challenge as opposed to the "facial" challenge in the
Crawford vs. Marion County Board of Elections, as noted by
Earnest A. Canning in the Brad Blog.
The problem is
Section 2 is not much help to the Wisconsin case if the Voting Rights Amendment Act (H.R.3899) permits state photo voter ID laws, the favorite voter obstruction tool of the Republicans, as the case winds its way through a hostile GOP-heavy, federal judiciary.
The other federal Wisconsin challenge to the GOP voter obstruction Act makes Constitutional Equal Protection, Twenty-Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment arguments, irrespective of the Voting Rights Act.
Under Scott Walker, "Wisconsin has long been recognized as the
Selma of the North and this case illustrates just why the Midwestern
state bears this harrowing distinction,” said
James Eichner, Managing Director for Programs, Advancement Project.
“Wisconsin’s discriminatory voter ID law is virtually indistinguishable
from Jim Crow laws of earlier eras which required poll taxes, property
requirements, literacy tests and other contrived, racist measures
designed to prevent African Americans from voting."
Walker is getting some company from Democratic congressmen.
