Civilized said:
Steve Videtich said:
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/33092591/alabama-crimson-tide-coach-nick-saban-urges-west-virginia-sen-joe-manchin-back-freedom-vote-act
C'mon coach!
What are we objecting to in the FTV act?
Specifically, the bill expands voter registration (e.g., automatic and same-day registration) and voting access (e.g., vote-by-mail and early voting). It also limits removing voters from voter rolls.
Next, the bill establishes Election Day as a federal holiday.
The bill declares that the right of a U.S. citizen to vote in any election for federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense unless, at the time of the election, such individual is serving a felony sentence.
The bill establishes certain federal criminal offenses related to voting. In particular, the bill establishes a new criminal offense for conduct (or attempted conduct) to corruptly hinder, interfere with, or prevent another person from registering to vote or helping someone register to vote.
Additionally, the bill sets forth provisions related to election security, including by requiring states to conduct post-election audits for federal elections.
The bill outlines criteria for congressional redistricting and generally prohibits mid-decade redistricting.
The bill addresses campaign finance, including by expanding the prohibition on campaign spending by foreign nationals, requiring additional disclosure of campaign-related fundraising and spending, requiring additional disclaimers regarding certain political advertising, and establishing an alternative campaign funding system for certain federal offices.
I think if this bill was just the provisions you outlined above it would probably be passed. The issue is that this bill also brings back the preclearance standards from the original 1965 voting rights act (section 5) that were supposed to sunset after 5 years but have not. The issue with the preclearance standards from the original voting rights act is that the data used to determine whether federal approval is needed for a state to make even small changes (i.e. the location of a polling place) hasn't been updated since 1975.
All of that is to say that because the data is so out of date, that the 9 states that are covered under the preclearance portion of the 1965 voting rights act actually have higher registration and voting rates amongst African American voters than states that are not covered in section 5 (cough.....New York.....cough).
So, I say all that to say that the John Lewis Voting Rights Act seeks to resurrect this "preclearance" process and dictate "covered jurisdictions" not by voter registration or turnout numbers but by the number of "violations" of voting rights over time, counting any consent decrees, settlements, and other court enforced resolution against a state or jurisdiction.
This brings in a political aspect to voting rights. Of course, the Justice Department had, and will have, a heavy hand in influencing which jurisdictions get sued and rack up the requisite numbers to be "covered."
For example, the Biden DOJ sued Georgia for changes to it's early voting standards as did the Obama DOJ with North Carolina's. Both voting standards when you look at them are extremely generous when it comes to early voting standards and availability.
So in the example above, Democratic DOJs have attacked two states with a republican legislature majority while ignoring democratic controlled states (cough...New York....cough) that have far fewer early voting opportunities.
So, this specific provision is the sole reason for me personally to not agree with this bill. It will rig the game and allow for the Justice Department suing only those states they have a political disagreement with, racking up the requisite number of violations to be covered and then having the ability to strip that state of control of their elections, redistricting, etc. and block any voting law they do not like without going to court. It also includes provisions that federalize local elections and measures that counter what some view as unfavorable Supreme Court precedent on matters such as vote dilution and vote denial cases.
There is another part of the 1965 voting rights at bill that didn't sunset and never will sunset. That's Section 2, the part that actually protects voting rights. That's never going to change whether republicans are in charge or not.
1965 voting rights bill "preclearance" section 5 that was last unanimously approved to be extended in a bi-partisan effort in 2006, again you will hear that the republicans "have changed their tune" on voting rights but that's not the case. It was however, a terrible mistake to extend section 5 without updating the data. If that had happened, there would be states in the North that would be under federal control of approval of their election laws instead of states in the South.
