Bill offered in U.S. Congress to modernize Voting Rights Act

WASHINGTON Thu Jan 16, 2014 6:45pm EST

A man casts his vote for the New York Mayoral Election at the Congregation Mount Sinai in New York November 5, 2013. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly

A man casts his vote for the New York Mayoral Election at the Congregation Mount Sinai in New York November 5, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Andrew Kelly

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Voting Rights Act of 1965 would be modernized under a bipartisan bill introduced in the U.S. Congress on Thursday in response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that gutted a core part of the landmark law.

The legislation would provide a new formula to determine if any state or locality - not just those with a history of racial discrimination - should be required to obtain prior federal approval to changes in its election rules.

A top Republican, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, joined two Democrats - Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Representative John Conyers of Michigan - to take the lead in drafting the measure.

Backers predicted congressional passage, possibly before November elections.

But it was unclear when the Democratic-led Senate and Republican-led House of Representatives, which have clashed on most issues in recent years, would take it up.

The measure is the result of a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June on the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a centerpiece of the U.S. civil rights movement.

The high court struck down the requirement that nine states, mostly in the South, obtain prior federal approval because of their history of racial discrimination.

The court declared that Congress, in updating the law in 2006, had used outdated facts in deciding that these states must continue to get federal pre-clearance for election law changes.

In doing so, the court challenged Congress to come up with a replacement plan to protect minority voters where discrimination persists rather than target former slaveholding southern states.

Under the Voting Rights Act Amendment of 2014, states would need prior federal approval to change election laws if they had five or more violations of federal law in the previous 15 years.

A jurisdiction would need federal approval if it had three or more violations in the previous 15 years or has had one violation and "persistent and extremely low minority voter turnout."

The bill was introduced in the House and Senate.

"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," Leahy said.

"We believe that this is a strong bipartisan bill that accomplishes this goal and that every member of Congress can support," Leahy added.

Said Sensenbrenner, a former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, "The modernized VRA (Voting Rights Act) is constitutional and bipartisan."

In addition to Leahy and Conyers, other Democratic sponsors include: Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin of Illinois, Senator Chris Coons of Delaware and Representative John Lewis of Georgia, who a half century ago was a leader in the civil rights movement.

In addition to Sensenbrenner, other Republican sponsors include: Representatives Spenser Bachus of Alabama, Sean Duffy of Wisconsin and Steve Chabot of Ohio.

(Additional reporting by Laurence Hurley; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (4)
tmc wrote:
Wow, this almost seems like….Progress! How can this happen? There has to be a catch somewhere….

Jan 17, 2014 12:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Sounds like a good fix to me. Still protects voting rights in states that are flagrant violators, and applies to all states equally rather than just the south. Something so common-sense is naturally bound for failure in our inept congress…

Jan 17, 2014 12:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:
So based on “anticipated” or possible “future” fraud by the evil right leaning conservative states based on actions by people who are mostly dead we need laws that remove states rights and ability to function and govern? Yet, the cases of outright undisputed fraud that was and continues to be brought to light benefitting the DNC is skimmed over in the media and nothing to worry about. I am sick of the BS arguments propagated by the media and leftists that common sense safeguards are somehow race based when the very ones making accusation are guilty of promoting and defending criminal activity in support of “their side”.

Jan 17, 2014 12:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.