Posted on 01/20/2014 3:54:49 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
The bill also includes a sweetener for Virginians. Under the old provisions shot down by the Supreme Court, the Old Dominion was one of nine states with histories of voter discrimination required to get federal approval before they changed their election procedures. Under the new proposal – which aims to update the formula dictating which states are subject to the extra scrutiny – only four states would be forced to seek such approval. Virginia is not among them.
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a long-time voting rights champion and a lead sponsor of the updated protections, noted Thursday that Rep. Spencer Bachus (R) has already endorsed the measure. Like Virginia, Bachus's home-state of Alabama was one of the initial nine states requiring preclearance that would be dropped from the list under the new formula.
"There is Southern support for it," Sensenbrenner said.
GOP Reps. Steve Chabot (Ohio) and Sean Duffy (Wis.) have also endorsed the bill.
Yet there are also political reasons for Republican leaders to be wary of the proposal. For one thing, the four states requiring federal "preclearance" under the new bill are Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana and Georgia – all GOP strongholds that won't want any of the stigma or embarrassment that would come with being named among the few remaining pockets of the country where race-based voter discrimination has been a recent problem.
The arrival of a bipartisan bill to modernize the 1965 Voting Rights Act has put Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) in a pickle.
The House majority leader has been a rare Republican voice urging assurances that last year's Supreme Court decision to nullify core provisions of the landmark voter protection bill won't foster discrimination at the polls.
Yet he's given no indication how Congress should proceed or what he would support – a vague position that will be tested now that specific legislation has been introduced with the backing of several prominent Republicans.
Cantor's office said he's still examining the proposal, would require states with five violations of federal voting laws over the last 15 years to get pre-clearance from Washington before altering their election procedures. All eyes will be on the majority leader's response, which could be the make-or-break moment for the proposal's chances this year.
There are compelling reasons for Cantor to get on board. As the majority leader, Cantor is on the front lines of the fight to increase the GOP’s control over the lower chamber in November. Republican leaders won't want to be seen blocking a bill designed to protect voters – particularly one with bipartisan support – especially at a time where they’re trying to expand their party’s minority outreach.
The bill also includes a sweetener for Virginians. Under the old provisions shot down by the Supreme Court, the Old Dominion was one of nine states with histories of voter discrimination required to get federal approval before they changed their election procedures. Under the new proposal – which aims to update the formula dictating which states are subject to the extra scrutiny – only four states would be forced to seek such approval. Virginia is not among them.
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a long-time voting rights champion and a lead sponsor of the updated protections, noted Thursday that Rep. Spencer Bachus (R) has already endorsed the measure. Like Virginia, Bachus's home-state of Alabama was one of the initial nine states requiring preclearance that would be dropped from the list under the new formula.
"There is Southern support for it," Sensenbrenner said.
GOP Reps. Steve Chabot (Ohio) and Sean Duffy (Wis.) have also endorsed the bill.
Yet there are also political reasons for Republican leaders to be wary of the proposal. For one thing, the four states requiring federal "preclearance" under the new bill are Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana and Georgia – all GOP strongholds that won't want any of the stigma or embarrassment that would come with being named among the few remaining pockets of the country where race-based voter discrimination has been a recent problem.
Additionally, the protections outlined in the new bill are aimed at empowering minority voters, who typically lean Democratic.
Another factor determining GOP support might whether conservative and Tea Party groups weigh in on the bill. Heritage Action, among the most influential of those groups, is still examining the bill but will soon issue a verdict, spokesman Dan Holler said Friday.
Sensenbrenner – who was head of the Judiciary Committee in 2006 when the Voting Rights Act was last reauthorized and was also involved in a similar effort in the 1980s – said he's "had discussions" with Cantor about the bill. But he suggested the majority leader's position won't come overnight.
"As you know, the way the leadership operates is they cogitate and think and then they listen to complaints and stuff like that. … We faced this problem during my tenure in Congress both in 1982 and 2006," the Wisconsin Republican said Thursday.
"[In] the two reauthorizations that I have participated in the bill has come up, maybe not as quickly as I would have liked to have had it, but when it has come up it has passed overwhelmingly in both houses," Sensenbrenner added.
Cantor's office did not respond to requests for comment Friday, but said a day earlier that they're still reading the bill.
The office of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) also did not respond to a request for comment Friday.
An ardent conservative who fights regularly to limit the reach of the federal government, Cantor might seem an improbable voice for strengthening Washington's oversight over state and local elections. But a March trip with Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) to Selma, Ala. – where Lewis was savagely beaten during a landmark civil rights march in 1965 – left a mark on the Virginia Republican. He described it as "a profound experience" illustrating "the fortitude it took to … ensure equal protection for all."
Several months later, he was one of the few Republicans to call for some response to the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the voter protection formula determining which locales were subject to the federal preclearance requirement.
"I'm hopeful Congress will put politics aside, as we did on that trip, and find a responsible path forward that ensures that the sacred obligation of voting in this country remains protected," Cantor said at the time.
Across the Capitol, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee and another lead sponsor of the law’s modernization, said "several" Republicans "have made clear" to him that they'd support the bill if it comes to the floor.
"I'm waiting to see which ones may want to put their name on it ahead of time," he said.
Still, Leahy predicted the proposal would pass without a filibuster threat if it's brought up.
"I think you're going to see people on the bill in the Senate go across the political spectrum," the Judiciary Committee chairman said.
Texas should consider this an act of war by the lesser states and declare its independence from the USSA.
The problem with rigged elections has little to do with race now, and everything to do with party. The motto of the Dims is “by any means necessary”.
In my opinion, the Federal Government has no business in telling any State how to run its own business, regardless of the Civil Rights Act or not.
If there are warrantable individual claims for violation of rights, they should be brought forth in claim, adjudicated, and settled on that basis. Broad sweeping sanctions against entire States for indeterminate periods because of acts not yet performed is an act of war.
“Nice” how the sweetener is to exempt 2 of the states so they’ll stab the others in the back.
The Left will do anything to lock down states’ rights on voter ID with federal dictates.
Cantor and the others better think LONG and HARD about their position.
This WH and DOJ are corrupt.
Will the GOP follow their lead?
Oh, I think the GOPe (those in control of the GOP now) are ALREADY corrupt. To me, there is no question about it.
It is up to us to through out any RINO this year.
Voting rights — canard...
Sensenbrenner and Duffy voting rights ping.
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
I will move back to Texas the day that they do it.
Voting rights: One vote for each legally qualified individual in each election, with the same standard of proof applied to all. But that would be RACIST!
The part struck down by the Supreme Court was a somewhat arbitrary list of states and counties where a presumption of guilt had been created, requiring they prove their innocence anytime a jot or tittle of election law was changed.
Further, when such local changes were made to election law, their presumed guilt could only be removed in federal court or through "preclearance" from the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department.
The choices Sensenbrenner and Conyers have made for a new list, consisting of only four southern states, that would now have to prove (to the federal bureaucracy) they were not discriminating is completely arbitrary, particularly since at least one of these states has an effective black majority.
This move on Sensenbrenner's part, helping only the Democrats and this UNHOLY Justice Department, and at THIS time, is insulting and stupid.
The Voting Rights Act is still in effect and plaintiff's can still obtain relief without resorting, once again, to Reconstruction.
Sensenbrenner is what sound minded folks once called a "Radical Republican." I sincerely hope Republicans that today represent areas that were on the list of "presumed guilty" parts of this Union recently struck down by the Supreme Court, will see the wisdom of NOT resurrecting this same burden.
Voting rights should be pro honest citizen, race neutral and include the requirement of integrity in casting/counting votes. Singling out particular states for extra watching goes against one law for all and is based on a history that has long passed.
Also, the federal Motor Voter law should be modified to let all states verify proof of legal citizenship/legal nationalization when registering or voting. The present lack of valid documents invites fraud.
Doesn’t sound like a pickle to me.
This is crap. The time for this law has come and gone.
They are buying GOPers support by taking their states off the list while giving the feds more power in the other 4
Corrupt Cronyism at its worst
needs a Uniparty Ping
It's What the Uniparty Wants, it's what they will try to force on us!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.