The House’s voting rights authorities named for the civilian rights person John Lewis seeks to antagonistic the Supreme Court’s longstanding bid to undermine the Voting Rights Act.
Aug. 21, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ET
When Judge John G. Roberts Jr. faced the Senate for his Supreme Court confirmation hearing successful September 2005, critics sounded the alarm astir his longstanding skepticism toward the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which galore presumption arsenic crucial to the governmental gains of Black Americans implicit the past fractional century.
“I fearfulness that if Judge Roberts is confirmed to beryllium main justness of the United States, the Supreme Court would nary longer perceive the people’s cries for justice,” Representative John Lewis, the civilian rights person from Georgia, said successful urging the Senate Judiciary Committee to cull the nomination.
Judge Roberts was easy confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate contempt pleas from Mr. Lewis and different civilian rights activists. He went connected to oversee the tribunal successful rulings that weakened the Voting Right Acts, compromising its decades-long relation arsenic a protector of number entree to the ballot container crossed overmuch of the South. Mr. Lewis died past July, conscionable months earlier Republican authorities legislatures enacted an onslaught of voting restrictions aft the 2020 elections.
But it is not lone those legislatures that Democrats spot arsenic their adversaries connected predetermination issues.
“We are besides up against a Supreme Court that is keen connected destroying our nation’s astir consequential voting rights law,” Representative Terry A. Sewell, Democrat of Alabama, said this week during a Democratic telephone celebrating the day of women’s close to vote.
While Mr. Lewis whitethorn beryllium gone, House Democrats anticipation to support his tone live by passing a measure bearing his sanction adjacent week that they anticipation volition offset what Speaker Nancy Pelosi has called “disastrous” and “shameful” decisions undermining voting rights by the Roberts-led court.
The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is 1 constituent of a two-pronged legislative effort by Democrats to support number voting rights. A overmuch broader bill, the For the People Act, would enforce an array of requirements connected states to grow voting by message and aboriginal voting on with extended provisions connected ethics, run concern and redistricting.
The measure named for Mr. Lewis is narrower and focuses connected restoring the powerfulness of the Voting Rights Act. Both measures look a bleak aboriginal successful the Senate, wherever Republicans are astir unanimous successful their absorption to them.
But Democrats, who power the evenly divided enclosure with Vice President Kamala Harris’s tiebreaking vote, accidental they person not fixed up.
“Republicans refusing to enactment thing connected voting rights is not an excuse for Democrats to bash nothing,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the bulk leader, promising that Democrats would marque the authorities a precedence erstwhile they instrumentality aft Labor Day.
Democrats are scaling backmost the broader measure to unite their enactment for coming votes. The Lewis measurement already has the backing of each 50 senators who caucus with Democratic leadership, including Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the sole Democrat who did not endorse the For the People Act. He has besides enlisted the enactment of a lone Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, acold from the minimum of 10 Republicans needed to flooded a filibuster.
The Lewis measurement is aimed astatine reinvigorating the voting protections Democrats accidental were mislaid successful 2 Supreme Court decisions that “gutted” the landmark underlying instrumentality — Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. The first, with a bulk sentiment written by Chief Justice Roberts successful 2013, rendered moot a request that authorities and section governments with a past of imposing discriminatory voting laws person “preclearance” from the Justice Department oregon a national tribunal successful Washington earlier making changes to however radical voted. The second, with a bulk sentiment written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. past month, made it harder for number voters to beryllium they were being discriminated against by asserting that the applicable portion of the Voting Rights Act could beryllium utilized lone to onslaught down important voting restrictions, not simply inconvenient ones.
The new, highly elaborate authorities would found a modern look for determining erstwhile governments indispensable get preclearance for caller voting rules and besides abolish the modular acceptable by Justice Alito’s opinion, which Democrats deplored arsenic legislating from the bench. The measure would besides necessitate states to supply grounds of the elector fraud that the caller laws are ostensibly meant to curtail.
Democratic officials progressive successful drafting the John Lewis enactment accidental it was cautiously written to withstand law scrutiny from the six conservatives connected the court. But fixed the grounds of the court, and peculiarly that of the main justice, satisfying the justices could beryllium hard adjacent if Democrats were to someway get the measurement to President Biden’s desk.
As a young lawyer successful the Reagan medication successful 1982, Mr. Roberts aggressively fought a bipartisan connection to revise the expiring Voting Rights Act to antagonistic an adverse Supreme Court ruling connected the instrumentality successful Mobile v. Bolden. In that determination 2 years earlier, the tribunal weakened the instrumentality by requiring impervious that the intent of a voting regularisation was to discriminate — an exceedingly precocious bar. Democrats, with important Republican enactment successful Congress, projected altering that caller modular to 1 that required showing lone that the effect of a instrumentality was discriminatory.
In a bid of memos that aboriginal became public, Mr. Roberts, past a peculiar adjunct to the lawyer general, argued vehemently against the change. In 1 noteworthy memo, helium said that violations of the Voting Rights Act “should not beryllium made excessively casual to prove, since they supply a ground for the astir intrusive interference imaginable by national courts into authorities and section processes.” Congressional Republicans, fearing they would beryllium branded arsenic racists should they reason the change, rejected that view. A compromise measurement was approved connected a beardown bipartisan ballot aft breaking a Senate filibuster led by Jesse Helms, the archconservative from North Carolina.
At Judge Roberts’s confirmation proceeding successful 2005, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, pressed him connected what Mr. Kennedy characterized arsenic his “narrow and cramped, and possibly adjacent a meanspirited presumption of the law” fixed his comments successful 1982. But Judge Roberts said helium was simply arguing the presumption of the Reagan medication and his boss.
“I was a unit lawyer successful the Justice Department,” helium told Mr. Kennedy. “It was the presumption of the Reagan medication for whom I worked, the presumption of the lawyer wide for whom I worked, that the Voting Rights Act should beryllium extended for the longest play of its hold successful past without change.”
Eight years later, the main justness wrote the sentiment dismantling important elements of the Voting Rights Act, saying that “things person changed dramatically” since the law’s adoption successful 1965 and that governments should nary longer beryllium subjected to preclearance.
“The tests and devices that blocked ballot entree person been forbidden nationwide for implicit 40 years,” helium said.
Critics of that ruling and the consequent 1 issued past period reason that the big of measures assorted states person passed successful caller months marque wide that Republicans person recovered caller “tests and devices” to restrict entree to the ballot. Those see provisions that marque it harder to ballot aboriginal oregon by mail, banning oregon restricting driblet boxes, shortening aboriginal oregon absentee voting periods and giving much leeway to partisan canvass watchers.
In his 2005 testimony, Mr. Lewis, who was severely beaten successful a civilian rights march successful Selma, Ala., successful 1965, suggested that the nominee did not grasp what it had outgo to enact the voting measurement successful the archetypal place.
“In 1965, Jurist Roberts was 10 years old,” Mr. Lewis testified. “He whitethorn beryllium a superb lawyer, but I wonderment whether helium tin truly recognize the extent of what it took to get the Voting Rights Act passed.”
“As galore of you know, I gave a small humor connected the Edmund Pettus Bridge,” helium told the senators, referring to the tract of the march successful Selma. “But immoderate of my friends and colleagues gave each they had, their precise lives for the close to vote.”