Senate Passes Voting Rights Act Renewal--H.R. 9 98-0; Goes to President for Signature

I understand that the Senate Judiciary Committee will issue a report later.

Rick Hasen wrote:

"Voting Rights Act Nears Extension in Senate"

The Washington Post offers this news update. I have had the Senate debate on in the background (it is on C-SPAN 2, available over the internet), and I caught this quote from Sen. Lindsey Graham, excerpted in the Post report:

"Some of the data in the Act is based on '68, '72 turnout models" that showed many blacks were not voting in the South, Graham said. "And the Act does not recognize the progress, particularly in my region of the country, and I think it should have."

But Graham also planned to vote for the bill.

"We'll just move on," he said, adding: "South Carolina has make great strides forward in terms of African American voting participation and minority African American representation at all levels of state government and local government. And my state is better for that."

David Lublin wrote:

I enjoyed David Becker's post as I never thought I'd see the day when the Senior Attorney for People for the American Way would be citing support from the Bush White House as evidence that a statute is or should be found constitutional!  However, I think perhaps less bluster and more attention is needed to serious questions like how one will explain to the Supreme Court that we need a stronger  VRA today than was originally passed in 1965 as a temporary and extraordinary measure.  A modified bill might have also faced constitutional questions as David says.  The bill nevertheless practically dares the Court to overturn it rather than invites it with even modest gestures to find it reasonable and, to belabor the obvious, their view will count more than any of our opinions.  I am also less sanguine about the voting rights community being prepared to defend the law.  For starters, the congressional record on continuing discrimination and ongoing problems could have been thicker.

David Lublin
Professor of Government
School of Public Affairs
American University
4400 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20016
http://www.american.edu/dlublin/index.htm

"David Becker" <dbecker@pfaw.org> Sent by: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu 07/20/2006 09:28 AM

To "election-law" <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu> cc Subject RE: VRA update

With all the hand-wringing going on about the upcoming legal challenge to the VRA reauthorization, I wanted to make just one brief point.  There seems to be some sense that the upcoming legal challenge to the reauthorization is a new threat.  However, everyone, on all sides of the debate, has known since the beginning that a challenge would be coming, regardless of the language in the bill, and everyone, on all sides of the debate, has known since the beginning (or at least since Alito replace O’Connor) that Justice Kennedy will likely be the final arbiter on its constitutionality.  Even if the bill had read exactly as some of those who testified against the current bill had suggested (and while many criticized the bill, very few offered any concrete suggestions on language to correct what they viewed as problems, Rick Hasen excepted), there would be warnings about the constitutionality, and yet another bloc of individuals who would be warning that Justice Kennedy will ultimately decide the issue.  The Thernstroms and Cleggs of the world would be calling for a challenge (and perhaps taking part in a challenge) even if the bill was such that it satisfied every single VRA supporter on this listserve (if such a mythical bill could exist).  Everyone involved with this debate is prepared for the legal challenge they knew would be coming, and while that does not mean that anyone is counting their chickens, or thinks this will be an easy fight, supporters of the VRA I’m sure are ready.  They will have the support of the White House, 90% of the House, and likely a similar percentage of the Senate.  On a related note, does anyone know of any circumstance where the Court has held a statute with this level (approximately 90%) of Congressional support to be unconstitutional?  I can’t think of one, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened.
 
David J. Becker
Senior Attorney
People for the American Way Foundation
2000 M Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC  20036
(202) 467-2360 -- Direct
(202) 293-2672 -- Fax
dbecker@pfaw.org -- www.pfaw.org

---

From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu [mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:20 AM
To: David Epstein; election-law
Subject: Re: VRA update
 

Senate Set to Debate--and Approve VRA--after 8 Hours of Debate Thursday

So reports Roll Call. Sen. Hatch predicted that his Republican colleagues will offer no amendments. Also, regarding the addition of Cesar Chavez to the name of the bill, the newspaper reports: "Because the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed to an amendment adding labor leader Cesar Chavez's name to the bill, Frist was forced to bring up the House version, since moving forward with the Senate's bill would have required a conference with the House " At the markup, Sen. Coburn was critical of the rush to reauthorization without adequate debate. We'll see if he---or other Senators---make any such remarks on the floor of the Senate. At the hearing where I testified, Senators Cornyn and Sessions made many remarks questioning the current version of the bill. But political realities seem to have intervened. The newspaper quotes Senator Sessions as stating: "There's no interest in the Senate in making amendments to the House bill."
So, in the end, there will be no serious debate on either floor of Congress about the wisdom or constitutionality of a straight-out 25 year extension, complete with its Georgia v. Aschroft "fix." This is a victory, no doubt, for the voting rights leaders who pushed for this bill. Justice Kennedy will likely determine if the victory is to be short-lived.

David Epstein wrote:

I just got the word from a friend in Schumer's office.

The bill passed unanimously in committee. All of the Democrats were present except Finegold, who was managing a bill on the floor.

The only substantive amendment offered was by Coburn, which would have changed the definition of "limited English proficiency" to include only people who spoke English "not well" or "not at all." It failed on a voice vote and then Coburn voted for the bill in the end.

(Funny tidbit -- Specter accidentally mis-annouced the result of the voice vote, saying "The Ayes appear to have it." Feinstein broke in saying "No, the Nays have it," upon which Schumer quipped "That's why we need the Voting Rights Act.")

There was one symbolic amendment which passed, offered by Leahy (I believe) in Salazar's name, adding Cesar Chavez to the title of the bill. This is in fact purely symbolic, since the Senate plans to take up the House version of the bill tomorrow (with the original title) so as to avoid a conference. (There was some talk about revising the title at some point in the fall.)

The room was packed, and when the final vote was taken the room burst into applause. It sounds like quite an emotional scene.

There is reportedly a unanimous consent request being floated to start debate on the bill tonight, in preparation for a floor vote tomorrow, but I don't have confirmation of that.

All in all, an apparently amazingly fast end to what seemed like stalled legislation, and a big, big victory for the civil right community.


David Epstein

On 7/19/06, Rick Hasen <Rick.Hasen@lls.edu> wrote:

Senate Judiciary Committee Passes VRA Bill with No "Weakening Amendments"

So states this press release from the ACLU. I don't know if that means no amendments at all. But if it does, and the full Senate approves the measure with no amendments, the House and Senate should be able to avoid a conference.

This result is very interesting. I'm still trying to learn what happened to the concerns raised by some senators on the committee about renewal.

I expect a race to the courthouse among plaintiffs to challenge section 5 (and possibly section 203) after President Bush signs the renewed VRA into law.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 01:23 PM
--
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax

rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
 
http://electionlawblog.org
   



--

**************************************
David Epstein
Professor of Political Science
Columbia University
New York, NY 10027
212-854-7566
http://www.columbia.edu/~de11
**************************************


--
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-0019
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
 

-- 
Rick Hasen 
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School 
919 Albany Street 
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211 
(213)736-1466 - voice 
(213)380-3769 - fax 
rick.hasen@lls.edu 
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html 
http://electionlawblog.org
  

-- 
Rick Hasen 
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School 
919 Albany Street 
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211 
(213)736-1466 - voice 
(213)380-3769 - fax 
rick.hasen@lls.edu 
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html 
http://electionlawblog.org
  

-- 
Rick Hasen 
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School 
919 Albany Street 
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211 
(213)736-1466 - voice 
(213)380-3769 - fax 
rick.hasen@lls.edu 
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html 
http://electionlawblog.org