BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AJR 15
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 7, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AJR 15 (Alejo) - As Introduced: March 6, 2013
SUBJECT : Voting Rights Act of 1965.
SUMMARY : Urges the Supreme Court of the United States (US) to
affirm the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act (VRA) of 1965. Specifically, this resolution :
1)Urges the Supreme Court of the US to affirm, as it has done on
several occasions since 1965, the clear constitutionality of
Section 5 of the VRA, which provides fundamental protections
to the right of each citizen of the US to vote and to have his
or her vote counted.
2)Makes the following findings and declarations:
a) Political sovereignty is the cornerstone of the
democratic process in our country;
b) The remedy and redress of grievances against the
government is ensured through the election of
representatives who voice the concerns of the public;
c) The right to vote is a fundamental right of citizens of
the US and is the most important of civic rights and
obligations;
d) The political sovereignty of our country is jeopardized
when eligible people fail to vote;
e) American democracy is strengthened when we create and
maintain voting systems that ensure the ability of all
citizens to practice civic engagement by taking part in
elections;
f) Voter discrimination based on race is not a thing of the
past but a current reality that persists in places such as
Monterey County, where discriminatory voting procedures
have raised concerns as recently as 2002 and 2004;
g) The Fifteenth Amendment to the US Constitution ensures
AJR 15
Page 2
that the right of citizens of the US to vote is not denied
on account of race or color;
h) The Fifteenth Amendment to the US Constitution grants
Congress the authority to protect the right to vote;
i) Congress has exercised its authority to protect the
right to vote by passing landmark legislation of the civil
rights era known as the VRA that seeks to abolish
discriminatory procedures and barriers that disenfranchise
minority voters;
j) Section 5 of the VRA has contributed to the immense
progress in protecting and expanding the right to vote over
the past few decades by ensuring that state and local
election practices are just and fair;
aa) Section 5 of the VRA has played, and continues to play,
a critical role in preventing and addressing real threats
to the right to vote of all Americans;
bb) Section 5 of the VRA allows for adjustments as
conditions change and is justified by the ongoing
disproportionate enactment of discriminatory voting
policies in the presently affected jurisdictions;
cc) The VRA is a reflection of the assurance provided by the
US Constitution that all Americans have the right to vote
without facing discrimination, poll taxes, and other
abuses;
dd) The Congress of the US has, time and again, reaffirmed
the need for protection against abuses that might curtail
the right to vote by renewing Section 5 of the VRA; and,
ee) Section 5 of the VRA is currently under review by the
Supreme Court of the US.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides, pursuant to the 15th Amendment to the US
Constitution, that the right of citizens of the US to vote
shall not be denied or abridged by the US or by any state on
account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Gives Congress the power to enforce this provision by
appropriate legislation.
AJR 15
Page 3
2)Prohibits, pursuant to Section 2 of the VRA, voting practices
or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color,
or membership in specified language minority groups.
3)Prohibits, pursuant to Section 5 of the VRA, any change with
respect to voting from being enforced in specified covered
jurisdictions (and political subunits within those covered
jurisdictions) unless and until the jurisdiction first obtains
a determination by the US Department of Justice or the US
District Court for the District of Columbia that the proposed
voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on
account of race, color, or membership in a language minority
group.
FISCAL EFFECT : This resolution is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Resolution : According to the author, "Voter
discrimination is not just a thing of the past, but a current
reality that still persists today. Monterey County-which is
one of three California counties covered by Section 5-has
benefited from the Voting Rights Act as recently as 2004. In
order to protect the welfare of our citizens and voters, we
must urge the Supreme Court of the United States to affirm the
constitutionality of Section 5."
2)Voting Rights Act of 1965 : The 15th Amendment to the US
Constitution provides, in part, that "[t]he right of citizens
of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged
by the United States or by any state on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude." Additionally, the
15th Amendment authorizes Congress to enact legislation to
enforce its provisions. The 15th Amendment was ratified in
February 1870.
In 1965, Congress determined that state officials were failing
to comply with the provisions of the 15th Amendment.
Congressional hearings found that litigation to eliminate
discriminatory election practices was largely ineffective,
because states and local jurisdictions would institute new
discriminatory practices to replace any such practices that
were struck down in court. As a result, Congress passed and
AJR 15
Page 4
President Johnson signed the VRA. The VRA, among other
provisions, prohibits any "voting qualification or
prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure"
from being imposed by any "State or political subdivision in a
manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right
of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race
or color."
While much of the VRA is permanent, certain special provisions
of the VRA are temporary, including Section 5. When the VRA
was enacted, Section 5 was scheduled to expire in five years.
Subsequently, Congress extended those provisions for another
five years in 1970, an additional seven years in 1975, an
additional 25 years in 1982, and again for an additional 25
years in 2006. As a result, Section 5 currently is scheduled
to expire in 2031.
As noted above, Section 5 requires certain covered jurisdictions
to receive approval for any changes to law and practices
affecting voting from the US Department of Justice or the US
District Court for the District of Columbia to ensure that the
changes do not have the purpose or effect of "denying or
abridging the right to vote on account of race or color." The
requirement to obtain approval under Section 5 is commonly
referred to as a "preclearance" requirement.
3)Coverage Under Section 5 : The determination of the
jurisdictions that are subject to the preclearance
requirements of Section 5 is made primarily in accordance with
formulas contained in Section 4 (b) of the VRA.
(Jurisdictions can also be subject to the preclearance
requirements if they are found by a federal court to have
violated the Constitution's prohibition on voting
discrimination.) When the VRA was originally enacted in 1965,
it provided that a jurisdiction was covered by the
preclearance requirements if it maintained a "test or device"
restricting the opportunity to vote on November 1, 1964, and
if less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were
registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or less than 50
percent of persons of voting age voted in the November 1964
presidential election. No California jurisdictions were
covered by Section 5 pursuant to this formula.
When Congress reauthorized Section 5 in 1970, it also adopted an
additional coverage formula, identical to the original formula
AJR 15
Page 5
except that the relevant dates in the formula were changed to
November 1968. This new coverage formula resulted in two
California counties being covered by the preclearance
requirements - Merced and Yuba Counties. When Section 5 was
reauthorized in 1975, Congress again added another coverage
formula based on tests or devices and voter registration and
participation in November 1972. This new formula also
provided that the practice of providing election information
only in English in states or political subdivisions where
members of a single language minority constituted more than
five percent of the citizens of voting age would be considered
a "test or device" under the formula. This new formula
resulted in two additional California counties being covered
by the preclearance requirements-Kings and Merced Counties.
Congress did not create new coverage formulas when it
reauthorized Section 5 in 1982 and 2006.
The VRA also provides a mechanism for jurisdictions that are
subject to Section 5 to "bailout" of coverage under that
section. Last August, Merced County successfully bailed out
pursuant to that mechanism. Kings, Monterey, and Yuba
Counties remain subject to the provisions of Section 5 of the
VRA, though two irrigation districts and one city within those
counties have bailed out from Section 5 coverage.
4)2006 Reauthorization of Section 5 : As noted above, in 2006,
Congress reauthorized Section 5 of the VRA for an additional
25 years. Prior to reauthorizing Section 5, Congress
conducted extensive hearings on Section 5, and on the
continued use of discriminatory practices in jurisdictions
that were covered by Section 5. In reauthorizing Section 5,
Congress found that "[t]he continued evidence of racially
polarized voting in each of the jurisdictions covered by the
expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
demonstrates that racial and language minorities remain
politically vulnerable, warranting the continued protection of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965," and that "[t]he record
compiled by Congress demonstrates that, without the
continuation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 protections,
racial and language minority citizens will be deprived of the
opportunity to exercise their right to vote, or will have
their votes diluted, undermining the significant gains made by
minorities in the last 40 years." The legislation to
reauthorize Section 5, which included these findings, was
AJR 15
Page 6
approved by a vote of 98-0 in the US Senate, and a vote of
390-33 in the US House. It was signed into law by President
George W. Bush.
5)Constitutionality of Section 5 and Shelby County v. Holder :
In April 2010, Shelby County in Alabama filed suit in the US
District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the
constitutionality of Section 5 of the VRA, and of the coverage
formulas contained in Section 4 (b) of the VRA. Because the
State of Alabama is covered under the preclearance
requirements of Section 5, Shelby County is also covered as a
political subdivision of Alabama. In the lawsuit, Shelby
County contends that Congress exceeded its authority under the
15th Amendment and thus violated the 10th Amendment and
Article IV of the US Constitution when it voted to reauthorize
Section 5 without changing or updating the coverage formulas.
The District Court rejected Shelby County's arguments, and
upheld the constitutionality of the Section 5 reauthorization
and the coverage formulas contained in Section 4 (b). On
appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit affirmed the ruling of the District Court, and Shelby
County subsequently appealed to the US Supreme Court. The US
Supreme Court heard oral argument in that case, Shelby County
v. Holder , in February of this year. The Supreme Court is
expected to issue its decision in that case by the end of
June.
6)Arguments in Support : In support of this resolution, the
American Association of University Women - California writes:
The Voting Rights Act is widely acknowledged as the
most effective piece of civil rights legislation in
American history. It was passed to make real the
promise of political equality in the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution. Section 5 ensures
state and local governments with a history of voting
discrimination don't implement new laws or practices
that deny Americans the equal right to vote.
Unfortunately, it is still sorely needed?.
Section 5 was crucial in turning back the tide and
stopping real discrimination. It blocked a
discriminatory photo ID requirement in Texas, which
required a kind of ID more than 600,000 eligible
voters did not have. It required Florida to restore
AJR 15
Page 7
some early voting hours used especially by minority
voters. And it blocked Texas redistricting maps after
a federal court found they intentionally discriminated
against Latino voters.
But Section 5 did much more. It deterred states from
passing discriminatory laws in the first place. In
South Carolina, lawmakers rejected a highly
restrictive voter ID requirement because they knew it
wouldn't pass muster. Instead, the state passed a law
that was more flexible for the 216,000 registered
citizens without driver's licenses or nondriver's IDs.
A federal court approved the less restrictive
version.
The last few years have seen some of the biggest
fights over voting in decades. After an election
marred by discriminatory voting laws and long lines in
which minorities had to wait twice as long as whites,
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is needed more than
ever.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Association of University Women - California
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094