BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Norma J. Torres, Chair
BILL NO: SJR 14 HEARING DATE: 8/20/13
AUTHOR: YEE ANALYSIS BY: Darren Chesin
AMENDED: AS INTRODUCED
FISCAL: NO
SUBJECT
Voting Rights Act of 1965
BACKGROUND and DESCRIPTION
Existing federal law , the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
�� 1973-1973aa-6) is a landmark piece of national legislation in
the United States that prohibits discrimination in voting.
Echoing the language of the 15th Amendment to the United States
Constitution, the Act prohibits states and local governments
from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to
voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or
abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on
account of race or color."
Among other things, the Act established extensive federal
oversight of elections administration, providing that states and
local governments with a history of discriminatory voting
practices could not implement any change affecting voting
without first obtaining the approval of the United States
Attorney General or a three-judge panel of the District Court
for the District of Columbia, a process known as preclearance.
The Act has been renewed and amended by Congress four times, the
most recent being a 25-year extension signed into law by
President George W. Bush in 2006.
In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the United States Supreme
Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Act, which contains the
coverage formula that determines which state and local
jurisdictions are subject to Section 5 preclearance, as
unconstitutional. The Court said that although the formula was
rational and necessary at the time of its enactment, it is no
longer responsive to current conditions. The Court did not
strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction
will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts
a new coverage formula.
All or specific portions of the following states were required
to have their voting changes precleared before the Supreme Court
decision in Shelby : Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. Also included were the
California counties of Kings, Monterey, and Yuba.
This resolution contains findings and declarations related to
the Act that include, among other things, the following:
Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 have
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.
The Supreme Court of the United States, in Shelby County v.
Holder , held that the coverage formula in Section 4 of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unconstitutional in violation of
the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and can
no longer be used as a basis for requiring jurisdictions to
subject proposed changes in voting procedures to federal
preclearance under Section 5 of the Act.
This resolution would also urge Congress and the President of
the United States to enact amendments to the Voting Rights Act
of 1965 that would restore Section 4 of the Act with a new
coverage formula and update the entire Act in order to address
ongoing violations of voting rights in the states.
COMMENTS
1.According to the Author : On Election Day, voters across our
state and nation make their voices heard by electing
representatives to best represent their district and its
issues.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a landmark piece of
SJR 14 (YEE)
Page 2
legislation that established federal oversight of elections
administration. Specifically this oversight would be over
states and local governments, falling under the Section 4(b)
coverage, that have historically been discriminatory with
their voting practices. These states would not be able to
implement any changes affecting voting without the approval of
the United States Attorney General or preclearance, as stated
in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This has curbed much
of the voter suppression and allowed minorities their
fundamental right to vote.
Though groundbreaking, this legislation had provisions that
should be updated. This year, the United States Supreme Court
struck down section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
This ostensibly took out all federal oversight for voting
suppression. Without a covered jurisdiction, Section 5 is
also null and void.
SJR 14 urges the United States Senate to enact amendments to the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 that would restore Section 4 of the
Act with a new coverage formula and update the entire Act in
order to address ongoing violation of voting rights in the
states, with the hope that the federal government will
continue to look in the best interest of all their citizens.
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support: None received
Oppose: None received
SJR 14 (YEE)
Page 3