BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SJR 14|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SJR 14
Author: Yee (D), et al.
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS & CONST. AMEND. COMMITTEE : 4-1, 8/20/13
AYES: Torres, Hancock, Padilla, Yee
NOES: Anderson
SUBJECT : Voting Rights Act
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This resolution urges the Congress and the President
of the United States to enact amendments to the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 (Act) that restores Section 4 of the Act with a new
coverage formula and updates the entire Act in order to address
ongoing violations of voting rights in the states.
ANALYSIS : This resolution makes the following legislative
findings:
1. The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ensures that the
right of citizens of the U.S. to vote is not denied on
account of race or color.
2. The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants the
Congress of the U.S. the authority to protect the right to
vote.
CONTINUED
SJR 14
Page
2
3. The Congress of the U.S. has exercised its authority to
protect the right to vote by passing landmark legislation of
the civil rights era known as the Act.
4. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act 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.
5. The Supreme Court of the U.S., in Shelby County v. Holder,
held that the coverage formula in Section 4 of the Act is
unconstitutional in violation of the 10th Amendment to the
U.S. 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 urges Congress and the President of the U.S. to
enact amendments to the Act that restores Section 4 of the Act
with a new coverage formula and updates the entire Act in order
to address ongoing violations of voting rights in the states.
Background
The Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 1973-1973aa-6) is a landmark piece
of national legislation in the U.S. that prohibits
discrimination in voting. Echoing the language of the 15th
Amendment to the U.S. 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 U.S. 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.
CONTINUED
SJR 14
Page
3
In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the U.S. 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Fiscal Com.: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/21/13)
NAACP, California
NAACP, San Francisco
Organization of Chinese Americans, San Mateo Chapter
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office, 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 Act was a landmark piece of 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 U.S. Attorney General or
preclearance, as stated in Section 5 of the 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 U.S. Supreme Court struck
down Section 4(b) of the Act. This ostensibly took out all
CONTINUED
SJR 14
Page
4
federal oversight for voting suppression. Without a covered
jurisdiction, Section 5 is also null and void.
This resolution urges the U.S. Senate to enact amendments to the
Act 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.
RM:k 8/21/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED