BILL ANALYSIS �
SJR 14
Page 1
Date of Hearing: September 12, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
SJR 14 (Yee & Wright) - As Introduced: July 10, 2013
SENATE VOTE : 27-10
SUBJECT : Voting Rights Act of 1965.
SUMMARY : Urges Congress and President of the United States
(U.S.) to enact amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965
(VRA) that would restore Section 4 of the VRA with a new
coverage formula and update the entire VRA in order to address
ongoing violations of voting rights in the states.
Specifically, this resolution :
1)Makes the following findings and declarations:
a) The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ensures that
the rights of citizens of the U.S. to vote is not denied on
account of race or color;
b) The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants the
U.S. Congress the authority to protect the right to vote;
c) The U.S. Congress has exercised its authority to protect
the right to vote by passing landmark legislation of the
civil rights era known as the VRA;
d) Sections 4 and 5 of the VRA 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 elections practices are just and fair; and,
e) The U.S. Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder , held
that the coverage formula in Section 4 of the VRA is
unconstitutional in violation of the 10th Amendment of 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 VRA.
2)Declares that the Legislature of the State of California urges
Congress and U.S. President to enact amendments to the VRA
SJR 14
Page 2
that would restore Section 4 with a new coverage formula and
update the entire VRA in order to address ongoing violations
of voting rights in the states.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides, pursuant to the 15th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, that the right of citizens of the U.S. to vote
shall not be denied or abridged by the U.S. 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.
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 unless and until the jurisdiction first obtains
a determination by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) or the
U.S. 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 authors:
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
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 practice. These states would not be able
to implement any changes affecting voting without the
approval of the United States Attorney General or
SJR 14
Page 3
preclearance, as stated in Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act.
This has curbed much of 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 took out all federal oversight for voting
suppression. Without a covered jurisdiction, Section 5 is
also null and void.
2)Voting Rights Act of 1965 : The 15th Amendment to the U.S.
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 conditions 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 practices was largely ineffective because state
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 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."
Section 2 of the VRA is a nationwide prohibition against voting
practices and procedures, including redistricting plans and
at-large election systems, poll worker hiring, and voting
registration procedures, that discriminate on the basis of
race, color, or membership in a language minority group.
Section 2 allows the Attorney General (AG), as well as
affected private citizens, to bring lawsuits in federal court
to challenge practices that may violate the VRA. Section 4 of
the VRA sets the criteria for determining whether a
jurisdiction is covered under certain provisions of the VRA,
SJR 14
Page 4
including the requirement for review of changes affecting
voting under Section 5. Section 5 of the VRA requires certain
states and covered jurisdictions to receive approval for any
changes to law and practices affecting voting from the U.S.
DOJ or the U.S. District Court of the District of Colombia 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)Constitutionality of Section 5 and Shelby County v. Holder :
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, and 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.
In April 2010, Shelby County in Alabama filed suit in the U.S.
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 was covered under the preclearance
requirements of Section 5, Shelby County was 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 U.S. Constitution when it voted to
reauthorize Section 5 without changing or updating the
formulas that determined which jurisdictions were covered
under Section 5. 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit affirmed the ruling of the District Court,
and Shelby County subsequently appealed to the U.S. Supreme
Court.
On June 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Shelby County v.
Holder , held that the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the
VRA is unconstitutional and can no longer be used as a basis
for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance under Section 5
of the VRA. The Court stated that although the formula was
SJR 14
Page 5
rational and necessary at the time of its enactment, it is no
longer responsive to current conditions. The Court, however,
did not strike down Section 5, which contains the preclearance
conditions. Without Section 4(b), however, no jurisdiction
will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress
enacts a new coverage formula.
The effect of the Shelby County decision is that the
jurisdictions identified by the coverage formula in Section
4(b) no longer need to seek preclearance from the AG or the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before
implementing new voting changes, unless they are covered by a
separate court order entered under Section 3(c) of the VRA.
All or specific portions of the following states were required
to have their voting changes precleared before the U.S.
Supreme Court decision in Shelby: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New
Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Texas, and Virginia. Also included were the
California counties of Kings, Monterey, and Yuba. Merced
County previously was subject to the preclearance requirement,
but it successfully bailed out from Section 5 coverage last
year.
According to the U.S. DOJ, the ruling in Shelby County does
not affect Section 3(c) of the VRA. Jurisdictions covered by
a preclearance requirement pursuant to court orders under
Section 3(c) remain subject to the terms of those court
orders. Additionally, the Supreme Court's decision states
that Section 2 of the VRA, which prohibits discrimination in
voting based on race or language minority status, and which
applies on a permanent nationwide basis, is unaffected by the
decision. Likewise, other provisions of the VRA that prohibit
discrimination in voting remain in full force and effect, as
do other federal laws that protect voting rights, including
the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, the
National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote
Act.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California NAACP
SJR 14
Page 6
San Francisco NAACP
Organization of Chinese Americans San Mateo
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916)
319-2094