* * *
The Voting Rights Act was a remarkable accomplishment for the nation, ushering in the promise of real political equality after centuries of abuse. The Act has taken on an iconic role, reflecting the country’s rejection of the brutality of Jim Crow and embrace of the core constitutional value of political equality. It has simultaneously played a hardworking role, protecting against ongoing discrimination in the voting process. The Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County gutted the core of the Voting Rights Act. In doing so, it left a gaping hole in American law and demands an immediate response. While Section 5 has been an enormously successful tool in the struggle to eradicate racial discrimination in voting, the struggle is not over. Strong legal protections are crucial to sustaining the core value of our democracy, reflected in the Declaration of Independence, that we all are created equal. We urge Congress to work together again to restore this critical law to ensure our elections remain free, fair, and accessible for all Americans.
Editor's Note: We are including the following section on Voter ID as it is of particular concern for older citizens:
Voter ID
Every voter should demonstrate that they are who they say they are before voting. That form of proof should not include restrictive documentation requirements like overly burdensome photo ID or redundant proof of citizenship requirements that serve to block millions of eligible American citizens from voting.
Studies show that as many as 11 percent of eligible voters do not have government-issued photo ID. That percentage is even higher for seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students. Many citizens find it hard to get government photo IDs, because the underlying documentation like birth certificates (the ID one needs to get ID) is often difficult or expensive to come by. At the same time, voter ID policies are far more costly to implement than many assume. Instead, Improvements in voting technology and modernization of our voter registration system will both increase efficiency and close the door on mistakes and fraud.
The Brennan Center conducts research on voter ID, proof of citizenship, and in-person voter fraud. Brennan Center attorneys also assist policymakers and advocates seeking to oppose unnecessarily restrictive ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements and improve the security of elections without compromising American citizens’ right to vote.
[1] The Brennan Center has done extensive work on a range of issues relating to voting rights, including work to modernize our voter registration system; remove unnecessary barriers to voter participation; make voting machines more secure and accessible; defend the federal Voting Rights Act; and expand access to the franchise. Our work on these topics has included the publication of studies and reports; assistance to federal and state administrative and legislative bodies with responsibility over elections; and, when necessary, litigation to compel states to comply with their obligations under federal and state law. This testimony is submitted on behalf of a Center affiliated with New York University School of Law, but does not purport to represent the school’s institutional views on this or any topic.
[2] See 152 Cong. Rec. H5143-02 (daily ed. July 13, 2006) (statement of Rep. Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.) (calling the VRA “the most successful civil rights act that has ever been passed”); 152 Cong. Rec. S7949-05 (daily ed. July 20, 2006) (statement of Sen. Feinstein, D-Cal.) (calling the VRA “the most important and successful civil rights law of the 20th century”). The 2006 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 390-33 and the U.S. Senate by a vote of 98-0.
[8] Myrna Pérez & Vishal Agraharkar, If Section 5 Falls: New Voting Implications (2013), available at http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/if-section-5-falls-new-voting-i... (hereinafter If Section 5 Falls).
[9] Bill Barrow, States Promise Quick Action on Election Laws, Associated Press (June 26, 2013), http://bigstory.ap.org/article/states-promise-quick-action-after-voting-....
[11] See Wendy R. Weiser & Diana Kasdan, Voting Law Changes: Election Update (2012), available at http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/voting-law-changes-election-update.
[13] This is the number of submissions of voting changes since July 2006 to which DOJ has interposed an objection. In some cases, objections by DOJ were later withdrawn, or were superseded by a declaratory judgment action for court preclearance in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. See Section 5 Objection Determinations, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/obj_activ.php (last visited July 12, 2013) (listing 31 objections since July 2006); see also If Section 5 Falls, supra note 6, at 3.
More Articles
- Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Statement on Supreme Court Ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
- Jo Freeman Reviews: Justice, Justice Thou Shalt Pursue: A Life’s Work Fighting for a More Perfect Union By Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Amanda Tyler
- Brennan Center: One in Three Election Officials Report Feeling Unsafe Because of Their Job
- Jo Freeman Writes: The Trumpsters are Coming; Donald Trump’s Devoted Followers Demand Four More Years
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Partial Remarks at the University of Buffalo, August 26, 2019: "If I am notorious, it is because I had the good fortune to be alive and a lawyer in the late 1960s"
- Kavanaugh Protests Continue: "Sexual Predators on the Court, Hell No, We Don’t Support" and "November Is Coming"
- Pew Trust: Voter Enthusiasm at Record High in Nationalized Midterm Environment
- Scientific American: How Reliable Are the Memories of Sexual Assault Victims? The Expert Testimony Excluded from the Kavanaugh Hearing
- Elevating the Conversation: How a New Message Helped Win the Fight for Same-sex Marriage
- Updated - Voting 2018: New Election Security Funds are Breakthrough for Democracy