logo
  • Nonprofit News
  • Management
    • Boards and Governance
    • Communication
      • Framing & Narratives
    • Ethics
    • Financial Management
    • Fund Development
    • Leadership
    • Technology
  • Philanthropy
    • Corporate Social Responsibility
    • Donor-Advised Funds
    • Foundations
    • Impact Investing
    • Research
    • Workplace Giving
  • Policy
    • Education
    • Healthcare
    • Housing
    • Government
    • Taxes
  • Economic Justice
    • Economy Remix
    • Economy Webinars
    • Community Benefits
    • Economic Democracy
    • Environmental Justice
    • Fair Finance
    • Housing Rights
    • Land Justice
    • Poor People’s Rights
    • Tax Fairness
  • Racial Equity
  • Social Movements
    • Community Development
    • Community Organizing
    • Culture Change
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Gender Equality
    • Immigrant Rights
    • Indigenous Rights
    • Labor
    • LGBTQ+
    • Racial Justice
    • Youth Activism
  • About Us
  • Log in
  • CONTENT TYPES
  • Webinars
    • Leading Edge Membership
    • Sponsored Webinars
    • Economic Justice
  • Tiny Spark Podcast
  • Magazine
    • Magazine
    • Leading Edge Membership
Donate
Policy

The Rebirth of the Voting Rights Act

Carole Levine
February 4, 2019
Share137
Tweet5
Share
Email
142 Shares
“March for Voting Rights,” Michael Fleshman

February 1, 2019; New York Times, and January 30, 2019; Truthout

The case was Shelby County v. Holder and the year was 2013. The Supreme Court ruled that major parts of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) were unconstitutional, and the 5-to-4 majority indicated that they expected Congress to rewrite those parts of the VRA to come into compliance with changing times. But this was not to be. Within hours of the decision, the state of Texas instituted ID laws and other redrawing of voting district boundaries which, prior to the decision, would have required federal government approval. Voting requirements in the name of protection from voter fraud (cases of which have been few and far between) have proliferated, especially in states that were relieved of federal oversight by the Shelby decision and states that want to protect the dominance of one political party or another.

But the plea for a rewrite of the Voting Rights Act may now be on the legislative table. HR1, the prestigious first bill named in the newly constituted House of Representatives, is just that—a voting rights bill.

The bill before the judiciary committee is known as the For the People Act, and its proposed reforms would address virtually every high-profile electoral controversy that has arisen over the past decade. The bill would establish national automatic voter registration, set rules to curb partisan gerrymandering and restore voting rights for people with felony convictions in states that have not already done so, a major goal for racial justice groups.

The bill also directly targets the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, which unleashed massive corporate political spending. The legislation declares Congress’s intent to amend the Constitution and re-establish its ability to enforce campaign finance and donor disclosure rules, although doing so would require a broader move to pass a constitutional amendment. Another proposal for public campaign financing would match small donations to candidates.

In addition, this bill addresses the bottleneck in the Federal Elections Commission by reducing its membership to an uneven number (from six members to five) so actual decisions, rather than tie votes along party lines, result.

All of this is likely to pass in the House where the Democrats hold a majority and where a number of Republicans are reading the tea leaves of their constituents who see voting rights and addressing corruption in DC as a nonpartisan issue. Cracking down on corruption was a top item in a recent poll in House districts that are considered vulnerable.

On the Senate side, Mitch McConnell stated that this bill was nothing but a power grab by the Democrats. So, what’s in this bill that makes it so onerous that McConnell has indicated that it is “dead on arrival” in the Senate and not to expect him to call it up for a vote as long as he is in control? Because the House Democrats view this as an anti-corruption bill as well as a voting rights bill, it may rub some the wrong way. Here are a few of the bill’s components:

  • The bill would require Super PACs and [secretive] political organizations to make their donors public.
  • It would set up a voluntary option to publicly finance campaigns, powered by small donations. The federal government would provide a voluntary 6-1 match for candidates for president and Congress, which means for every dollar a candidate raises from small donations, the federal government would match it six times over. The maximum small donation that could be matched would be capped at $200.
  • The president and vice president and presidential/vice presidential candidates would be required to disclose 10 years of their tax returns.
  • It would put in stricter lobbying registration requirements, with more oversight of foreign agents.
  • It would set up nonpartisan redistricting commissions to end partisan gerrymandering, and create new national automatic voter registration asking voters to opt out, rather than opt in.
  • It would make Election Day a holiday for federal employees and encourage private sector businesses to do the same.

While the Senate will surely fall in line behind its leadership and ignore this bill, the people of this nation seem to be clamoring for change. The Republican promise to “drain the swamp” may come back to haunt them in upcoming elections and members of the House and Senate are cautiously watching the polls.

For those who have felt the sting of voter suppression—people of color, the elderly, college students, those living in rural areas, those with prison records, the poor, women, and others—HR1 is a ray of hope. Restoring and updating the Voting Rights Act seems to have been the intent of the Supreme Court in 2013. Reflect on the words of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s dissent: “The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the [Voting Rights Act] has proven effective…throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”—Carole Levine

Share137
Tweet5
Share
Email
142 Shares

About The Author
Carole Levine

Carole Levine is a principal consultant at Levine Partners, providing consulting services to nonprofit organizations. She has held senior management positions in national nonprofits: The National PTA (Deputy Executive Director); Communities in Schools (Vice President of Expansion and Technical Assistance); The Family Resource Coalition (Director of Technical Assistance); and National Lekotek Center (Director of Development). Carole holds a BA in education and political science from Washington University, and an M.Ed. in Early Childhood Leadership and Advocacy from National Louis University. Carole has served on the boards of numerous organizations, holding national positions on the board of National Council of Jewish Women and on the International Council of Jewish Women. She is currently the Chair of Courts Matter Illinois, serves on the Steering Committee of Chicago Women Take Action and is the co-chair of BenchMark: NCJW’s Judicial Nominations Campaign. Carole is passionate about nonprofit, purposeful work, justice for all and her family (which includes 5 amazing grandchildren!).

Related
With Donor Households Declining, Will Universal Charitable Deduction Advance in Congress?
By Ruth McCambridge
December 4, 2019
Republican Senator’s Report Calls for Universal Charitable Deduction
By Steve Dubb
November 14, 2019
Show Me the Data…Unless It’s about LGBTQ Populations
By Carole Levine
October 30, 2019
South Dakota Settles “Riot Boosting” Suit by Agreeing to Nonenforcement
By Ruth McCambridge
October 25, 2019
To Sleep…More! California Mandates a Later Start for Middle and High Schools
By Steve Dubb
October 16, 2019
Save the Internet Act Languishes in Senate as Net Neutrality is Eroded
By Jason Schneiderman
October 3, 2019
other posts by The Author
The Grinch Who Cut Food Stamps
By Carole Levine
December 9, 2019
The Supreme Court Almost Takes Up the 2nd Amendment
By Carole Levine
December 5, 2019
School District and Nonprofit Lock Horns over Background...
By Carole Levine
December 2, 2019
A Series on Sensemaking Organizations
The Sensemaking Organization: Designing for Complexity
The Sensemaking Mindset: Improvisation over Strategy
Structuring for Sensemaking: The Power of Small Segments
logo
Donate
  • About
  • Contact
  • Newsletters
  • Write for NPQ
  • Advertise
  • Writers
  • Funders
  • Copyright Policy
  • Privacy Policy

Subscribe to View Webinars

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

 

Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly
Powered by GDPR plugin
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.