Looking Beyond the 'For The People' Act
In the beginning of June, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) announced that he opposed the “For the People Act of 2021” (S.1). Manchin also reaffirmed his support for keeping the filibuster. Manchin’s opposition to S.1 largely tables the bill for now. Liberal voting rights advocates have also pushed for another bill known as the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. In May, Manchin endorsed a more ambitious version of that bill. This article looks at how the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act contrasts from S.1 and the political impact of these differences.
Background on the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) proposed the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act in the previous Congress in 2020. The New Republic broadly describes the legislation as “a bill that would restore and expand the Voting Rights Act of 1965.” Despite the bill’s lack of progress in Congress last year, many left-leaning advocacy groups have expressed continued support for it this year.
The proposed remedy in the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act goes back to the 2013 Supreme Court case, Shelby v. Holder. The case originated from a lawsuit brought by Shelby County, Alabama, challenging Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), in regard to the VRA’s “preclearance” process. Back then, Section 5 of the VRA mandated that changes in the election rules of nine states and various counties in other states had to go through a review by either the attorney general or a lawsuit in the District Court of the District of Columbia. For the local changes to win “clearance,” either review process would need to declare the changes “uniform and nondiscriminatory.” Section 4(b) of the VRA used a formula developed in 1965 to establish which localities must face preclearance.
In the case, Shelby County argued that Sections 4(b) and 5 of the VRA were unconstitutional because they required only certain jurisdictions to participate in the preclearance process. The Court declined to strike down Section 5 of the VRA but struck down Section 4(b) on the basis that Congress had failed to update the formula to reflect the changes in the U.S. between 1965 and 2013. The Court specifically noted that Congress had the opportunity to update the formula in the 2006 renewal of the VRA and had failed to do so.
While Shelby v. Holder did not strike down Section 5 of the VRA, the decision has rendered Section 5 ineffective until Congress can pass the necessary change to the law. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act seeks to provide that change by implementing an updated formula for which jurisdictions would have to face preclearance.
The Difference Between S.1 and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act
Both bills have support from most members of the Democratic Party, who want to use them as protection against disenfranchisement and “skewed” elections. Still, the two bills differ from one another somewhat in their scope and goals. As noted above, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act seeks to cure a problem that many liberals argue came from Shelby. Given that many left-wing groups support the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, most liberals would likely consider it a huge accomplishment if the bill passed.
However, liberals have several issues with the current state of American elections. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would make a change on the subject of localities implementing potentially discriminatory voting laws. S.1 addresses a host of different issues concerning voting. S.1 seeks to make voter registration simpler by automatically registering any eligible voter and providing an online option for voter registration. The bill also makes voting easier by creating national requirements for early voting, banning voter roll “purges,” and giving back the right to vote to felons who have completed their prison sentences.
Additionally, S.1 takes on “partisan gerrymandering” by mandating that independent redistricting commissions draw the districts in every state. S.1 also deals with campaign finance issues by mandating a “6 to 1” ratio of public financing for every small dollar raised and creating several more demanding disclosure mandates for corporations and political advocacy groups. Finally, S.1 addresses many of the ethics issues raised by liberals over the last five years by subjecting the president, vice president, members of Congress, and the Supreme Court to an array of new disclosure requirements.
In their current forms, both laws face long odds of passage. Manchin’s opposition to S.1 and to getting rid of the filibuster has effectively killed the bill as presently written, given that no Republican supports it. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act has at least one Republican vote from Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who co-sponsored it. However, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has pledged to oppose it. As a result, without either nine additional Republicans or the repeal of the filibuster, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement cannot advance.
Given this hurdle in the Senate, Democrats likely have two contrasting perspectives regarding the passage of a voting reform bill. On the one hand, if eliminating the filibuster is the only way to pass either bill, then Democrats should ensure that the high political price of ending the filibuster is worth paying. Many Democrats would likely see passing voting reforms that liberals have long wanted as meeting that standard.
Other members might believe that it is more worthwhile to work for passage of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which raises fewer divisive issues than S.1 and thus would be more likely to attract a handful of Republican votes – especially since taking this approach could ensure the preservation of the filibuster.
As with most bills, there are other electoral concerns that extend beyond the impacts of the policies themselves. It is possible that even if neither bill passes, that Democrats would use the activism involved in the effort to help drive up liberal voter turnout in the midterm elections in order to try to keep the House and elect the additional Democratic Senators needed to eliminate the filibuster. Either bill could likely assist in this goal, but arguably a more ambitious bill like S.1 would create more energy since it accomplishes so much more.
Going Forward
The difficulties of either bill passing likely prompted Manchin to propose a compromise that combines major elements of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and S.1. Manchin’s proposal largely keeps the policies of S.1 but would also implement a national requirement that all voters show a form of identification to vote, something Republicans have long supported. The bill also provides vague language that seems to put in place a watered-down version of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
Manchin apparently hopes that Republicans could support this compromise, but so far Republicans have vowed to oppose Manchin’s version of S.1. Key figures on voting rights in the Democratic Party such as Stacey Abrams and Senator Raphael Warnock (D-GA) have backed the potential compromise. However, at least one liberal blog, Talking Points Memo, has argued that Manchin’s changes would “gut” the John Lewis Voting Rights Act because of its watered-down language.
While neither S.1 nor the John Lewis Voting Rights Act appears likely to pass anytime soon, both bills illustrate the different strategies that Democrats will employ to produce their version of voting-rights reform.
Todd Carney is a writer based in Washington, DC. The views in this piece are his alone and do not reflect the views of his employer.
