Voting Rights Under Attack: an NCJW Toolkit to Protect the Vote
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Voting Rights Under Attack: An NCJW Toolkit to Protect the Vote Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Voting Rights Advancement Act Talking Points III. US Voting Rights History Timeline IV. Voting Rights Discussion Club V. #RestoreTheVRA Social Media Guide VI. Shelby County v. Holder Anniversary Social Media Guide VII. Voter Pledge Cards VIII. Sample Voter Information Handout Voting Rights Under Attack: An NCJW Toolkit to Protect the Vote Introduction The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) has protected voting rights around the country for the past 50 years. However, perhaps the most important protection of the VRA — requiring states with a history of discriminatory voting practices to submit any proposed changes to voting laws to the Department of Justice for approval — was gutted by the US Supreme Court in its June 25, 2013 decision, Shelby County v. Holder. In response to Shelby, states and local governments have passed and implemented restrictive laws threatening access to the polls for millions of eligible voters. Voting Rights Under Attack: An NCJW Toolkit to Protect the Vote is designed to help NCJW sections, members, and supporters take action in the months leading up to the first presidential election in 50 years without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. This toolkit includes educational materials, ways to engage around the issue, and legislative talking points to help you lift up voting rights during this election year. Please use this toolkit along with the NCJW Promote the Vote, Protect the Vote Resource Guide to promote and protect the vote in your community, and regularly visit https://www.ncjw.org/work/civic- engagement/ for updates, additional resources, and more. As you develop and implement your plans, please remember that the NCJW Washington office is available to provide additional resources and technical assistance. Because of our 501(c)(3) tax- exempt status, NCJW and its sections are subject to certain restrictions on election- related activities. Contact Lindsay Morris ([email protected]) with any questions, and Faith Fried ([email protected]) to share the work that you are doing to promote and protect the vote in your community. Together, we can ensure that every eligible voter is able to vote, and that every vote cast is counted. www.ncjw.org June 2016 Voting Rights Under Attack: An NCJW Toolkit to Protect the Vote VOTING RIGHTS ADVANCEMENT ACT (Advancement Act) NCJW Message: The right to vote is a cornerstone of our democracy. NCJW endorses and resolves to work for election laws, policies, and practices that ensure easy and equitable access and eliminate obstacles to the electoral process so that every vote counts and can be verified. For decades, NCJW advocates have fought for the expansion of voting rights, advocating for women’s suffrage and the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). Although Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 with overwhelming bipartisan support, the 2013 US Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder gutted a key provision of the law. Lawmakers should support The Voting Rights Advancement Act (Advancement Act, S 1419/ HR 2978), introduced on June 21, 2017, to respond to Shelby and modernize federal voter protections. TALKING POINTS: u The Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), putting voting rights across the country further at risk. Race, gender, and other immutable characteristics have historically been used to deprive countless Americans of the right to vote. The VRA sought to prevent such discrimination by prohibiting states from making any voting changes without federal review, to ensure that any such change would not have a discriminatory impact, and from denying the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color. However, because of the Shelby decision, the federal government no longer has the chance to review changes to voting laws to check for such discriminatory practices. In the absence of federal oversight, states and counties are passing laws that make registering and voting more burdensome and create barriers to low-income voters and voters of color. u The damage to voter protections stemming from the Shelby decision requires a legislative fix, and soon. The US Supreme Court stripped the VRA of its formula for applying federal oversight of changes to voting laws, arguing that it was outdated. Without federal oversight of proposed changes to voting laws, several states and jurisdictions immediately introduced and passed restrictive voting laws, including ID requirements that were previously prohibited by the federal government because of their discriminatory impact. 2016 was the first presidential election in 50 years without the full protections of the VRA, and as the 2018 midterm elections approaches, it is critical to secure voting rights. u The Advancement Act would restore the VRA and protect voters across the country. The Advancement Act responds to the unique, modern-day challenges of voting discrimination that have evolved in the 50 years since the VRA first passed. It recognizes that changing demographics require tools that protect voters nationwide — especially voters of color, voters who rely on languages other than English, and voters with disabilities. u The Advancement Act would provide new tools to combat voting discrimination before it occurs. The Advancement Act replaces and updates the coverage formula in the VRA to focus on the last 25 years. This means that those states and jurisdictions found to have a pattern of voting violations in the past 25 years would be required to submit voting changes to the federal government for review for the subsequent ten years. Because the new formula would update itself every year, only recent infractions of voting rights would bring about federal oversight. The Advancement Act would also promote transparency in changes to voting laws, give the Department of Justice broader authority to assign federal election observers, and mandate additional bilingual voting materials. July 2017 - OVER - www.ncjw.org Voting Rights Under Attack: An NCJW Toolkit to Protect the Vote FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Voting Rights Advancement Act What is the Voting Rights Act? The Voting in those states. Rather than protect, voter ID laws Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) was enacted to ensure disenfranchise. that no federal, state, or local government may in any way impede individuals from registering to vote How do restrictive voting laws impact or voting because of their race or ethnicity. women? Women, as well as seniors, students, low income individuals, people of color, and other Why do we need voter protection laws? The marginalized communities are particularly affected VRA helped prevent states and jurisdictions from by restrictive voter laws, such as limits on early enacting disenfranchising laws and policies. Between voting and burdensome ID requirements. Women 1982 and 2006, the Department of Justice blocked are statistically more likely to vote than men, but over 700 voting changes because they would have are also more likely to undergo changes to their prohibited voters of color from participating in the legal name through marriage and divorce, be poor, political process or limited their electoral impact. and live longer as senior citizens — all of which put women at greater risk of being disenfranchised. What was the decision in Shelby County v. Holder? Section 5 of the VRA requires states and What would the Advancement Act do? The jurisdictions with an established history of laws Advancement Act would modernize the resulting in the disenfranchisement of voters of preclearance formula struck in section 4(b) of the color to obtain advance approval, or preclearance, VTA. The new formula would automatically update from the US Department of Justice or the US every year to cover states with a pattern of voter District Court before they can make any changes to discrimination. voting practices or procedures. In Shelby, the US Supreme Court decided that Section 4(b) of the How else will the Advancement Act protect VRA, which establishes the formula used to voting rights? The Advancement Act would determine which states and jurisdictions must apply expand the federal observer program to provide for preclearance, is antiquated and thus greater in-person supervision of voting in states unconstitutional, and can no longer be used. with a recent history of discriminatory voting laws. The bill also promotes transparency by requiring all Did Shelby have an immediate effect? Yes. states and counties to provide public notice of Since Shelby, new voting restrictions have been voting changes like redistricting or changes to passed in many states, including onerous voter ID polling locations. Finally, the bill would expand laws, limits to voter registration, and restrictions on requirements for bilingual voting materials. early voting. In 2016, the first presidential election in more than 50 years without the full protections Is it important to pass the Advancement Act of the VRA, 14 states had more restrictive voting this congressional session? Yes. Without rules than they did in 2012. These laws point to a proactive legislation that protects voters from trend of disenfranchisement and underscore the discriminatory disenfranchisement, voters in states need to restore the VRA. with restrictive laws will find themselves unable to participate in upcoming elections, including the 2018 Do voter ID laws prevent individual voter midterm elections. In addition, voters may find new fraud? No. Supporters of voter ID laws argue that voting and election laws onerous to the point that they prevent voter impersonation fraud, but studies they are dissuaded from trying to cast their ballot. have shown that this type of fraud is virtually non- Voting is a cornerstone of our democracy, and all existent. On the contrary, a 2014 Government unnecessary burdens must be alleviated to ensure Accountability Office report found that around all eligible voters can easily register and cast a vote 100,000 fewer people voted in Kansas and that will be counted.