SuperCitizen
civic os · v1.0

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 used a coverage formula in §4(b) to require certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to "preclear" voting changes with the federal government before implementing them. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula as outdated, effectively suspending §5 preclearance.

Restoration proposals include the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would create a new coverage formula based on recent voting-rights violations, and the Freedom to Vote Act, which sets federal standards on registration, mail voting, and redistricting.

The debate centers on whether federal preclearance is needed to deter voting discrimination or whether existing §2 case-by-case litigation is sufficient.

Spectrum of framings

How adherents on each side of the conventional left / center / right spectrum frame this issue — written so each camp would recognize the framing as charitable.

left

Progressives strongly support restoring preclearance and federalizing election standards as essential civil-rights protections.

center

Civil-rights moderates favor restoring preclearance with a updated coverage formula tied to current violations.

right

Conservatives generally view current §2 enforcement as sufficient and oppose new federal preclearance regimes.

Perspectives

Each perspective is presented in terms its advocates would recognize, with the concerns they treat as paramount. None is endorsed.

  • Restoration advocates

    Since Shelby County, formerly covered jurisdictions have enacted voting-restriction laws at higher rates than non-covered. Preclearance is the only effective deterrent.

    • Deterring discriminatory voting changes
    • Updating coverage to reflect recent violations
    • Federal floor on voting access
  • Federalism / states-rights skeptics

    Elections are constitutionally a state matter. Federal preclearance was a temporary, emergency measure tied to 1960s Jim Crow conditions; current §2 litigation handles real violations.

    • State sovereignty over elections
    • Sufficiency of §2 case-by-case enforcement
    • Avoiding indefinite federal supervision

Voices on this issue6

Commonly-cited public figures who have taken a position on this issue. Grouped by their conventional left/center/right lean. Tap a voice to see their full position record.

Discuss this issue with the Coach →