Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Voting Rights Advancement Act will be voted on soon. Here's what to know.

Voting rights rally

The House is expected to vote on the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act this week.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

As the House returns from recess this week, Democrats will make their latest push for a major upgrade to voting rights protections nationally.

The long-awaited John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act was introduced by Rep. Terri Sewell of Alabama last week, and House Democratic leaders say a vote on the bill is imminent.

Voting rights advocates believe the VRAA would provide critical protections for minority voters at a time when many states are enacting new limits on voting access. But like the For the People Act, it's unclear how the VRAA will overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate.


What would the Voting Rights Advancement Act do?

Named after the late civil rights leader and lawmaker John Lewis, the VRAA would restore and strengthen provisions of the original 1965 Voting Rights Act. Primarily, it would reinstate preclearance, or the requirement that certain jurisdictions get advance approval of their election laws from the Justice Department.

Initially, preclearance prevented states (or portions of states) with histories of racial discrimination from enacting additional laws that suppressed the rights of nonwhite voters. But in 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the constraint, finding that, while previously appropriate, it was no longer necessary and placed an unconstitutional burden on governments.

The VRAA would use a new formula to determine the states and localities that require federal oversight. Only places that meet a high threshold of infractions — 10 violations, if at least one is statewide, or 15 total over the last 25 years — would be subject to preclearance.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

House Democrats passed a version of this bill in 2019, but it was later blocked by Senate Republicans. In this second attempt, Democrats added a provision addressing a Supreme Court decision from earlier this summer. In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the court's conservative majority ruling made it harder to challenge election laws for being potentially discriminatory against minority voters. The VRAA would amend the Voting Rights Act to eliminate this higher standard for voter discrimination challenges.

Voting rights advocates see the VRAA as a critical tool for protecting minority communities not only from restrictive election laws, but also from partisan map manipulations. Most of the country is at a high risk of gerrymandering as politicians control the redistricting process in 39 states.

How is this bill different from the For the People Act?

Democrats and voting rights advocates say the VRAA is not a replacement for the For the People Act. Instead, they say, the two bills would work in tandem.

While the VRAA would prevent discriminatory voting laws from being enacted in the future, the For the People Act would establish nationwide standards for voting and election policies.

The For the People Act would mandate automatic voter registration, two weeks of early voting and no-excuse absentee voting, among other voting expansions. It would also eliminate partisan gerrymandering by requiring states to use independent commissions to draw election maps. And the bill would curb the influence of wealthy special interests by creating a small-dollar public financing system for federal elections and bolstering transparency around political spending.

What's the likelihood the VRAA will become law?

Similar to the For the People Act, the VRAA will face steep opposition in the Senate once it passes through the House. Only one Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, has signaled support for the legislation, meaning it likely won't receive the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

In June, Republican Senators blocked a motion to begin debate on the For the People Act, stalling its progress. Democrats promised to make another push in September, but there is no clear path forward for either bill unless the filibuster is reformed or eliminated.

Read More

Donald Trump being interviewed on stage

Donald Trump participated in an interivew Bloomberg editor-in-chief John Micklethwait at the Economic Club of Chicago on Oct 16.

Amalia Huot-Marchand

Trump sticks to America First policies in deeply Democratic Chicago

Huot-Marchand is a graduate student at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism.

“I do not comment on those things. But let me tell you, if I did, it would be a really smart thing to do,” boasted Donald Trump, when Bloomberg editor-in-chief John Micklethwait asked whether the former president had private phone calls with Vladimir Putin.

Welcomed with high applause and lots of laughs from the members and guests of the Economic Club of Chicago on Oct. 16, Trump bragged about his great relationships with U.S. adversaries and authoritarian leaders Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jung Un.

Keep ReadingShow less
Justin Levitt
Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Election lawyer Justin Levitt on why 2024 litigation is mostly hot air

Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Justin Levitt has been on the frontlines in some of American democracy’s biggest legal battles for two decades. Now a law professor at Los Angeles’ Loyola Marymount University, he has worked as a voting rights attorney and top Justice Department civil rights attorney, and he has advised both major parties.

In this Q&A, he describes why 2024’s partisan election litigation is likely to have limited impacts on voters and counting ballots. But that won’t stop partisan propagandists and fundraising from preying on voters.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stop the Steal rally in Washington, DC

"If that level of voter fraud is set to happen again, isn’t voting just a waste of time?" asks Clancy.

Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images

If you think the 2020 election was stolen, why vote in 2024?

Clancy is co-founder of Citizen Connect and a board member of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund. Citizen Connect is an initiative of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, which also operates The Fulcrum.

I’m not here to debate whether the 2020 presidential election involved massive voter fraud that made Joe Biden’s victory possible. There has been extensive research, analysis and court cases related to that topic and nothing I say now will change your mind one way or the other. Nothing will change the fact that tens of millions of Americans believe Biden was not legitimately elected president.

So let’s assume for the sake of argument that there actually was game-changing election fraud that unjustly put Biden in the White House. If that was the case, what are the odds that Donald Trump would be “allowed” to win this time? If that level of voter fraud is set to happen again, isn’t voting just a waste of time?

Keep ReadingShow less
People lined up to get food

People line up at a food distribution event in Hartford, Conn., hosted by the Hispanic Families at Catholic Charities, GOYA food, and CICD Puerto Rican Day Parade

Belén Dumont

Not all Hartford Latinos will vote but they agree on food assistance

Dumont is a freelance journalist based in Connecticut.

The Fulcrum presents We the People, a series elevating the voices and visibility of the persons most affected by the decisions of elected officials. In this installment, we explore the motivations of over 36 million eligible Latino voters as they prepare to make their voices heard in November.

Keep ReadingShow less