Chairman Goodlatte’s Repetitive Talking Points on Voting Rights Ignore Reality

He recently told the NAACP that the VRA is “alive and well.” We’ve heard that from him before, but that doesn’t make it true.

Image for post
Image for post

Since the U.S. Supreme Court eviscerated the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in 2013 in Shelby County v. Holder, House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R. Va., has been remarkably consistent in repeating a set of talking points that ignore the real and damaging resurgence of voting discrimination in America — seeking to create a guilt-free pass so he can refuse to do anything about it.

→On August 1, 2015, just days before the VRA’s 50th anniversary, an aide to Goodlatte told that “The Voting Rights Act is alive and well and protecting the freedom to vote” because it retains other sections, “including the section that allows federal judges to place jurisdictions under a preclearance regime if those jurisdictions act in an unconstitutional and discriminatory manner.”

→In January 2015, at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast, Goodlatte that “there are still very, very strong protections in the Voting Rights Act.” Five months later before the second anniversary of Shelby County, , “The fact of the matter is we have a Voting Rights Act; it is very strong.” He also said, “There are still strong protections under the Voting Rights Act, including the ability of a judge to order that a community or even a whole state be placed under the preclearance requirements if there are new evidences of discrimination.”

Image for post
Image for post
say that “there are still very, very strong protections in the Voting Rights Act.”

→And in a July 2013 hearing, just weeks after the Shelby decision, : “Now it is important to note that under the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County, other very important provisions of the Voting Rights Act remain in place, including Sections 2 and 3.”

Goodlatte, who has refused to allow the committee he chairs to consider two bills that would restore the VRA, was at it again earlier this month when the NAACP held a rally and a peaceful sit-in at his Roanoke, Va., office just two days after the 51st anniversary of the VRA. was a masterpiece of obfuscation:

“The Voting Rights Act is alive and well and protecting the freedom to vote. The right to vote is a hallmark of democracy and we must ensure all Americans’ constitutional right to vote is not infringed. While the Supreme Court struck down the old coverage formula that required certain states to preclear their voting rule changes with the federal government, the Court left in place other important tools in the Voting Rights Act, including the section that allows federal judges to place jurisdictions under a preclearance regime if those jurisdictions act in an unconstitutional and discriminatory manner. So, strong remedies against unconstitutional voting discrimination remain in place today. Federal courts have been actively using the VRA, upholding and striking down various state laws. The House Judiciary Committee, which I chair, has held a hearing on the Supreme Court’s ruling, and my staff and I have met with the NAACP and associated groups regarding this topic on a number of occasions. We will continue to monitor this very important issue to ensure that the voting rights of all Americans are protected.”

Same song, different day. So let’s break down the talking points line by line.

The Voting Rights Act is alive and well and protecting the freedom to vote.

In fact, as a result of the Shelby decision, the Voting Rights Act is weaker than at any time since 1965. And unless Congress acts quickly, this will be the first presidential election in 50 years without the full protections of the VRA.

The right to vote is a hallmark of democracy and we must ensure all Americans’ constitutional right to vote is not infringed.

No argument here, but touting democratic ideals is not the same as taking action to ensure the right to vote “is not infringed.”

While the Supreme Court struck down the old coverage formula that required certain states to preclear their voting rule changes with the federal government, the Court left in place other important tools in the Voting Rights Act, including the section that allows federal judges to place jurisdictions under a preclearance regime if those jurisdictions act in an unconstitutional and discriminatory manner. So, strong remedies against unconstitutional voting discrimination remain in place today.

Yes, other parts of the VRA are still intact and have enabled voting rights advocates to win important victories against discriminatory laws, like the Texas voter ID law found to discriminate against more than 600,000 citizens and the monster North Carolina law that the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said “targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision.”

But these remedies take millions of dollars and years of litigation to challenge in court ( in taxpayer dollars defending its discriminatory law). More importantly, while these cases are in the courts, actual voters are being discriminated against and losing the right to vote in ongoing elections, as they did in Texas and North Carolina in 2014 and this year’s presidential primaries.

Before Shelby, however, the VRA actually worked to stop voting discrimination before it happened in places that have a well-documented track record of voting discrimination, by requiring those states and jurisdictions to have their voting changes reviewed and approved by the Department of Justice before they could be implemented– a process known as preclearance.

In 2013, no longer subject to preclearance, states and local jurisdictions rushed to implement discriminatory voting laws. The Texas ID law, which had previously been blocked by the Department of Justice, took effect almost immediately. And North Carolina passed its law within weeks of the decision, after legislators asked for and received information about which voting practices were most used by African-American voters. Those were the practices the law curtailed.

Meanwhile, there’s no telling how many other discriminatory voting practices have been — or will be — put in place in smaller jurisdictions — school boards, city councils, county councils, water boards — that will never be litigated and often will remain hidden, but would have been reported and stopped if preclearance were still available.

The House Judiciary Committee, which I chair, has held a hearing on the Supreme Court’s ruling, and my staff and I have met with the NAACP and associated groups regarding this topic on a number of occasions.

Goodlatte did convene a hearing in July 2013, within weeks of the Shelby decision. Since then, two bills have been introduced that would strengthen the Voting Rights Act, enabling the preclearance mechanism to work again. Both bills — including one sponsored by a former Republican chair of the Judiciary Committee — have been referred to Goodlatte’s committee, yet he has refused to move either one of them.

We will continue to monitor this very important issue to ensure that the voting rights of all Americans are protected.

In other words, Goodlatte intends to keep on spinning his do-nothing talking points while voters continue to suffer discrimination and lose their voice in our democracy.

So much for ensuring “all Americans’ constitutional right to vote is not infringed.”

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch

Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore

Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store