Why We're Here
History
Accomplishments
Contact Info
VRA Reauthorization
Election Reform
Voting Rights
Voter Outreach
Ex-Offender Re-enfranchisement
HAVA
Election Day resources
Voter Resources
Voting Rights
Register to Vote
Legislation
Redistricting
Campaign finance
Our Issues - Voting Rights Act Reauthorization (ALSO VISIT OUR SECTIONS ON VOTING RIGHTS ISSUES AND RESOURCES) Sample VRA pledge
InformationWhat is the Voting Rights Act?
The federal Voting Rights Act is landmark legislation that was passed at the height of the civil rights movement in 1965. The Act is widely considered to be one of the most effective civil rights statutes enacted by Congress. It removes barriers to voting against minorities and language minorities. The most important provisions of the Act are Section 2, Section 5 and Section 203. This CalVEC website provides summary information of these provisions below. For more detailed information on these provisions and the other provisions of the Voting Rights Act, please visit http://www.civilrights.org/campaigns/vra/learn_more/faq.html and http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/overview.htm#vra.
History Forty years ago on
Section 2
Section 2 of the Act is a nationwide, permanent prohibition against voting practices and procedures, including redistricting plans and at-large election systems, poll worker hiring, and voter registration procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color or membership in a language minority group. It prohibits not only election-related practices and procedures that are intended to be racially discriminatory, but also those that are shown to have a racially discriminatory impact. The U.S. Attorney General, as well as affected private citizens, may bring lawsuits under Section 2 to obtain court-ordered remedies for violations of Section 2. Section 201 is also permanent and bans the use of literacy tests nationwide as a prerequisite to voting.
Section 5
Section 5 of the Act is a temporary provision that freezes changes in election practices or procedures in states with a documented history of discriminatory voting practices until the new procedures have been determined, either after administrative review by the Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to have neither discriminatory purpose or effect. If the jurisdiction submitting the proposed change does not meet its burden of showing that the proposed change is free of discriminatory purpose and effect, the Attorney General may block implementation of the change by interposing an objection. This process is called “pre-clearance.”
Examples of voting changes that must be submitted for pre-clearance include plans for redistricting, annexation, at-large elections, re-registration requirements, polling place changes, and new rules for candidate qualifying. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that seemingly insignificant changes can constitute subtle attempts to discriminate against voters.
Section 5 has proved vital in protecting the rights of minority voters. Before Section 5 was enacted, constitutional litigation failed to eliminate discriminatory practices because jurisdictions simply developed new methods of discriminating against voters after one method was held unconstitutional. By invalidating discriminatory election laws before they are put into place, Section 5 removes the need for minority voters to continually bring costly litigation to ensure that their voting rights are protected.
Currently, Section 5 affects all or part of 16 states. Section 5 covers all of
Section 203
Section 203 of the Act is another temporary provision and requires covered jurisdictions to provide bilingual voting assistance to voters in communities where there is a concentration of citizens who are not yet fully proficient in English, referred to as “language minority” voters. A jurisdiction is required to provide bilingual voting assistance to a language minority population if the language minority population meets either a percentage threshold or numerical threshold. Congress enacted Section 203 in 1975 after concluding that English-only elections and voting practices had effectively denied the right to vote to a substantial segment of the nation’s language minority population, including Latino Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans and Alaskan natives.
Jurisdictions that are covered under Section 203 are required to provide language minority populations with bilingual registration and voting materials for all elections. Jurisdictions are also required to provide bilingual poll workers at poll sites to assist language minority voters. In addition, jurisdictions must make efforts to publicize the availability of bilingual voting materials and oral assistance.
As of 2002, a total of 466 local jurisdictions across 31 states are covered by Section 203. In
What is reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act?
Section 5 and Section 203 (and also Sections 6 to 9) of the Act are temporary provisions and will expire in 2007 unless Congress renews them. Section 5 was reauthorized with broad bipartisan support in 1970, 1975 and 1982. Section 203 was enacted in 1975 and reauthorized in 1982 and 1992.
To learn more about reauthorization and what a broad coalition of civil rights organizations are advocating for in the reauthorization process, please click here. Many CalVEC organizations are involved in this process. Please see below for further information.
To download FAQ sheets on what provisions of the Voting Rights Act are scheduled to expire unless renewed, please clickhere andhere.
Congress began the reauthorization process in fall 2005. The House Judiciary Committee is holding hearings during October and November 2005. To keep apprised of the committee’s hearing schedule, please see the calendar
This update briefly summarizes those positive changes to the 1965 Voting Rights Act secured by H.R. 9, "The Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.” The successful campaign to renew the expiring provisions of the
In addition to rejecting all the weakening amendments that had been proposed to H.R. 9, Congress voted to renew the temporary provisions of the
1. Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, 528 U.S. 320 (2000), which allowed covered jurisdictions to enact purposefully discriminatory voting changes under Section 5, as long as minority voters weren’t technically made worse off. In reauthorizing the
2. Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003), which imposed a new legal standard that threatened to turn minorities into second class voters who could perhaps “influence” the election of sympathetic white candidates but could not elect candidates of their choice, including minority candidates. Under the renewed
3. West Virginia University and Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83 (1991), prohibiting prevailing parties in voting rights cases from recovering expert witness fees as part of the costs and attorneys’ fees recoverable under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Because it is very difficult to prove a violation of Section 2 of the
It should be noted that voting rights advocates did not seek to make these temporary provisions permanent – or extend them nationwide – because they sought the strongest extension of the law possible. Had some of these provisions been made permanent or extended nationwide there is little doubt that the law would have been made more vulnerable to a constitutional challenge.
Because Section 5 imposes a federal enforcement mechanism on rights traditionally reserved by the constitution to the states, Congress must show that there is a concrete record of voting discrimination in those areas of the country where it seeks to maintain these enforcement provisions. Simply put, imposing Section 5 permanently, or on parts of the country where there is no well-documented evidence of voting discrimination, could have undermined the legitimacy of the statute.
Obviously, equal opportunity in voting still does not exist in many places and race discrimination still denies many Americans their basic democratic rights. Although such discrimination today is often more subtle than it used to be, it must still be remedied to ensure the healthy functioning of our democracy. This 25-year extension of the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act provides critically important tools to do just that.
Why do we need special laws to protect our right to vote?
Throughout much of our nation's history, large numbers of Americans have been denied the right to vote both by the federal government and by state and local officials:
Section 203 of the Act has been particularly beneficial to ensuring that language minority voters have access to voting materials and oral assistance. Forty-three percent of Latino American voters and 39% of Asian American voters in
How do CalVEC organizations help ensure that the provisions of the Voting Rights Act are properly implemented?
A number of CalVEC members engage in poll monitoring and election protection work on election day to make sure that jurisdictions are in compliance with the Voting Rights Act, including Section 203 of the Act. These organizations compile post-election reports that detail their findings and provide recommendations on how jurisdictions can improve bilingual voting assistance. Links to these reports are provided below. In addition, several CalVEC organizations operate voter hotlines that voters can call if they have encountered discrimination or other problems in the voting process. News
President Bush Signs
Statement From Common Cause President Chellie Pingree
For more information, see this story from the Associated Press.
The House Judiciary Committee Vote Tally
Resources
Contact Information
Many CalVEC organizations and their national affiliates are engaged in legislative advocacy with members of Congress and their staff. To get involved with these efforts, please contact Kathay Feng atkfeng@commoncause.org
Sample letter to Congress urging renewal of the Voting Rights Act Statutory Text of Federal Voting Act Voting Rights Act educational flyer Generic letter to a Member of Congress requesting appointment regarding VRA (pdf) Spreadsheet of Members' of Congress districts and contact information
MALDEF statement to the Congress on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 10/25/05 MALDEF statement to Congress regarding reauthorization of Voting Rights Act, 10/18/05
Bilingual Voting Assistance: How to Use the Voting Rights Act Handbook
Links to Other Websites Containing Information on the Voting Rights Act
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
National Commission on the Voting Rights Act
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
copyright 2005
The CalVec website is supported by a generous grant This site is maintained by
from the Irvine Foundation California Common Cause