Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4)

If Biden wins and the Democrats gain control of the Senate, I suspect that the Voting Rights Advancement Act will be one of the first items of legislation enacted.

The first image below depicts the States that would be bailed into coverage by the new coverage formula, which is far ore restrictive than the one struck down in Shelby v Holder. Almost all of the south would be bailed in. California and New York would also be bailed in. The map does not include Arkansas and New Mexico, which are already bailed in by court order and would remain bailed in under the statute. Certain other jurisdictions currently bailed in by court order would also remain bailed in.

Speed is of the essence in passing this legislation, as States will begin to take up redistricting in 2021. This needs to be positive law BEFORE any of these States formally enact redistricting.

The statute would also make it far easier for a federal court to bail in a jurisdiction to preclearance and make it harder to bail out. Basically, if you don’t walk the straight and narrow for a quarter of a century, you are staying bailed in.

ALL States would be required to preclear any changes that make it more difficult to provide documentation to vote. Other election related changes would also be subject to nationwide preclearance.

The statute would make it easier to obtain injunctive relief and would MANDATE immediate injunctive relief in several cases.

I support the proposed legislation. Preclearance is a heavy sledge hammer, but too many jurisdictions have proven they can’t be trusted with voting rights.

Map showing States that would be bailed in if the Voting Rights Advancement Act is enacted in the next administration.

Map depicted bailed in jurisdictions prior to Shelby County v Holder that struck down the coverage formula.

The following jurisdictions, including the States of Arkansas and New Mexico, were bailed in by federal courts and were not effected by Shelby v Holder, they remain bailed in.

  • Thurston County, Nebraska[55]
  • Escambia County, Florida[56]
  • Alexander County, Illinois[57]
  • Gadsden County School District, Florida[58]
  • State of New Mexico[59]
  • McKinley County, New Mexico[60]
  • Sandoval County, New Mexico[61]
  • City of Chattanooga, Tennessee[62]
  • Montezuma-Cortez School District RE01, Colorado[63]
  • State of Arkansas[64]
  • Los Angeles County, California[65]
  • Cibola County, New Mexico[66]
  • Socorro County, New Mexico[67]
  • Alameda County, California[68]
  • Bernalillo County, New Mexico[69]
  • Buffalo County, South Dakota[70]
  • Charles Mix County, South Dakota[71]
  • Village of Port Chester, New York[72]

As ever @Safiel a ver well written reasoned OP. thanks

Your welcome. :smile:

1 Like

What does “bailed in” mean?

'Bailed in" means a State (or subdivision) is subject to preclearance. Any changes that they make to election laws or procedures, including redistricting, list maintenance, etc, must be “precleared” by either the United States Department of Justice or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia PRIOR to being implemented.

1 Like

Thank you. I believe this is a good idea but there’s two important requirements; one that there is proof provided at the time a vote is cast that the person is, who the person claims to be and second, that the voting system remain local. There is no “federal” voting system controlled by computers. It must remain as basic as possible, minimizing the opportunity for massive fraud. The integrity of our voting system is paramount to the United States being united.

Would paper and pencil be sufficiently basic?

Use a pen so libs have a harder time cheating and yes…that’d be fine.

We have found in Australia that pencils work very well.

Were they made in China?

I can’t say that whenever I have voted I have checked the source of the pencils I have used.

I might check in March, 2021 at our state election.

Never mind.

Like everything else there. :wink:

Voting ID can be upheld in the courts. The main issue is that it must be available without cost to the potential voter and it cannot be structured in such a way as favors certain constituencies.

States and localities will continue to conduct elections, but the VRAA would make it easier for the Federal Government to send observers to monitor elections.

The VRAA does not provide for a direct Federal Government takeover of elections, which I agree would be a step too far.

1 Like

absolutely not. preclearance gives partisan DoJ too much influence over our elections. Who do I trust more? My state legislature which answers to me? or Eric Holder types who pursue cases to enhance democrats chances at the ballot box? I’ll take my legislature.

1 Like