Why Do Republicans Oppose Updating the Voting Rights Act?

Yesterday, the House passed the Voting Rights Advancement Bill, a bill that addresses the Supreme Court’s objections to the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA). The bill was unanimously supported by Democrats. It got one Republican vote. All other Republicans voted against it.

The Supreme Court, in invalidating the Voting Rights Act in 2013, held that the conditions that required some states to seek pre-clearance for changes to their voting rules, were outdated and tended to punish states in the south for actions that were long past. The revised Voting Rights Act requires pre-clearance based on recent history only. If enacted, it would impose pre-clearance rules on a number of southern states but also on California and New York.

The VRA was one of the major achievements of the Civil Rights era, providing the right to vote to millions of citizens, primarily African-American, who had been denied their constitutional right to vote by local ordinances. In consequence, it led to the election of African-Americans at every level from local to national.

Two observations:

Every month, someone here starts a post on why minorities largely vote Democratic. Events like this provide an unambiguous answer

Given that the right to vote is a fundamental right to vote, why do Republicans oppose the updating of this successful legislation that has helped secure the rights of so many citizens who are part of ethnic minorities?

Because libs were using it to keep punishing the south and nobody trusts yankees.


Democrats are only in favor of updating the Voting Rights Act because they think it’ll help them politically.


Who is being denied the right to vote?


This is actually very interesting. I think we grossly underestimate the impact the civil war and that era has on where we are today. As a country, we never got past it.

For some reason, the old animosities are still there.

During reconstruction, there was a lot of legislation passed while the seceded states were not yet back in the union and therefore unrepresented. I imagine there was quite a bit of haste to strike while the iron was hot. Completely understandable from a yankee point of view - spoils of war and all that.

I wonder if libs long for those days when they were basically unopposed in the halls of Congress.

1 Like

An answer to your question is right in your link:

“The bill before us today would turn those federal shields that protect voters into political weapons,” said Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, adding that the legislation would do so “when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that those states or localities engaged in any discriminatory behavior when it comes to voting.”

I’ll say this. There isn’t a bill that only Dems push that I trust. The entirety of Dem politicking as of late is to weaponize government.


Yet actions in Georgia and Florida to cite obviously examples, disproportionately discriminate against African-American citizens.

Are you saying Republicans oppose the VRA because not allowing African-American citizens to vote helps Republicans politically? Or are you claiming the Republican acting selflessly in this matter

If you are to be believed, New York and California are now southern states.

I’m claiming that Republicans are doing what’s in America’s best interest.

It’s in your OP as to the reason SCOTUS overturned it.

So the documented voting rights violations that would lead to a dozen or so states being returned to pre-clearance requirements have nothing to to with discriminatory behavior. Collins statement – coming from a state where a massive push a year ago to force African-Americans off the voting rolls was the basis for Republicans retaining the governorship is patent nonsense.

Not allowing?

Why is not allowing citizens the right to vote in America’s best interest. Next you will claim that not allowing citizens the right to bear arms is in America’s best interest I suppose.

Yes, not allowing. What else do you think it going on?

Who is not being allowed to vote and how?

Who and how?

No one is arguing with the Supreme Court decision. The House is reacting to it by revising the law to meet the Court’s objections, much as Trump did with his Muslim ban. The issue at question is the new law, not the old one.

“Discriminate” as defined by libspeak.

Glad we could agree you are wrong.