WASHINGTON – The version of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act passed last week by House Democrats varies greatly from the compromise Sen. Joe Manchin offered earlier this summer.
And the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration says Manchin, who likely will be the key vote when the matter goes to the Senate, wouldn’t support this latest version of the bill if he “were to follow his own framework.”
The passed version of H.R. 4 expands how the Department of Justice can identify discriminatory voting patterns in states and local districts. Those jurisdictions would require DOJ approval before making additional changes to elections. The bill also features wording aimed at a Supreme Court ruling that makes it more difficult to challenge possible discriminatory voting changes.
Davis
After the 219-212 party line vote August 25 on H.R. 4, Rodney Davis (R-Illinois) details Manchin’s “compromise” wish list against the passed version.
Davis says Manchin wanted a voter identification requirement, but the current version of H.R. 4 doesn’t provide that.
“The legislation ignores Sen. Manchin’s request for compromise and attacks voter ID at nearly every turn,” Davis wrote in a memo. “It would require any state with a ‘strict’ voter ID law to submit its existing statute to the DOJ for clearance and would prohibit any state from strengthening or enacting a voter ID statute without preclearance.”
Davis said the current bill also makes the Attorney General essentially an Elections Czar, which is something Manchin didn’t want. He wanted to see the AG’s authority of elections reduced.
“This bill would do the opposite, handing the Attorney General multiple new authorities and options to find that a state or locality has ‘violated’ voting rights through administrative functions within the AG’s sole purview.”
Manchin also wanted the removal of consent decrees from the definition of voting rights violations, but Davis said H.R. 4 currently “doubles down” on it, noting that it “specifically reiterates consent decrees, settlements or other agreements as triggers that could be included to invoke preclearance.”
Davis says Manchin also wanted “objective measures for voting discrimination,” but H.R. 4 is “intentionally vague.”
“The new version of H.R. 4 has multiple sections with extremely vague definitions of what constitutes a violation, making it nearly impossible for states and localities to understand when they might be violating the act, whether intentionally or unintentionally.”
Finally, Davis said Manchin was concerned the preliminary relief standard already was too low. But, he says the new bill lowers that even further.
Democrats have pushed a companion bill known as the For The People Act, but Republicans oppose the measure and Democrats disagree on key parts of that legislation. Still, Democrats say both bills are needed.
Manchin’s office did not return messages from The West Virginia Record seeking comment. But in an analysis posted on CNN.com, editor-at-large Chris Cillizza said H.R. 4 is doomed in the Senate because of Manchin and Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.
Cillizza predicts the bill won’t become law “or even come up for debate in the Senate.”
“See, Manchin and Sinema both oppose the elimination of the legislative filibuster,” Cillizza wrote. “Which means that the measure would need to secure 60 votes in order to end unlimited debate in the Senate and come up for a final vote. And that just isn't going to happen.”
In June, Manchin said he opposed the For The People Act and said he would not vote to end the filibuster for voting rights legislation.
“Democrats can't change the Senate rules to abolish the legislative filibuster unless all 50 of their senators (and the two independents who caucus with them) support such a rule change,” Cillizza wrote. “And, for the foreseeable future, they have only 48 votes.”