woodguru

It's a bill that got unanimous support every time it was extended, there is nothing controversial in it, it simply sets the guidelines for fair elections as it always has...so what's different now?

It strengthens common sense voting laws in ways that would interfere with some red states that are getting stupid with their interference with simple common sense voting laws.

Republicans openly no longer want free and fair elections where anyone eligible to vote can easily vote. They are outnumbered and that inequality of eligible voters is only getting worse.

Simple Sam Loc: USA

This bill establishes new criteria for determining which states and political subdivisions must obtain preclearance before changes to voting practices may take effect. (Preclearance is the process of receiving federal preapproval before making legal changes that would affect voting rights.) In addition, the bill expands voting access on tribal lands.

However, our Constitution is clear, U.S. election laws date back to Article 1 of the Constitution. This gave states the responsibility of overseeing federal elections. Any and all changes belong exclusively to the states, not Federal government.

There are two obvious problems with this bill, first being redistricting. Original law is non-discriminatory. If a district gains in population, regardless of race, then it is subject to redistricting. This bill is based on race and language. An 'only if' requirement. "(2) CHANGES TO JURISDICTION BOUNDARIES.—Any change or series of changes within a year to the boundaries of a jurisdiction that reduces by 3 or more percentage points the proportion of the jurisdiction's voting-age population that is composed of members of a single racial group or language minority group in a State or political subdivision where—

“(A) 2 or more racial groups or language minority groups each represent 20 percent or more of the political subdivision’s voting-age population; or

“(B) a single language minority group represents 20 percent or more of the voting-age population on Indian lands located in whole or in part in the political subdivision."

Second issue, “(4) CHANGES IN DOCUMENTATION OR QUALIFICATIONS TO VOTE.—Any change to requirements for documentation or proof of identity to vote such that the requirements will exceed or be more stringent than the requirements for voting that are described in section 303(b) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21083(b)) or any change to the requirements for documentation or proof of identity to register to vote that will exceed or be more stringent than such requirements under State law on the day before the date of enactment of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

And the cherry on top; “(f) Special Rule.—For purposes of determinations under this section, any data provided by the Bureau of the Census, whether based on estimation from sample or actual enumeration, shall not be subject to challenge or review in any court.

Mario Moreno

This new law seems to be unconstitutional as written with the intention of usurping states rights as they pertain to states having control of their own elections.
The most challenging part IMO is the part that states and I quote “(f) Special Rule. -For purposes of determinations under this section, data provided by the Bureau of the Census, whether based on estimation from sample or actual numeration, shall not be subject to challenge or review in any court. [/quote]
Do you think we might be able to get Shiff to alter this from shall not be to shall be and blame it on a clerk’s unintentional error omission??? LOL Just kidding but it did work on the J6 committee!!!