Add changing the Voting Rights Act to the list of things Congress probably won’t do in the next year-and-a-half.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Tuesday that Congress must use more current data to decide which states need clearance from the federal government to change their election laws will not rocket to the top of House Republican leadership’s to-do list, according to conversations with top GOP aides. President Barack Obama said he was “deeply disappointed” in the decision and said he was “calling on Congress to pass legislation to make sure every American has equal access to the polls.”
Continue Reading
But House Administration Chairman Candice Miller (R-Mich.), whose committee has jurisdiction over elections, said in a statement that she “[respects] the Court’s decision and am heartened that the Court has left the rest of this landmark civil rights legislation intact.”
But that indifference turned into indignation in the Senate, where Democrats in the majority couched the ruling as a setback for voting rights. Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said he would “take immediate action to ensure that we will have a strong and reconstituted Voting Rights Act that protects against racial discrimination in voting.”
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the decision a “back door way to gut the Voting Rights Act.”
“The Voting Rights Act is essential to protect the voting rights of minority populations which have historically been the objects of discrimination,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Tuesday morning post-ruling. “And I think it should continue. And if there is any need for evidence to prove that point, look at what just happened in the last election cycle.”
Durbin said it is “hard to imagine” that the Voting Rights Act was extended in 2006 in a “strong, overwhelming bipartisan vote.” That vote was 390-33 in the House, with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) voting for the extension. It passed 98-0 in the Senate, and the renewal was signed by President George W. Bush.
“Now, unfortunately, it is embroiled in political conflict,” Durbin said. He added that it seems unlikely that Congress will pass another bill.
“The reality of Congress today is that a House of Representatives that cannot pass a farm bill, that has been unwilling to take up a [water resources] authorization bill with over 80 votes, will not take up mainstream fairness bills supported by retailers and small business across this country despite 69 votes in favor of it on the floor, is an indication that they are not prepared to face some of the challenges that clearly we have in this country,” Durbin said.
Schumer said only a fully Democratically-controlled Washington could overrule the court.
“As long as Republicans have a majority in the House and Democrats don’t have 60 votes in the Senate, there will be no preclearance,” said the Senate’s No. 3 Democrat.
“I am very disappointed. Obviously, we will work with members of Congress to see what we can do about having the right to vote and making sure that our laws work for every American citizen,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a member of the Senate Democratic leadership.
“We just saw [the decision], we’re reviewing it, I’m sure its something we will be looking at,” she added.
John Cornyn (R-Texas), the No. 2 Senate Republican and a former Texas Supreme Court justice and attorney general, said he expects Congress to “give it the old college try” in updating the Voting Rights Act.
But he views the issues differently than his Democratic colleagues, arguing that the U.S. is a different country now than it was 50 years ago. Texas is among the states that must pre-clear their voting plans with the Justice Department.
“The formula really reflects the state of play back in the mid-60s. And it’s never been updated to reflect the reality today, which is that the Voting Right Act has actually worked. And the record of minority voting opportunity is actually better in states that are covered by the pre-clearance requirement … rather than states that are not covered,” Cornyn told reporters Tuesday morning. “There’s universal support for the Voting Rights Act. This is a fundamental part of who we are. But I think in fairness it does make sense to update it to reflect the current reality.”
Capitol Hill aides were still digesting the ruling Tuesday morning, but House leadership expected to toss the issue to committees of jurisdiction — the Judiciary and House Administration committees.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said he was “disappointed” in the ruling.
”It was a reflection of the divisions that exist in that Supreme Court,” he told reporters Tuesday morning.
Hoyer was optimistic that Congress would review the bill since last time it did so the chamber was controlled by Republicans. But he conceded that passing a new formula could be more difficult under the current Republican-controlled House as compared to the one that reauthorized the law in 2006.
“There are deep divisions within the Republican Party,” Hoyer said. “The Republican Party of 2006 or 1996 or 1986 is not the Republican Party of 2013. It’s true of the Senate but much more true of the House. It’s a much more ideologically, rigid Republican Party than it was in 2006. It is much less willing to work with others.”
Ginger Gibson contributed to this report.
Now, US Ambassador 
