One year after major Supreme Court decisions on the Voting Rights Act and the Defense of Marriage Act, conservative leaders are still denying equal rights for all Americans by failing to address the issues raised by these cases.

After the Supreme Court struck down a critical provision of the Voting Rights Act, or VRA, there has been little appetite among conservatives in Congress to fix the sections of the law that have been almost universally considered the most successful part of the landmark civil rights legislation. The VRA enjoyed bipartisan support when it was reauthorized in 2006; House Speaker John Boehner said at the time that the law had been “an effective tool in protecting a right that is fundamental to our democracy.” However, in the face of extreme opposition from the Tea Party, conservatives have either questioned the need for a legislative fix or ignored the issue entirely.

Sadly, the inaction on this issue – which has led to the passage of voter suppression laws in several states – is almost certainly politically motivated. As Paul Weyrich, founder of the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council, bluntly stated in 1980, “our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.” In fact, analysis has shown that election fraud, particularly the in-person voter impersonation that supposedly prompted tougher voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent. In addition, the voters who are disproportionately affected by voter ID laws – the poor, students, Africans Americans and Hispanics – all tend to vote for Democrats.

Also a year ago, the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. Even before the Supreme Court announced its decision, House Republican leadership voted to defend DOMA after the Department of Justice received instructions from the Obama administration to stop defending the law. This defense cost taxpayers about $2.3 million in legal fees and went $1.8 million over-budget by using expensive “super-lawyer” Paul Clement.

While the Supreme Court’s decision was a major victory for LGBT Americans, we still have a long way to go before reaching true equality. Striking down DOMA addressed the ban on federal marriage equality, yet same-sex marriage is still illegal in 31 states. In addition, there is no federal protection for LGBT people against workplace discrimination and a worker can be fired based on their sexual orientation in 29 states.

Despite these harsh realities for LGBT Americans, Republicans in Congress stood by DOMA and against legislation, such as the Employment Non-Discrimination on Act, which would begin to address some of these inequalities. Congress’ inaction has led President Obama to announce his intention to sign an executive order that would ban workplace discrimination for federal contractors. While this is a crucial step, the action only covers only a portion of workers.

Republican Inaction And Opposition To The VRA

Republicans Who Supported The VRA Seven Years Ago Now Claim It Is Unnecessary Or Have “No Comment”

Speaker John Boehner And Then-Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy “Had No Comment” On Whether Congress Will Respond To VRA Decision.  According to the Washington Post, “The question of how Congress might respond to the Supreme Court ruling regarding the Voting Rights Act was perhaps best reflected Tuesday in how congressional leaders responded. […] Over in the House, aides to Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) referred reporters to the chairman of the committees on House Administration and Judiciary, who they said led the ‘committees of jurisdiction.’ Otherwise, they said, Boehner had no comment. Ditto House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).” [Washington Post, 6/25/13]

Roll Call: Republican “Leaders Are Wary Of Pushback From Conservative Members On The Bipartisan Effort To Repair The VRA.” According to Roll Call, “Several months after the Supreme Court gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, a bipartisan group of lawmakers has introduced a legislative fix. […] The effort does not yet have full buy-in from Republican leadership, said a senior GOP aide. Leaders are wary of pushback from conservative members and are skeptical that the bill could attract the support of a majority of the Republican Conference.” [Roll Call, 1/16/14]

House Speaker Rep. John Boehner

Rep. John Boehner On The Future Of The Voting Rights Act: “I Have No Idea.” According to the transcript of a news conference held by Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner, “Q: ‘Speaker Boehner, prior to Mr. Cantor’s loss, there was a lot of optimism that putting forward some of those provisions that were struck down in the Voting Rights Act would be included in congressional bills. So how do you see the future of the voting Rights Act?’ SPEAKER BOEHNER: ‘I think there still be — there’s conversations going on about what a renewal would look like given the court decision that came down last year. I think those conversations are going to continue.’ Q: ‘Are you optimistic it will occur?’ SPEAKER BOEHNER: ‘I have no idea. You’ll have to talk to those who are working on it.’” [John Boehner News Conference via LexisNexis, 6/19/14]

• Rep. Boehner Voted To Reauthorize The Voting Rights Act In 2006. According to the recorded vote of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act, Rep. John Boehner voted Aye. [H.R. 9, Vote #374, 7/13/06]

• Boehner On 2006 Reauthorization Of The VRA: “This Landmark Law Will Ensure That Each And Every Citizen Can Continue To Exercise Their Right To Vote Without The Threat Of Intimidation.” According to a press release from then House Majority Leader John Boehner, “House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today praised House passage of legislation to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act: ‘We are fortunate enough to live in a country founded on democratic principles that provide our citizens with equal opportunity to make their voices heard through the right to vote.  The Voting Rights Act has been an effective tool in protecting a right that is fundamental to our democracy and renewing this landmark law will ensure that each and every citizen can continue to exercise their right to vote without the threat of intimidation of harassment.  I would like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his efforts on this important bill, along with all of my colleagues who participated in today’s debate.  We all strongly support the right of every citizen to vote in our great country.’” [Boehner Press Release, 7/12/06]

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte

Rep. Bob Goodlatte Will Not Say Whether He Will Support Legislative Fix To VRA. According to the Richmond Times Dispatch, “The VRA 2014, proposed by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, establishes a rolling formula by covering states based only on voting rights violations from the previous 15 years. […] Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte, R-6th, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee that will have to take on the VRA 2014 before it can move to the House floor, also did not say whether he would back the proposal. Goodlatte said he will ‘carefully consider legislative proposals addressing the issue’ as Congress determines whether additional steps are needed to protect voting rights.” [Richmond Times Dispatch, 4/28/14]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

Sen. Mitch McConnell On VRA Court Decision: “I Would Say I Do Think America Is Very Different Today From What It Was In The 1960s.” According to the Washington Post, “Moments before, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had told the same pack of reporters that he couldn’t say much, because he hadn’t read the case. ‘My state is not covered by the Voting Rights Act,’ McConnell said, adding later that ‘I would say I do think America is very different today from what it was in the 1960s.’” [Washington Post, 6/25/13]

• Washington Post: McConnell “Turned To The Other Republican Senators … To See If Anyone Else Wanted To Weigh In. They All Stayed Silent.” According to the Washington Post, “McConnell then turned to the other Republican senators standing with him to see if anyone else wanted to weigh in. They all stayed silent.” [Washington Post, 6/25/13]

• Sen. Mitch McConnell Voted To Reauthorize The Voting Rights Act In 2006. According to the roll call of the Senate vote on “H.R. 9 (Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006),” Sen. Mitch McConnell voted Yea. [H.R. 9, Vote #212, 7/20/06]

Sen. Charles Grassley

Sen. Charles Grassley: The Voting Rights Act Is “Not Necessary.” According to Bloomberg, “Other Republicans said they don’t see the need for a legislative response in light of a ruling they maintained shows the nation has moved beyond the history of racial discrimination that inspired the law. ‘It proves that after 45 years, that the Voting Rights Act is working,’ Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview. ‘In other words, the situation in those states that were covered in the act, they don’t have discriminatory voting anymore, so the act is not necessary.’” [Bloomberg.com, 6/25/13]

• Sen. Charles Grassley Voted To Reauthorize The Voting Rights Act In 2006. According to the roll call of the Senate vote on “H.R. 9 (Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006),” Sen. Charles Grassley voted Yea. [H.R. 9, Vote #212, 7/20/06]

Sen. Jeff Sessions

Sen. Jeff Sessions: Supreme Court Decision On The Voting Rights Act Was “Good News.” According to Roll Call, “But some Republicans said there is no need for Congress to act. ‘It was good news, I think, for the South in that [the court found there was] not sufficient evidence to justify treating them disproportionately than, let’s say, Philadelphia or Boston or Los Angeles or Chicago,’ said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the former top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.” [Roll Call, 6/25/13]

• Sen. Jeff Sessions Voted To Reauthorize The Voting Rights Act In 2006. According to the roll call of the Senate vote on “H.R. 9 (Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006),” Sen. Jeff Sessions voted Yea. [H.R. 9, Vote #212, 7/20/06]

• Sessions In 2006: Hopeful “That We Will Reauthorize This Act In A Way That Guarantees That There Is No Backsliding.” According to the transcript of the Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the Voting Rights Act, “Statement Of Hon. Jeff Sessions, A U.S. Senator From The State Of Alabama[…] ‘So I just would first want to say  that the people of Alabama understand that this change is good, and that the people of my State do not want to do anything that would suggest that there would be any interest in moving away from this great right of everybody to vote, and including African-Americans in our State, and I think that is important to say. They do not want to fight over it. […] I am hopeful that we will have a good discussion, that we will reauthorize this Act in a way that guarantees that there is no backsliding on the right of African-Americans to vote in the south or in any other part of the country.’” [GPO.gov, 5/9/06]

Sen. John Cornyn

Sen. John Cornyn: “Honestly Ambivalent” On The Need For Congress To Restore The Voting Rights Act. According to Roll Call, “Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he was ‘honestly ambivalent’ about the need for Congress to rewrite the law. ‘The truth is, I think the same rules ought to apply to everyone, and under Section 5 they do not,’ he said. ‘Under the old formula, that dated back to 1965, they didn’t take into account the changes in the country, including places like Texas, where now minorities are being elected in greater numbers and minority rights are protected, so it strikes me that we ought to declare victory that Section 5 has worked, that the country has changed dramatically, and now we ought to have a uniform rule for everybody.’” [Roll Call, 6/25/13]

• Sen. John Cornyn Voted To Reauthorize The Voting Rights Act In 2006. According to the roll call of the Senate vote on “H.R. 9 (Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006),” Sen. John Cornyn voted Yea. [H.R. 9, Vote #212, 7/20/06]

Sen. Lindsey Graham

Sen. Lindsey Graham: Section Four Of The Voting Rights Act “Is No Longer Necessary.” According to a press release from the office of Sen. Lindsey Graham, “Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was a necessary tool to preserve voting rights, but due to the reform and advances in South Carolina election law, it is no longer necessary. The Supreme Court noted this tremendous progress in South Carolina’s electoral system and it was the underpinning of their decision. I concur with the Court that our state has made tremendous progress. The Supreme Court decision now puts South Carolina on equal footing with every other state in the nation. As a South Carolinian, I’m glad we will no longer be singled out and treated differently than our sister states.” [Lindsey Graham Press Release, 6/25/13]

• Sen. Lindsey Graham Voted To Reauthorize The Voting Rights Act In 2006. According to the roll call of the Senate vote on “H.R. 9 (Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006),” Sen. Lindsay Graham voted Yea. [H.R. 9, Vote #212, 7/20/06]

Sen. Lindsey Graham In 2013 On Whether The Supreme Court Should Uphold The Voting Rights Act: “Uh… I Haven’t Even Thought About It.” According to Talking Points Memo, “A number of Republican senators Tuesday either didn’t know or wouldn’t say if they consider the Voting Rights Act to be constitutional, even though many of them voted to reauthorize it in 2006 and the Supreme Court is currently considering whether to invalidate a key section of it. […] ‘Uh,’ said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), before a long, awkward pause, ‘I haven’t even thought about it.’ He laughed and said, ‘I’ll leave that to the courts. I’m having a hard enough time being a senator, much less a Supreme Court justice.’” [Talking Points Memo, 3/5/13]

Sen. James Inhofe

Sen. James Inhofe in 2013 On Whether The Supreme Court Should Uphold The Voting Rights Act: “Oh, I Don’t Know.” According to Talking Points Memo, “I asked the same question to Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who, like Graham, voted to renew the law in 2006. ‘The Voting Rights Act?’ he asked. Yes, I said. Should it be upheld? ‘Oh, I don’t know,’ Inhofe replied. ‘I’ll let someone else answer that.’” [Talking Points Memo, 3/5/13]

• Sen. James Inhofe Voted To Reauthorize The Voting Rights Act In 2006. According to the roll call of the Senate vote on “H.R. 9 (Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006),” Sen. James Inhofe voted Yea. [H.R. 9, Vote #212, 7/20/06]

Voting Rights Already In Jeopardy

Nationally, Only Ten Cases Of Voter Fraud Occurred From 2000 Through 2012; Cases “Represent One Out Of About Every 15 Million Prospective Voters.” According to News 21, “A News21 analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent. In an exhaustive public records search, News21 reporters sent thousands of requests to elections officers in all 50 states, asking for every case of fraudulent activity including registration fraud, absentee ballot fraud, vote buying, false election counts, campaign fraud, casting an ineligible vote, voting twice, voter impersonation fraud and intimidation. Analysis of the resulting comprehensive News21 election fraud database turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.” [VotingRights.News21.com, 8/12/12]

Voter ID Law Opponents Say “The Laws Actually Target Groups That Have Proven Less Likely To Have The State-Mandated Identification: The Poor, Students, African-Americans And Hispanics, All Of Whom Tend To Vote More Democratic.” According to The New York Times, “Voter ID laws and other statutes that cut back on early voting or make it more difficult to register have proliferated in states dominated by Republicans since the party’s wave of governor and statehouse victories in 2010. Proponents say they are needed to curtail voter fraud. Opponents point out that such fraud is extremely rare and say the laws actually target groups that have proven less likely to have the state-mandated identification: the poor, students, African-Americans and Hispanics, all of whom tend to vote more Democratic.” [New York Times, 11/6/13]

Brennan Center for Justice: Twenty-Two States Have Implemented New Voting Restrictions Before The 2014 Midterm Elections. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, “Election laws have long been prone to politicization, but the 2010 election marked a big shift. From early 2011 until the 2012 election, state lawmakers across the country introduced at least 180 restrictive voting bills in 41 states. Ultimately, 19 states passed 27 restrictive voting measures, many of which were overturned or weakened by courts, citizen-led initiatives, and the Department of Justice before the 2012 election. States continued to pass restrictions in 2013 and 2014, although to a lesser degree. What is the cumulative effect of this legislative movement? This map details the new voting restrictions that are set to be in place in 22 states before the 2014 midterm elections.” [BrennanCenter.org, 6/18/14]

Texas

Texas’ ID Law Was Struck Down By A 2012 Federal Court Because It Would “Potentially Disenfranchise Hundreds Of Thousands Of Minority Voters”; The Supreme Courts’ 2013 VRA Decision Allowed The Law To Return. According to NPR, “In 2012 a federal court struck down Texas’ ID law, ruling it would potentially disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of minority voters. But that federal decision was invalidated when the Supreme Court last year ruled part of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. So now Texas is test-driving its voter ID law — one of the most restrictive voter ID laws in the nation.” [NPR.com, 10/30/13]

• The Voter ID Law Is Currently Being Challenged In Federal Court. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, Texas’ voter ID law “[p]assed in 2011 by a Republican-controlled state legislature and signed by a GOP governor. The ID law was previously blocked by a federal court under the Voting Rights Act. The state implemented the requirement after the U.S. Supreme Court gutted a key provision of the Act last year. It is currently being challenged in federal court.” [BrennanCenter.org, 6/18/14]

North Carolina

North Carolina Republicans Passed One Of The Country’s “Most Wide-Ranging Voter ID Laws. According to the Washington Post, “North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) on Monday signed into law one of the nation’s most wide-ranging Voter ID laws. […] The measure requires voters to present government-issued photo identification at the polls and shortens the early voting period from 17 to 10 days. It will also end pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-old voters who will be 18 on Election Day and eliminates same-day voter registration. […] The state legislature gave the law final approval in late July. The changes come as the state has fallen under Republican control for the first time in more than a century.” [Washington Post, 8/12/13]

North Carolina Voter ID Law Only Backed By Republican Lawmakers. According to the North Carolina General Assembly’s website, HB 589 passed the state Senate with “Aye” votes from 33 Republicans and zero Democrats. The law passed the state House with “Aye” votes from 73 Republicans and zero Democrats. North Carolina HB 589, House Vote #1337, 7/25/13; North Carolina HB 589, Senate Vote #882, 7/25/13]

• The North Carolina ID Law Was Signed Months After The Supreme Court Struck Down Parts Of The Voting Rights Act. According to McClatchy, “The North Carolina ID law was signed in August, two months after the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act that required jurisdictions with a history of discrimination, many of them in the South, to seek federal approval before changing voter laws.” [McClatchy, 4/29/14]
• The Voter ID Requirement Would “Disproportionately Affect Black Americans” And Potentially Impact Over 300,000 Registered Voters In North Carolina. According to NPR, “A study by North Carolina’s Department of Motor Vehicles suggests that the voter ID requirement disproportionately affects black Americans who are already registered to vote. Other data in the state suggests that more than 300,000 registered voters lack a driver’s license or another form of special ID.” [NPR.org, 9/30/13]
• The U.S. Department Of Justice, The North Carolina NAACP And The League Of Women Voters Are Challenging The GOP Voter ID Law In Court. According to the News & Record, “The U.S. Department of Justice, along with a group of plaintiffs that include the North Carolina NAACP and the League of Women Voters, is contesting the state’s Voter Information Verification Act, or VIVA. […] Defenders say it will help prevent voter fraud, but opponents contend it will disproportionately harm black voters. Advocacy groups filed two lawsuits in August challenging the law, and the Justice Department filed its own lawsuit in September. At a hearing in December, Peake consolidated the three lawsuits for purposes of scheduling and discovery. She also set a trial date of July 2015.” [News & Record, 2/21/14]

Wisconsin

GOP State Lawmakers Unanimously Approved “One Of The Most Restrictive” Voter ID Laws In The Country In 2011. According to PolitiFact Wisconsin, “Gov. Scott Walker has signed a photo ID requirement for Wisconsin elections starting in 2012. […] Wisconsin’s law is one of the most restrictive, based on our research on acceptable IDs and voting procedures for those without IDs. We got information on new voter ID laws around the country from state election offices, and the National Conference of State Legislatures.” According to the Wisconsin State Legislature website, AB 7, Identification Required for Voting in Elections, passed the Wisconsin State Assembly with “Aye” votes from all 58 Republicans, one Independent and zero Democrats. The Wisconsin State Senate passed the bill with “Aye” votes from all 19 Republicans and zero Democrats. No Republican State Senator or State Representative voted against the bill. [Associated Press, 2/15/14; PolitiFact.com, 6/12/11; Wisconsin AB 7, State Assembly Vote #331, 3/11/11; Wisconsin AB 7 State Senate Vote #192, 3/19/11]

• In 2014, Wisconsin Federal District Judge Struck Down The Voter ID Law. According to The Nation, “Wisconsin federal district court Judge Lynn Adelman ruled today that the state’s voter ID law, which was temporarily enjoined in 2012, violated the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Judge Adelman found that 300,000 registered voters in Wisconsin, roughly 9 percent of registered voters, lacked the government-issued ID required by the state to cast a ballot.” [The Nation, 4/29/14]

• Roughly 9% Of 300,000 Registered Voters Lacked The Government-Issued ID Required By The State To Cast A Ballot, “Large Enough To Change The Outcome Of Wisconsin Elections.” According to The Nation, “Wisconsin federal district court Judge Lynn Adelman ruled today that the state’s voter ID law, which was temporarily enjoined in 2012, violated the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Judge Adelman found that 300,000 registered voters in Wisconsin, roughly 9 percent of registered voters, lacked the government-issued ID required by the state to cast a ballot. […] Thus, the number of registered voters who lack a qualifying ID is large enough to change the outcome of Wisconsin elections.” [The Nation, 4/29/14]

• Wisconsin’s Voter ID Law “Had A Clear Discriminatory Impact” Against African American And Latino Voters. According to The Nation, “The voter ID law had a clear discriminatory impact, the judge found. ‘The evidence adduced at trial demonstrates that this unique burden disproportionately impacts Black and Latino voters,’ Adelman wrote. Data from the 2012 election ‘showed that African American voters in Wisconsin were 1.7 times as likely as white voters to lack a matching driver’s license or state ID and that Latino voters in Wisconsin were 2.6 times as likely as white voters to lack these forms of identification.’” [The Nation, 4/29/14]

Conservative Groups Oppose VRA

The Heritage Foundation

Paul Weyrich, Founder Of The Heritage Foundation And The American Legislative Exchange Council: “I Don’t Want Everybody To Vote.” According to Paul Weyrich’s remarks at a Religious Right gathering in Dallas in 1980, “Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome: good government. They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.” According to NewsMax, Weyrich, who passed away in 2008, was the “founding president of The Heritage Foundation” and “a founder and past director of the American Legislative Exchange Council.” [Weyrich Statement via YouTube, 1980; NewsMax, 12/18/08]

Cato Institute

Cato Filed Amicus Brief Asking Supreme Court To Declare Section 5 Unconstitutional. According to an amicus brief submitted by the Cato Institute, “Congress has done nothing to fix the apparent defects and so the Court cannot avoid addressing its doubts any longer. It is now time for the Court to declare Section 5 unconstitutional.” [Cato Institute, 1/2/13]

Cato Institute Fellow: “Three Generations Of Federal Intrusion Have Been More Than Enough To Kill Jim Crow.” According to an article written by Cato Institute senior fellow Ilya Shapiro, “Section 5’s preclearance scheme is an anachronism, based on 40-year-old data that doesn’t reflect current political conditions. […] But three generations of federal intrusion have been more than enough to kill Jim Crow.” [Cato Institute, 2/27/13]

Cato Institute Fellow: “It Is Long Past Time To Declare Victory Over Jim Crow.” According to an article written by Cato Institute senior fellow Ilya Shapiro, “It is long past time to declare victory over Jim Crow and move on to a healthier stage of race relations, particularly with respect to how the American people elect their government representatives. […] Ironically, Section 5 has become an obstacle to racial integration because race-conscious districting balkanizes the population and marginalizes minority legislators.” [Cato Institute. 1/2/13]

ALEC

ALEC Spread Voter ID Laws Modeled On Indiana’s Bill To Conservative State Legislators Elsewhere. From Rolling Stone: “By far the biggest change in election rules for 2012 is the number of states requiring a government-issued photo ID, the most important tactic in the Republican war on voting. In April 2008, the Supreme Court upheld a photo-ID law in Indiana, even though state GOP officials couldn’t provide a single instance of a voter committing the type of fraud the new ID law was supposed to stop. Emboldened by the ruling, Republicans launched a nationwide effort to implement similar barriers to voting in dozens of states. The campaign was coordinated by the American Legislative Exchange Council, which provided GOP legislators with draft legislation based on Indiana’s ID requirement. In five states that passed such laws in the past year – Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin – the measures were sponsored by legislators who are members of ALEC. ‘We’re seeing the same legislation being proposed state by state by state,’ says Smith of Rock the Vote. ‘And they’re not being shy in any of these places about clearly and blatantly targeting specific demographic groups, including students.’” [Rolling Stone, 8/30/11]

2009: ALEC’s Member Magazine Offered Tips For Getting Voter ID Laws Upheld In Court. From an article titled “The Challenge of Photo ID” in the June 2009 edition of Inside ALEC: “An analysis of [the Supreme Court’s ruling on Indiana’s voter ID law] suggests several critical elements that must be present in a voter ID law for it to be constitutional. States can improve the chances of a law being upheld in court by including two key parts in any proposed photo ID legislation: Distribution of free voter ID cards […and] Availability of provisional ballots. […] However, there was no requirement that Indiana show prior evidence of impersonation fraud in Indiana to justify a voter ID law.”[Inside ALEC, June 2009, via Center for American Progress]

DonorsTrust and The Project On Fair Representation

Project On Fair Representation Bankrolled Lawsuit That Led To Supreme Court’s Decision Striking Down Part Of The Voting Rights Act. According to AL.com, “[Edward] Blum is the brains behind the Project on Fair Representation, a nonprofit legal organization that bankrolled two Supreme Court lawsuits that sent shockwaves across the American political landscape this week. One of those cases featured Alabama’s Shelby County, which won a landmark ruling that effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Justices held 5-4 that the county, among nine states, 12 cities and 67 counties, should no longer be forced to seek pre-clearance from the federal government before making changes to their election procedures. The second involved a young white woman named Abigail Fisher who sued the University of Texas over affirmative action. The court essentially punted that challenge, sending the case back to a lower court and declining to take up the question of race in college admissions. It was Blum’s Project – essentially a one-man operation led by Blum and based in Alexandria, Va. – that identified, funded and organized both cases.” [AL.com, 6/28/13]

Center For Equal Opportunity

Center For Equal Opportunity Has Submitted Several Amicus Briefs In Voting Rights Act Cases. According to an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court, “CEO has participated as amicus curiae in past Voting Rights Act cases, such as Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193; Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S.1; and League of United Latin Am. Citizens (LULAC) v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006). In addition, officials from CEO testified before Congress several times during the 2006 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. [Amici Curiae Pacific Legal Foundation, the Center for Equal Opportunity, and Project 21, August 2012]

• Center For Equal Opportunity Filed An Amicus Brief In Support Of Shelby County. According to an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court, “Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO), and Project 21 respectfully submit this brief amicus curiae in support of Petitioner Shelby County.” [Amici Curiae Pacific Legal Foundation, the Center for Equal Opportunity, and Project 21, August 2012]

Center For Equal Opportunity President: Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act “Could Be Justified In 1965,” But “Times Have Changed” And Southern Racism Has “Effectively Vanished.” According to a blog post by Center for Equal Opportunity president Roger Clegg, “Section 5 was part of the original 1965 Voting Rights Act and at the time was necessary to safeguard the rights of black voters. Southern officials were very clever in keeping one step ahead of the Justice Department in changing laws and procedures in ways that kept blacks from voting. Section 5 solved this problem by saying that no changes could be made without getting ‘preclearance’ first from the federal government. So far so good, and early challenges to the act were rejected by the courts. Times have changed, however, but — for political reasons alone — Section 5 has not. There are several problems with Section 5. It raises serious federalism concerns by requiring state and local officials to get federal preapproval for practices and procedures that are fundamental to any government’s sovereignty. It also discriminates by requiring some state and local governments to seek such preclearance but not others. This could be justified in 1965, but Congress had no warrant or factual basis in 2006 to extend Section 5 mechanically for another 25 years. Congress did not revisit the jurisdictions it covered, and the fact is that the distinctions between the South and the rest of the country have diminished dramatically, if not effectively vanished.” [CEOUSA.org, 11/27/12]

House Republicans Spent $2.3 Million In Tax Dollars To Unsuccessfully Defend DOMA

House Republican Leadership Voted To Defend DOMA. According to The National Journal, “House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio; Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.; and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., are the three members of the five-person Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group who voted to hire [Paul] Clement to defend the 1996 law before the Supreme Court after the Obama administration instructed the Justice Department to cease defending its constitutionality.”[National Journal, 3/27/13]

House Republicans Ended Up Costing Taxpayers “About $2.3 Million” In Legal Fees In Unsuccessful Defense Of  DOMA. According to Salon, “When the Department of Justice bowed out of defending DOMA in 2011, House Republicans intervened by hiring super-lawyer Paul Clement to defend the law on behalf of the House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. […] The tab ended up costing taxpayers about $2.3 million, a far cry from the initial $500,000 budget.” [Salon.com, 6/26/13]

Republicans Continue to Oppose LGBT Equality

House Speaker John Boehner

House Speaker John Boehner On DOMA Decision: “I Am Obviously Disappointed In The Ruling” And “It Is My Hope That States Will Define Marriage As The Union Between One Man And One Woman.” According to Politico, “House Speaker John Boehner, whose leadership spent millions to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, said he was ‘disappointed’ in the decision, but did not promise action in the Republican-controlled House. ‘While I am obviously disappointed in the ruling, it is always critical that we protect our system of checks and balances,’ Boehner said in a statement. ‘A robust national debate over marriage will continue in the public square, and it is my hope that states will define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.’” [Politico.com, 6/26/13]

Boehner Called The Employment Non-Discrimination Act “Unnecessary.” According to a transcript of Rep. John Boehner on CNN discussing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, “BOEHNER: I am opposed to discrimination of any kind — in the workplace and any place else. But I think this legislation — that I have dealt with as chairman of the Education Workforce Committee long before I was back in the leadership — is unnecessary and would provide a basis for frivolous lawsuits. People are already protected in the workplace. I am opposed to continuing this.” [Boehner Remarks on CNN via YouTube, 11/14/13]

Sen. Marco Rubio

Sen. Marco Rubio On Marriage Equality-Related Supreme Court Decisions: “I Believe The Supreme Court Made A Serious Mistake Today.” According to a press release from Sen. Marco Rubio’s office on the Supreme Court’s decisions on DOMA and Proposition 8, “‘I believe the Supreme Court made a serious mistake today when it overstepped its important, but limited role. […] I believe that marriage is a unique historical institution best defined as the union between one man and one woman. In the U.S., marriage has traditionally been defined by state law, and I believe each state, acting through their elected representatives or the ballot, should decide their own definition of marriage. For the purposes of federal law, however, Congress had every right to adopt a uniform definition and I regret that the Supreme Court would interfere with that determination.” [Rubio Press Release, 6/26/13]

Sen. Marco Rubio On ENDA: “I’m Not For Any Special Protections Based On Orientation.” According to the transcript of an interview with Sen. Marco Rubio, “KEYES: The Senate this summer is going to be taking up the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which makes it illegal to fire someone for being gay. Do you know if you’ll be supporting that? RUBIO: I haven’t read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I’m not for any special protections based on orientation. KEYES: What about on race or gender? RUBIO: Well that’s established law. KEYES: But not for sexual orientation?” [Marco Rubio Interview via Think Progress, 6/13/13]

Rep. Paul Ryan

Rep. Paul Ryan Believes Marriage Is Between One Man And One Woman.According to U.S. News & World Report, “Rather than simply focusing on gay marriage as a moral issue, some potential conservative presidential contenders – who all condemned the Supreme Court ruling Wednesday that struck down the federal ban on gay marriage – also voiced their support for states’ rights, reflecting an avenue to thread the needle on social issues. […] Ryan, who was Mitt Romney’s vice presidential running mate in 2012, also said he believes marriage is between one man and one woman. ‘[Marriage] is the foundation for the family. I respect those who have a different view, and I hope we can carry on this conversation with civility and understanding,’ he said in a release. ‘There are honest disagreements over how we should recognize different legal arrangements. The states will now decide this issue through the democratic process.’” [U.S. News & World Report, 6/27/13]

Sen. Lindsey Graham

Sen. Lindsey Graham On DOMA Decision: “One Key Point, Today’s Supreme Court Ruling Will Not Change South Carolina Law And I Will Continue To Fight For And Defend The Traditional Definition Of Marriage.” According to a press release from Sen. Lindsey Graham’s office on the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision, “‘I have been a strong supporter of the Defense of Marriage Act. I voted for it as a member of the House of Representatives, and as a Senator wrote a brief to the Supreme Court to uphold this important law. I was disappointed with today’s outcome, but respect the Court’s decision. ‘One key point, today’s Supreme Court ruling will not change South Carolina law and I will continue to fight for and defend the traditional definition of marriage.’” [Graham Press Release, 6/26/13]

Sen. John Cornyn

Sen. John Cornyn On DOMA Decision: “The Issue Is Not Going Away, And There Are Going To Be Havens Of Traditional Values Like Texas Where I Don’t Think The Law Is Going To Be Changed.” According to Politico, “Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the No 2. Senate Republican, said ‘like it or not, the Supreme Court is the final word on constitutional matters.’ ‘It sounds to me that that battle will be moving to the states,’ Cornyn said. ‘The issue is not going away, and there are going to be havens of traditional values like Texas where I don’t think the law is going to be changed.’” [Politico.com, 6/26/13]

Incoming House Majority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise

Rep. Steve Scalise Called Day Of DOMA Decision A “Sad Day.” According to Politico, “House Speaker John Boehner, whose leadership spent millions to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, said he was ‘disappointed’ in the decision, but did not promise action in the Republican-controlled House. […] Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), chairman of the Republican Study Committee, called it a ‘sad day.’” [Politico.com, 6/26/13]

Sen. Rand Paul

Sen. Rand Paul On DOMA Decision And Gay Marriage: “If We Have No Laws On This, People Will Take It To One Extension Further — Does It Have To Be Humans?” According to The Washington Post, “Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Wednesday appeared to suggest a link between the Supreme Court’s rulings on gay marriage and marriage between a human and a non-human, but later walked back that suggestion and said it was a joke. ‘It is difficult, because if we have no laws on this, people will take it to one extension further — does it have to be humans?’ Paul said Wednesday in an interview with Glenn Beck, after Beck suggested some unintended consequences of the rulings, including polygamy.” [Washington Post, 6/27/13]

Outgoing House Majority Leader Eric Cantor

Outgoing House Majority Leader Eric Cantor Said He Was “Disappointed” In The DOMA Decision. According to Politico, “House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican, said he’s ‘disappointed in this decision, and the marriage debate will continue in the states.’” [Politico.com, 6/26/13]

Rep. Tom McClintock

Rep. Tom McClintock On DOMA Decision: The Ruling “Was Ideologically Driven And Legally Inconsistent.” According to Politico, “House Speaker John Boehner, whose leadership spent millions to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, said he was ‘disappointed’ in the decision, but did not promise action in the Republican-controlled House. […] Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) said the ruling ‘was ideologically driven and legally inconsistent.’” [Politico.com, 6/26/13]

Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

Rep. Steve King On ENDA: “This Is The Homosexual Lobby Taking It Out On The Rest Of Society And They Are Demanding Affirmation For Their Lifestyle.” In a radio interview with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) said, “This is the homosexual lobby taking it out on the rest of society and they are demanding affirmation for their lifestyle, that’s at the bottom of this.” [YouTube.com, 5/11/10]

Rep. Steve King On ENDA: “If You Don’t Project It, If You Don’t Advertise It, How Would Anyone Know To Discriminate Against You?” In a radio interview with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) said, “And he said, ‘let me ask you a question.’ ‘Am I heterosexual or am I homosexual?’ And they looked him up and down, actually they should have know, but they said, ‘we don’t know.’ And he said, ‘exactly, my point. If you don’t project it, if you don’t advertise it, how would anyone know to discriminate against you?’ And that’s at the basis of this. So if people wear their sexuality on their sleeve and then they want to bring litigation against someone that they would point their finger at and say ‘you discriminate.’” [King Interview via ThinkProgress, 5/11/10]

LGBT Rights Today

Same-Sex Marriage Is Still Illegal In 31 States. According to CNN, “Nineteen states and Washington, D.C., allow marriage for same-sex couples. This map shows which states recognize marriages for same-sex couples, which have a constitutional or statutory ban and what the tax implications of these laws are in each state, based on data compiled by accounting firm Marcum LLP. As a result of the Supreme Court’s June 2013 decision to strike down a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex couples married in states that allow it are now entitled to federal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples.” [CNN, Viewed 6/19/14]

• Ten Of The 31 State Bans On Same-Sex Marriage Have Been Struck Down But Are Still In Effect Pending Appeal; Two Of 31 States Appeals Are Pending To Recognize Out-Of-State Same-Sex Marriage. According to Mother Jones, in 10 states the ban on gay marriage was struck down but an appeal is pending and in another 2 states the appeal concerns the recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriage. [Mother Jones, 6/25/13]

There Are No Federal Protections Protecting Gay People From Workplace Discrimination. According to the Huffington Post, “While 21 states have passed laws protecting gay people from workplace discrimination, there are no federal protections in place. Federal law does bar employers from discriminating on the basis of race, color, sex, nationality, religion, age or disability.” [Huffington Post, 11/1/13]

Twenty-Nine States Have No Laws That “Prohibit Discrimination Based On Sexual Orientation.” According to the Human Rights Campaign, “Qualified, hardworking Americans are denied job opportunities, fired or otherwise discriminated against just because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).  There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; there are no state laws in 29 states that explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, and in 32 states that do so based on gender identity.  As a result, LGBT people face serious discrimination in employment, including being fired, being denied a promotion and experiencing harassment on the job.” [HRC.org, 6/2/14]

In June 2014, President Obama Announced He Will Sign An Executive Order “Barring Federal Contractors From Discriminating Against Employees On The Basis Of Their Sexual Orientation.” According to Time, “President Barack Obama will sign an Executive Order barring federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation, a White House official confirmed Monday, after years of pressure from LGBT groups and Democratic lawmakers.” [Time, 6/16/14]

• The Executive Order Could Provide Employment Protections Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination For About 11 Million Workers. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Although several states have laws that ban discrimination against gays in the workplace, many do not. In those states, an employer can legally fire, demote or otherwise discriminate against a worker solely on grounds of sexual orientation. Gay rights advocate say the executive order could provide employment protections for about 11 million workers who have none.” [Los Angeles Times, 6/16/14]

Even “Moderate” Republicans Voted For Bills To Protect DOMA & Oppose Equality

229 Members Of Republican Caucus Voted For An Amendment To “Prohibit Pentagon Funds From Being Used In A Way That Is Inconsistent With The Defense Of Marriage Act.” According to FRC Action, “Offered by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), this amendment (H.AMDT. 546) to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 (H.R. 2219) would prohibit Pentagon funds from being used in a way that is inconsistent with the Defense of Marriage Act.” 229 members of the Republican caucus voted for the amendment. [FRC Action, Viewed 6/20/14;  H.R. 2219 Foxx of North Carolina Amendment, Vote #516, 7/6/11]

• Rep. Kevin McCarthy Voted For The Amendment. According to the House Clerk website, Rep. Kevin McCarthy voted “Aye” on H.AMDT.546, an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 (H.R. 2219) authored by Rep. Virginia Foxx. [H.AMDT.546 House Vote #516, 7/7/11]

• Rep. Peter King Voted For The Amendment. According to the House Clerk website, Rep. Peter King voted “Aye” on H.AMDT.546, an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 (H.R. 2219) authored by Rep. Virginia Foxx. [H.AMDT.546 House Vote #516, 7/7/11]

• Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers Voted For The Amendment. According to the House Clerk website, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers voted “Aye” on H.AMDT.546, an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 (H.R. 2219) authored by Rep. Virginia Foxx. [H.AMDT.546 House Vote #516, 7/7/11]

• Rep. Dave Camp Voted For The Amendment. According to the House Clerk website, Rep. Dave Camp voted “Aye” on H.AMDT.546, an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 (H.R. 2219) authored by Rep. Virginia Foxx. [H.AMDT.546 House Vote #516, 7/7/11]

• Rep. David Reichert Voted For The Amendment. According to the House Clerk website, Rep. David Reichert voted “Aye” on H.AMDT.546, an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 (H.R. 2219) authored by Rep. Virginia Foxx. [H.AMDT.546 House Vote #516, 7/7/11]

• Rep. Aaron Schock Voted For The Amendment. According to the House Clerk website, Rep. Aaron Schock voted “Aye” on H.AMDT.546, an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 (H.R. 2219) authored by Rep. Virginia Foxx. [H.AMDT.546 House Vote #516, 7/7/11]

• Rep. Greg Walden Voted For The Amendment. According to the House Clerk website, Rep. Greg Walden voted “Aye” on H.AMDT.546, an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 (H.R. 2219) authored by Rep. Virginia Foxx. [H.AMDT.546 House Vote #516, 7/7/11]

227 Members Of Republican Caucus Voted To Prohibit Using Defense Funds To Enforce Allowing Chaplains To Perform Same-Sex Marriages On Navy Bases. According to the House Clerk website, 227 members of the Republican caucus voted “Aye” on H.AMDT.573, an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 (H.R. 2219) authored by Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS).  According to Congress.gov, The amendment “prohibits the use of funds to enforce the directive of allowing chaplains to perform same-sex marriages on Navy bases regardless of any applicable State law requirements.” [H.AMDT.573 House Vote #528, 7/8/11; Congress.gov, 7/7/11]

• Rep. Kevin McCarthy Voted For The Amendment. According to the House Clerk website, Rep. Kevin McCarthy voted “Aye” on H.AMDT.573, an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 (H.R. 2219) authored by Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS).  [H.AMDT.573 House Vote #528, 7/8/11]

• Rep. Shelley Moore Capito Voted For The Amendment. According to the House Clerk website, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito voted “Aye” on H.AMDT.573, an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 (H.R. 2219) authored by Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). [H.AMDT.573 House Vote #528, 7/8/11]

• Rep. Peter King Voted For The Amendment. According to the House Clerk website, Rep. Peter King voted “Aye” on H.AMDT.573, an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 (H.R. 2219) authored by Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). [H.AMDT.573 House Vote #528, 7/8/11]

• Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers Voted For The Amendment. According to the House Clerk website, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers voted “Aye” on H.AMDT.573, an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 (H.R. 2219) authored by Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). [H.AMDT.573 House Vote #528, 7/8/11]

•  Rep. Fred Upton Voted For The Amendment. According to the House Clerk website, Rep. Fred Upton voted “Aye” on H.AMDT.573, an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 (H.R. 2219) authored by Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). [H.AMDT.573 House Vote #528, 7/8/11]

• Rep. David Reichert Voted For The Amendment.  According to the House Clerk website, Rep. David Reichert voted “Aye” on H.AMDT.573, an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 (H.R. 2219) authored by Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). [H.AMDT.573 House Vote #528, 7/8/11]

• Rep. Dave Camp Voted For The Amendment. According to the House Clerk website, Rep. Dave Camp voted “Aye” on H.AMDT.573, an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 (H.R. 2219) authored by Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). [H.AMDT.573 House Vote #528, 7/8/11]