When the Supreme Court struck down a key section of the Voting Rights Act and kicked it back to Congress, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives handed the first hearing on the matter off to the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. That means the next incarnation of the law that finally dismantled the most tenacious statutes and practices interfering with African Americans’ right to vote will be shaped by a team of right-wing legislators who are not only skeptical of key provisions of the law but who also routinely support new attempts at voter suppression.

The Voting Rights Act was last reauthorized in 2006, earning unanimous Senate support and “ayes” from an impressive 390 House members. Although the 33 members who voted against reauthorization were all Republicans, passage was overwhelmingly bipartisan; at the time, the White House and both houses of Congress were controlled by Republicans. Troublingly, however, two of those “nay” votes now sit on the subcommittee tasked with reexamining the VRA — including Chairman Trent Franks (R-AZ). He and other members of the subcommittee have also been reliable proponents of voter ID laws and other measures designed to make voting more difficult.

“Voter discrimination still exists, and our progress toward equality should not be mistaken for a final victory.”

— Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)

Franks chairs the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

Franks On Striking Down Parts Of Voting Rights Act: “The Courts Have Said What Many Of Us Have Believed,” But “The Other Side Casts Aspersions Of Racism.” According to Politico, “Most House Republicans were relatively subdued in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Tuesday decision to strike parts of the Voting Rights Act. Conservative Arizona Rep. Trent Franks said that was no accident, but the result of a fear that their remarks would be interpreted as racism. ‘In this day and age, no matter what argument one makes, even if it’s based on verifiable principle or the sincerest intention for the most noble purpose, it is often relegated to hate speech or something along those lines. Those who can’t debate the issue on its merits often resort to calling into question the motives of everyone who would advocate a particular position,’ Franks told POLITICO. Franks — who opposed reauthorizing the VRA in 2006 — said it was in their own best interests that most of the House GOP leadership didn’t raise its voice to support the Supreme Court decision. ‘The leadership probably made a wise decision — the courts have said what many of us have believed — but I don’t think we can be intimidated though by the unmitigated carelessness with which the other side casts aspersions of racism in our direction all the time when all we’re trying to do is truly speak up for the indigenous equality of every human being.’” [Politico, 6/15/13]

Franks Was One Of Just 33 House Members To Vote Against Reauthorizing The Voting Rights Act In 2006. According to Salon, “Though it’s unclear what role Franks will have, if any, in drafting potential legislation, he was one of 33 Republicans to vote against the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA, which passed with 390 House members supporting it.” [Salon, 7/16/13]

In 2006 Statement, Franks Claimed Voting Rights Act Renewal Seemed “To Enshrine The Very Evil That The Original Voting Rights Act Was Designed To Prevent.” According to a press release on Franks’ House website, “[T]he Voting Rights Act itself should not be confused with the few, flawed ‘emergency’ provisions of the Act that were at issue in Today’s vote. In fact, the provisions in H.R 9 actually seem to enshrine the very evil that the original Voting Rights act was designed to prevent.” [Franks Press Release, 7/13/06]

In 2006 Statement, Franks Criticized Federal Preclearance Provisions Of Voting Rights Act. According to a press release on Franks’ House website, “The original aim of the original Voting Rights Act was to ensure that any American citizen, of any race, wherever his or her home, could vote without fear or restraint.  Ironically, the current state of the law, as interpreted by the courts, has resulted in racial gerrymandering, racial preferences, and the entrenchment of candidates according to racial politics. For Arizona and a handful of other states, the provisions mandate unfair federal scrutiny that obviously protects the interests and careers of certain politicians rather than the interests of the voting public.  What is most shocking is that this federal mandate is based on polling data from 1964, even though minority voting patterns have significantly changed since then.  Therefore, these provisions are indefinitely continuing to punish states that were out of compliance 40 years ago, but lack any mechanism to monitor or punish states that violate the Voting Rights Act today.  Essentially, these provisions do not and cannot serve the purpose for which they were originally intended.” [Franks Press Release, 7/13/06]

Franks Voted For Two Amendments To VRA Reauthorization That Would Have Weakened Preclearance Requirements. According to The Hill, “Rep. Lynn Westmoreland’s (R-Ga.) amendment would have made it easier for jurisdictions to bail out of Section 5’s requirements. Instead of the states and localities having to present evidence that they no longer needed federal oversight, Westmoreland wanted the onus to be on the Justice Department to go through the covered jurisdictions and figure out which ones no longer needed preclearance. […] A second amendment would have struck more directly at the heart of Section 5. The late Rep. Charles Norwood (R-Ga.) wanted to update the formula that determines which states and localities are covered under the law by basing it on the past three presidential elections: ‘Any state would be subject to Section 5 if it currently has a discriminatory test in place or voter turnout of less than 50% in any of the three most recent presidential elections,’ the amendment read.” Franks voted for the Westmoreland and Norwood amendments, both of which were defeated.  [The Atlantic, 6/25/13; H.R. 9 Norwood of Georgia Amendment, Vote #370, 7/13/06; H.R. 9 Westmoreland of Georgia Amendment, Vote #373, 7/13/06]

Franks Supported Amendment Stripping Multilingual Ballot Provisions From VRA Reauthorization. According to the New York Times, “Another provision of the act that drew fire from conservatives requires bilingual ballots in political jurisdictions with a high number of citizens who have difficulty with English. Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, offered an amendment that would have eliminated it. Mr. King and his supporters argued that naturalized citizens should have had to prove English proficiency as part of their citizenship test. In the end the amendment, which would have allowed local voting officials to provide language assistance at the polls, was defeated 238 to 185.” Franks voted for the King amendment. [New York Times, 7/14/06; H.R. 9 King of Iowa Amendment, Vote #372, 7/13/06]

Franks Supported Gohmert Amendment To Shorten The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization Period To 10 Years From 25. According to the Library of Congress, Gohmert introduced H. Amdt. 1184 to H.R. 9, which “sought to shorten the reauthorization period for the Voting Rights Act from 25 years to 10 years.” The amendment was defeated 288-134, with Franks voting in favor. [Library of Congress, accessed 7/17/13; H.R. 9 Gohmert of Texas Amendment, Vote #371, 7/13/06]

Franks: “The Department Of Justice Has Embarrassed Itself” And Shown Obvious “Partisan Bias” By Deciding To Challenge Voter ID Laws. According to the Associated Press, “House Republicans on Thursday criticized the Justice Department’s decision to challenge new voter ID laws in several states, saying it shows the Obama administration is more concerned with Democrats winning in November than protecting against election fraud. ‘The Department of Justice has embarrassed itself,’ said Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz. ‘The partisan bias is obvious.’” [Associated Press, 7/26/12]

Franks Voted For A Federal Voter ID Bill. According to NPR, “Today, a controversial new bill before the House of Representatives could forever change the practice of voting in the United States. The Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 would require all voters to present photo ID before voting by 2008.” Franks voted in favor of the Federal Election Integrity Act. [NPR, 9/20/06; H.R. 4844, Vote #459, 9/20/06]

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)

Jordan is a member of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

Jordan-Led Republican Study Committee Published Brief Warning Of Voter Fraud. According to a 2012 Republican Study Committee Policy Brief identifying Jim Jordan as the group’s chairman, “As has been the case in previous election cycles, reports of potential voter fraud have already been uncovered, and undoubtedly more will surface. The U.S. Constitution states that, ‘The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators…’ (Article I, Section 4). This authority gives Congress the responsibility to monitor and ensure the integrity of the electoral process of its Members throughout each of the fifty states. This RSC Policy Brief features a running list of examples of voter fraud reported in the media. It also highlights congressional legislative proposals introduced to increase the integrity of elections nationwide.” [Republican Study Committee Policy Brief, 9/21/12]

Under Former ALEC Member Jordan, RSC Partnered With Voter ID Proponent ALEC. According to Roll Call, “The Republican Study Committee is laying the groundwork for a new informal partnership with the American Legislative Exchange Council, even as dozens of major corporations cut ties with the conservative nonprofit for its support of controversial voting and gun laws. The RSC is working quietly with ALEC to host a gathering next Friday at the Heritage Foundation in hopes of establishing an ongoing relationship with the group that would allow federal lawmakers to exchange ideas with state legislators. The conservative nonprofit has come under fire for promoting voter identification measures like those that have passed in at least eight states and are the subject of dozens of legal challenges in state and federal courts. […] At least 18 state Representatives and six House lawmakers, including ALEC alum and RSC Chairman Jim Jordan (Ohio), plan to attend, said Mike Franc, vice president for government studies at Heritage.” [Roll Call, 9/11/12]

Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-VA)

Forbes is a member of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

Forbes Voted For A Federal Voter ID Bill. According to NPR, “Today, a controversial new bill before the House of Representatives could forever change the practice of voting in the United States. The Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 would require all voters to present photo ID before voting by 2008.” Forbes voted in favor of the Federal Election Integrity Act. [NPR, 9/20/06; H.R. 4844, Vote #459, 9/20/06]

Forbes Supported Amendment Stripping Multilingual Ballot Provisions From VRA Reauthorization. According to the New York Times, “Another provision of the act that drew fire from conservatives requires bilingual ballots in political jurisdictions with a high number of citizens who have difficulty with English. Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, offered an amendment that would have eliminated it. Mr. King and his supporters argued that naturalized citizens should have had to prove English proficiency as part of their citizenship test. In the end the amendment, which would have allowed local voting officials to provide language assistance at the polls, was defeated 238 to 185.” Forbes voted for the King amendment. [New York Times, 7/14/06; H.R. 9 King of Iowa Amendment, Vote #372, 7/13/06]

Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

King is a member of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

Steve King Was One Of Just 33 House Members To Vote Against Reauthorizing The Voting Rights Act In 2006. [H.R. 9, Vote #374, 7/13/06]

King Voted For Two Amendments To VRA Reauthorization That Would Have Weakened Preclearance Requirements. According to The Hill, “Rep. Lynn Westmoreland’s (R-Ga.) amendment would have made it easier for jurisdictions to bail out of Section 5’s requirements. Instead of the states and localities having to present evidence that they no longer needed federal oversight, Westmoreland wanted the onus to be on the Justice Department to go through the covered jurisdictions and figure out which ones no longer needed preclearance. […] A second amendment would have struck more directly at the heart of Section 5. The late Rep. Charles Norwood (R-Ga.) wanted to update the formula that determines which states and localities are covered under the law by basing it on the past three presidential elections: ‘Any state would be subject to Section 5 if it currently has a discriminatory test in place or voter turnout of less than 50% in any of the three most recent presidential elections,’ the amendment read.” King voted for the Westmoreland and Norwood amendments, both of which were defeated.  [The Atlantic, 6/25/13; H.R. 9 Norwood of Georgia Amendment, Vote #370, 7/13/06; H.R. 9 Westmoreland of Georgia Amendment, Vote #373, 7/13/06]

King Proposed Amendment to VRA Reauthorization To Remove Multilingual Ballot Requirements. According to the New York Times, “Another provision of the act that drew fire from conservatives requires bilingual ballots in political jurisdictions with a high number of citizens who have difficulty with English. Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, offered an amendment that would have eliminated it. Mr. King and his supporters argued that naturalized citizens should have had to prove English proficiency as part of their citizenship test. In the end the amendment, which would have allowed local voting officials to provide language assistance at the polls, was defeated 238 to 185.” [New York Times, 7/14/06]

King Supported Gohmert Amendment To Shorten The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization Period To 10 Years From 25. According to the Library of Congress, Gohmert introduced H. Amdt. 1184 to H.R. 9, which “sought to shorten the reauthorization period for the Voting Rights Act from 25 years to 10 years.” The amendment was defeated 288-134, with King voting in favor. [Library of Congress, accessed 7/17/13; H.R. 9 Gohmert of Texas Amendment, Vote #371, 7/13/06]

King: Voter Fraud Is “Pretty Prevalent.” According to the Associated Press, “Another Republican, Rep. Steve King of Iowa, echoed Franks’ concerns, saying the decision to contest the Texas and South Carolina laws shows insensitivity by the Justice Department to voter fraud. ‘There are a lot of individuals out there who are happy to break the law, who don’t even understand it breaks the law,’ King said of voter fraud. ‘…We’re seeing voter fraud that’s pretty prevalent out there.’” [Associated Press, 7/26/12]

King: “There Was A Time In American History When You Had To Be A Male Property Owner In Order To Vote.” According to the Ames Tribune, “Last October, during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on a balanced budget amendment, King framed a question by saying, ‘There was a time in American history when you had to be a male property owner in order to vote. The reason for that was, because they wanted the people who voted — that set the public policy, that decided on the taxes and the spending — to have some skin in the game.’ King went on to say of the tens of millions of Americans not working: ‘Now I don’t think they’re paying taxes. But many of them are voting. And when they vote, they vote for more government benefits because that’s what comes into their mailbox or into their debit card.’” [Ames Tribune, 7/10/12]

King Voted For A Federal Voter ID Bill. According to NPR, “Today, a controversial new bill before the House of Representatives could forever change the practice of voting in the United States. The Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 would require all voters to present photo ID before voting by 2008.” King voted in favor of the Federal Election Integrity Act. [NPR, 9/20/06; H.R. 4844, Vote #459, 9/20/06]

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)

Gohmert is a member of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

Gohmert Praised Supreme Court’s Ruling On The Voting Rights Act. According to The Hill, “This week, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional language in the Voting Rights Act that uses data from nearly 50 years ago to decide which states need to have their voting laws approved by the federal government. […]Democrats have blasted the ruling as one that will gut the historic voting rights legislation until Congress finds a way to come up with a new formula. They also argued that it was the existence of the language that helped reduce racial disparities in those states. But many conservatives sided with the court’s majority, and said it’s unfair to treat these states differently if they have made improvements. ‘As the Supreme Court pointed out, of the original six states, five of those states have less racial disparity in voting than the whole rest of the country,’ Gohmert said. ‘You are punishing states who have cleaned up their act.’” [The Hill, 6/28/13]

In 2006, Gohmert Voted For Two Amendments To VRA Reauthorization That Would Have Weakened Preclearance Requirements. According to The Hill, “Rep. Lynn Westmoreland’s (R-Ga.) amendment would have made it easier for jurisdictions to bail out of Section 5’s requirements. Instead of the states and localities having to present evidence that they no longer needed federal oversight, Westmoreland wanted the onus to be on the Justice Department to go through the covered jurisdictions and figure out which ones no longer needed preclearance. […] A second amendment would have struck more directly at the heart of Section 5. The late Rep. Charles Norwood (R-Ga.) wanted to update the formula that determines which states and localities are covered under the law by basing it on the past three presidential elections: ‘Any state would be subject to Section 5 if it currently has a discriminatory test in place or voter turnout of less than 50% in any of the three most recent presidential elections,’ the amendment read.” Gohmert voted for the Westmoreland and Norwood amendments, both of which were defeated.  [The Atlantic, 6/25/13; H.R. 9 Norwood of Georgia Amendment, Vote #370, 7/13/06; H.R. 9 Westmoreland of Georgia Amendment, Vote #373, 7/13/06]

In 2006, Gohmert Introduced An Amendment To Shorten The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization Period To 10 Years From 25. According to the Library of Congress, Gohmert introduced H. Amdt. 1184 to H.R. 9, which “sought to shorten the reauthorization period for the Voting Rights Act from 25 years to 10 years.” The amendment was defeated 288-134. [Library of Congress, accessed 7/17/13; H.R. 9 Gohmert of Texas Amendment, Vote #371, 7/13/06]

Gohmert: “Another Group That Votes Democrat By A Huge Majority Are The Deceased…We Need Stricter Voter ID Laws Nationwide.” According to an interview posted on Rep. Gohmert’s congressional website, “Republicans should also decide that there is no identifiable group in this country that we should not be making our case to show we are better for them in the long run than the Democrats. They want to pander, like saying we want children to learn in their native language, knowing that failure to speak English could confine them to manual labor the rest of their lives. We want them to learn English so they can someday run the company. Another group that votes Democrat by a huge majority are the deceased. If the vote is fair, there should be as many deceased voting Republican as are currently voting Democrat. It should be zero. We need stricter voter ID laws nationwide.” [Gohmert.House.gov, 4/30/13]

Gohmert: “When You Don’t Have A Requirement For A Photo ID, It’s Hard To Identify The Fraud.” In an interview with Fox & Friends, host Shannon Bream said, “Congressman, let me ask you, because folks on the other side of this will say those are all scare tactics and there aren’t real cases of fraud you can point to in Texas.” Gohmert responded, “Well, there have been. And you can go back to Duval County and Lyndon Johnson days when he told supposedly his campaign manager, ‘No, this man in this grave has every bit as much to vote as all the other people in this cemetery.’ I mean, those things have been going on. But when you don’t have a requirement for a photo ID, it’s hard to identify the fraud. So the fact is, we know people are not disenfranchised by requiring the requirement.” [Gohmert Interview, Fox & Friends, 7/9/12]

Gohmert Voted For A Federal Voter ID Bill. According to NPR, “Today, a controversial new bill before the House of Representatives could forever change the practice of voting in the United States. The Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 would require all voters to present photo ID before voting by 2008.” Gohmert voted in favor of the Federal Election Integrity Act. [NPR, 9/20/06; H.R. 4844, Vote #459, 9/20/06]

Gohmert Supported Texas Voter ID Bill: “We Have The Most Easily Defrauded Voting System Anywhere.” According to NBC 12, “The state law was approved in May last year, and it requires voters to show government issued photo identification. This is something Congressman Louie Gohmert says would protect our nation. ‘We have the most easily defrauded voting system anywhere, and we’re the most sophisticated country in so many respects,’ said Gohmert. […] Gohmert says the law wouldn’t have stopped anyone from voting. ‘Show me eligible voters who do not have ID cards and I’ll show you some people that can get them,’ stated Gohmert.” [NBC12.com, 3/12/12]

Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO)

Smith is a member of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

In Missouri House, Jason Smith Co-Sponsored Voter ID Bill. According to the Missouri House of Representatives website, in 2012, Jason Smith cosponsored HB 1104, which “changes the laws regarding elections by requiring a voter to provide photo identification.” [House.MO.gov, accessed 7/16/13]

Before He Was Elected To Congress, Jason Smith Was Missouri’s State Chairman For ALEC. According to Roll Call, Jason Smith “is Missouri’s state chairman for the controversial American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that drafts legislation for state houses rooted in free-market and conservative principles.” [Roll Call, 6/4/13]

• ALEC Tied To Voter ID Bills Across The Country. According to News21, “growing number of conservative Republican state legislators worked fervently during the past two years to enact laws requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls. Lawmakers proposed 62 photo ID bills in 37 states in the 2011 and 2012 sessions, with multiple bills introduced in some states. Ten states have passed strict photo ID laws since 2008, though several may not be in effect in November because of legal challenges. A News21 analysis found that more than half of the 62 bills were sponsored by members or conference attendees of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a Washington, D.C.-based, tax-exempt organization.” [News21, 8/20/12]
• ALEC’s “Public Safety And Elections Task Force” Approved Voter ID Bill In 2009. According to News21, “ALEC members drafted a voter ID bill in 2009, a year when the 501(c) tax-exempt organization had $5.3 million in undisclosed corporate and nonprofit contributions, according to Internal Revenue Service documents. At ALEC’s annual conferences, legislators, nonprofits and corporations work together without direct public input to develop bills that promote smaller government. The group’s Public Safety and Elections Task Force at the 2009 Atlanta meeting approved the ‘Voter ID Act,’ a photo ID bill modeled on Indiana and Georgia laws.” [News21, 8/20/12]
• After Backlash, ALEC Disbanded “Public Safety And Elections” Task Force In 2012. According to The Nation, “Pressured by watchdog groups, civil rights organizations and a growing national movement for accountable lawmaking, the American Legislative Exchange Council announced Tuesday that it was disbanding the task force that has been responsible for advancing controversial Voter ID and ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws. ALEC, the shadowy corporate-funded proponent of so-called ‘model legislation’ for passage by pliant state legislatures, announced that it would disband its ‘Public Safety and Elections’ task force. The task force has been the prime vehicle for proposing and advancing what critics describe as voter-suppression and anti-democratic initiatives—not just restrictive Voter ID laws but also plans to limit the ability of citizens to petition for referendums and constitutional changes that favor workers and communities.” [The Nation, 4/17/12]