A question.....if that voting rights act passing through Congress gets passed in both

[a kennedy]

chambers, and POTUS signs it, does that stop all the crap that is going on in all the States reversing voting rights now???

[Aristus]

1. It won't stop it, but it will leave those repressive state voting laws open to legal challenges.

Although, if any of the challenges make it to the Supreme Court, I don't like our chances.

Even if John Roberts sides with us, we'd lose to the conservatives, 5-4.

This could get really ugly...

[Calista241]

2. It's going to try, but it'll be challenged in the courts.

The Constitution leaves to the states to decide when and how they handle voting. Courts typically take a dim view of the Federal gov't trying to force change on the states in matters explicitly left to the states to figure out. It's why voting processes aren't uniform across the country. Some states have 3 weeks of early voting, and some states don't have voting on Sundays, etc. Some states use vote counting machines, and some do it other ways.

The VRA of 1965 said states couldn't discriminate, which passed muster for 45+ years, but states have found other, more insidious and clever ways to depress or exclude voters they don't want voting. Cleansing voter rolls is a valid concern of states. Dead people, and people that moved across the country 15 years ago don't need to be on the current voter rolls that states manage. But this process has been co-opted by many states to make voting more difficult for certain voter groups.

[jimfields33]

6. I think automatic registration with voter rolls cleared every ten years like census

I’m a precinct captain and I’m always amazed to see my neighbor who moved in 2006 still on the register list. No voting of course, but still unnecessary.

[SCantiGOP]

3. In general, federal law overrules state law

but, as others have noted, this would still be subject to court challenges.

[soothsayer]

4. I mean you could say "no state would do that" but see the mess over Medicaid expansion with Obamacar

Link to tweet

?s=21

Link to tweet

?s=21

Link to tweet

?s=21



Max Burns
@themaxburns
Yes this is technically possible and, given how the Voting Rights Act that used to protect against that kind of conflict has been gutted, it may be actually possible if states want to make it harder to vote.

Sean T at RCP
@SeanTrende
Question about HR1: Since the authority to regulate elections extends to federal elections, could you end up with a weird situation where people who up to vote having been automatically registered for federal elections, but can't vote for state legislature?

This is the HR 1 provision: "The chief State election official of each State shall establish and operate a system of [AVR] for the registration of eligible individuals to vote for elections for Federal office in the State, in accordance with the provisions of this part."

Sean T at RCP
@SeanTrende
You can see the problem developing? "OK, you can vote early or absentee for federal office under HR1 but you'll have to come back on Election Day for state offices."

[MiHale]

5. Split the elections...

One for Federal that is under federal law, one for State under state law.

Don’t know if you can.

[sanatanadharma]

7. US Constitution, Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1

"Clause 1. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of chusing Senators. " (my emphasis; plus the choosing of Senators was changed by constitutional amendment, another way to universal sufferage).

Congress does have the right to establish voting rules for the legislature. If States want to conduct separate elections under different rules for elections for President and elections within the States, let them incur the added costs and confusions.
Federal election rules can be standardized.

IMHO

Another opinion from constitutioncenter.org
"Although the Elections Clause makes states primarily responsible for regulating congressional elections, it vests ultimate power in Congress. Congress may pass federal laws regulating congressional elections that automatically displace (“preempt”) any contrary state statutes, or enact its own regulations concerning those aspects of elections that states may not have addressed. The Framers of the Constitution were concerned that states might establish unfair election procedures or attempt to undermine the national government by refusing to hold elections for Congress. They empowered Congress to step in and regulate such elections as a self-defense mechanism."