VRAA DOA?

It is sure looking that way.

And it is no surprise. As I wrote the day the bill dropped in January:

The politics and path dependence.  Despite these constitutional issues, I would bet that the VRAA would have passed in 2006 and the Supreme Court would have upheld it despite the constitutional issues flagged in points 2 and 3 above. The Supreme Court would have seen Congress making a broad and real effort to update the coverage formula, and to take steps toward winding down broad preclearance. But path dependence is everything. Congress did not act, even after the Supreme Court’s ruling in NAMUDNO in 2009 warning the act was unconstitutional. Shelby County‘s equal sovereignty principle now hangs out there as the law.

In the meantime, AG Holder has antagonized Texas Republicans and Tea Party types by going after Texas and North Carolina for bail in. Texas Republicans will not be happy they get covered again under the new VRAA coverage formula. Conservatives in the House will fight against this. It is not clear that John Boehner will want to expend political capital on this (though the optics of supporting voting rights can be good—it will come with a lot of resistance).  I also expect opposition among Senate Republicans, where, for legislation, the filibuster remains alive and well.  Will Sen. Reid make this a priority?  I am pessimistic that with the general dysfunction of Congress in particular and antagonism over singling out certain states now, the Act will pass out of Congress.

Share this: