John Lewis Voting Rights Act

The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021

(H.R. 4 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/ John R. Lewis Voting
4)) is proposed legislation that would restore and strengthen parts Rights Advancement Act
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, certain portions of which were of 2021
struck down by two United States Supreme Court decisions of
Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National
Committee.[1][2] Particularly, it would restore the Voting Rights
Act's requirement that certain states pre-clear certain changes to
their voting laws with the federal government.[3] It was re-
introduced in the 117th Congress, and is named after late Georgia
Representative and voting rights activist John Lewis.

On August 24, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Long title An Act to amend
the bill by a margin of 219–212.[4] On November 3, 2021, the bill the Voting Rights
failed to pass the Senate after failing to get the 60 votes needed to Act of 1965 to
invoke cloture.[5] revise the criteria
for determining
which States and
political
Contents subdivisions are
subject to section
Background 4 of the Act, and
Shelby County v. Holder for other
Voting restrictions post-Shelby decision purposes.

Voting restrictions after the 2020 election Sponsored by House: Terri

Sewell (D-AL)
Key provisions Senate: Patrick
Updates to Section 2 Leahy (D-VT)
Broadening the scope of the courts Number of House: 223
Restoring federal pre-clearance co-sponsors Senate: 48
Expanding covered practices Citations
Election seats and jurisdiction boundary changes Public law 52 USC Ch. 103
Redistricting (https://uscode.ho
Voter I.D. requirements use.gov/view.xhtm
l?req=granuleid%
Multi-lingual voting materials
3AUSC-prelim-title
Voting locations and voting opportunities 52-chapter103&sa
Voter roll maintenance ved=%7CZ3Jhbn
Pre-clearance for states already covered VsZWlkOlVTQy0y
MDE5LXRpdGxlN
Enforcement
TItc2VjdGlvbjEwM
Reactions and statements zAy%7C%7C%7C
Support 0%7Cfalse%7C20
Opposition 19&edition=preli
m)
Legislative history
Codification
 Summary Acts affected Voting Rights Act
116th Congress of 1965
117th Congress Legislative history

See also Committee consideration by

Notes House Judiciary

References Passed the House of

Representatives on August 24,
2021 (219–212 (https://clerk.ho
use.gov/evs/2021/roll260.xml))
Background

Shelby County v. Holder

On June 25, 2013, the United States Supreme Court struck down a
key provision in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (also known as the
VRA) in a 5–4 decision in the case of Shelby County v. Holder.
Specifically, the court struck down Section 4(b) of the VRA
because of the formula it provided to determine which states were
subjected to Section 5's federal pre-clearance requirement.
Invalidating section 4(b) made it so that the federal pre-clearance
requirement in Section 5 could not function until a new formula
was created to replace the one that was struck down.[6][7] Rep. Terri Sewell and Rep. John
Lewis in 2017 on the 4th anniversary
Section 5 of the VRA states that eligible districts needed to seek of the Shelby County v. Holder
approval from the federal government to implement certain changes decision
to election laws and procedures, and Section 4(b) defines eligible
districts as places that had voting tests in place as of November 1,
1964 and a turnout of less than 50% in the 1964 presidential election.[8] To receive clearance for new
election procedures, the district would have to prove to either a three judge panel of a Washington, D.C.
court or the U.S. Attorney General that the new procedure would not negatively impact the right to vote on
the basis of race or other minority status.[6] After the VRA was enacted, it caused an increase in minority
turnout for elections.[9]

Voting restrictions post-Shelby decision

The Supreme Court ruling allowed many states to begin putting in new restrictive laws regarding the right
to vote. Texas had announced it would put in place a strict voter I.D. law less than 24 hours after the
Supreme Court decision was announced.[a][10] Many other states that were previously not allowed to enact
voter I.D. laws because of the VRA's federal pre-clearance requirement were able to do so.[11]

The Supreme Court decision has also led to an increase in voters being purged from voter rolls.[12]
Research from the Brennan Center suggests that some 2 million more people were purged from voter rolls
between 2012 and 2016 than would have been if Section 5 of the VRA had been left in place.[13][14]

Notably, North Carolina passed HB 589,[b] a bill which put in a strict photo I.D. requirement, eliminated
same-day voting registration, and shortened the early voting period, among other restrictive policies.[15]
One policy in particular banned early voting on Sundays, which North Carolina admitted in court was
because counties that offered it were likely to have higher black populations.[16][17] HB 589 was struck
down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on the basis that the law was designed to "target
African-Americans with almost surgical precision."[18][19][20][21][22]

In order to prevent more restrictive laws from being passed without federal pre-clearance, it became
necessary for the U.S. Government to find a new formula for the Voting Rights Act that would satisfy the
Shelby County v. Holder decision, which is what the John Lewis Voting Rights Act was written to do.[23]

Voting restrictions after the 2020 election

After the 2020 Presidential Election and efforts to overturn it, many Republican-controlled state legislatures
began passing bills that made it harder to vote, and that many people alleged would disproportionately deter
racial minorities from voting.[24][25][26][27][28][29]

Key provisions

Updates to Section 2

The first provision in the John Lewis Voting Rights Act strengthens voter protections in Section 2 in
response to Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee.

Broadening the scope of the courts

The next portion in the John Lewis Voting Rights Act broadens cases in which the U.S. Attorney General
may send federal observers to jurisdictions the courts have deemed necessary, as well as allow for the
courts to block all new election policy in a wider range of circumstances. It does so by amending applicable
portions of the VRA that say "violations of the 14th and 15th Amendment" to also include "violations of
this Act, or violations of any Federal law that prohibits discrimination in voting on the basis of race, color,
or membership in a language minority group.”[30][31]

Restoring federal pre-clearance

The next portion of the act reinstates the federal pre-clearance requirement for new election procedures in
certain states by creating a new formula that satisfies the Shelby decision. The act's new formula would
subject jurisdictions that meet these criteria to the requirement:

1. Any state that has had 15 or more voting rights violations within the last 25 years.
2. Any state that has had 10 or more voting rights violations and at least 1 of those violations
were committed by the state itself (as opposed to a jurisdiction within the state) within the
last 25 years.
3. Any subdivision in a state that has had 3 or more voting rights violations within the last 25
years would also be subject to the requirement.[30]

The act counts any of the following as a voting rights violation:

1. A standing court ruling that has found denial or abridgement of the right to vote on account of
race, color, or being in a "language minority group" in a way that violates the 14th or 15th
amendments anywhere within the state or subdivision.
 2. A standing court decision that has found that an election law or procedure that was either
enacted or would have been enacted would have abridged the right to vote on account of
race, color, or being in a "language minority group" in a way that violates the act itself
anywhere in a state or subdivision.
3. A standing court decision that denied a declaratory request and prevented any new election
policy or procedure from taking effect anywhere within the state or subdivision.
4. The Attorney General has a standing objection that prevented any new election policy or
procedure from taking effect anywhere within the state or subdivision.
5. A settlement or consent decree that caused the state or subdivision to alter or abandon a
voting policy, if the policy was challenged because it abridged the right to vote on the
account of race, color, or "membership in a language minority" in a way that violates the act
itself or the 14th or 15th amendments.[30]

The act states that the Attorney General will make the determinations as early as can be practiced within a
calendar year, and keep an updated list of all voting rights violations. The determination becomes effective
when it is published in the Federal Register.[30]

Comparison of states requiring pre-clearance at the time of the

Shelby County decision with those which would require it
under the John Lewis Voting Rights Act
Covered by VRA Covered by John
State
of 1965[32] Lewis VRA[c][33]
Alabama As a whole As a whole
Alaska As a whole Not covered
Arizona As a whole Not covered
Play media
California Certain counties As a whole Representatives Terri Sewell, John Lewis, and
Florida Certain counties As a whole Judy Chu speak on the bill in 2017.

Georgia As a whole As a whole

Louisiana As a whole As a whole
Michigan Certain townships Not covered
Mississippi As a whole As a whole
New York Certain counties As a whole
North
Certain counties As a whole
Carolina
South
Certain counties Not covered
Dakota
South
As a whole As a whole
Carolina Terri Sewell speaks at a Restore the Vote
Texas As a whole As a whole press conference in 2015

Virginia As a whole As a whole

Expanding covered practices

The bill would also expand the changes to election procedure that would require federal pre-clearance,
occasionally with unique standards for being subject to the requirement (i.e. the percentage of the
population that is considered a racial minority).[30]
Election seats and jurisdiction boundary changes

Any state or subdivision that has either:

1. Two or more racial or language minorities that each represent 20% or more of the voting-age
population.
2. A single language minority that represents 20% or more of the voting-age population on
Native-American lands that are located entirely or partially in the state or subdivision.

Must get federal pre-clearance before implementing any of the following policies:

1. Changes to the number of seats that are elected at-large in the state or subdivision.
2. Conversion of one or more seats from a single-member district to one or more at-large
districts or to multi-member districts.
3. Any change (or series of changes) to the boundaries of a jurisdiction that reduces by 3 or
more percentage points the proportion of the voting-age population of any one racial or
language minority group.[30]

Redistricting

Any change to the boundaries of electoral districts in a state or subdivision would need federal pre-
clearance if they meet either of the criteria:

1. The state or subdivision had a population increase of 10,000 or more in any racial or
language minority since the previous census.
2. Any racial or language minority sees an increase of at least 20% of the size of the voting age
population since the previous census.[30]

Voter I.D. requirements

Any change to voter I.D. requirements that is more strict than the one described in the Help America Vote
Act, or any change that will make voter I.D. requirements more stringent than on the day the John Lewis
Voting Rights Act is enacted, would be required to seek federal pre-clearance before being
implemented.[30]

Multi-lingual voting materials

Any alteration that reduces the amount of multi-lingual voting materials or changes the way in which multi-
lingual voting materials are given out to people would need to seek federal pre-clearance, unless a similar
alteration occurs in the English voting materials for an election.[30]

Voting locations and voting opportunities

Any change that would reduce, relocate, or consolidate voting locations (including early, absentee, and
election day voting locations), or reduce the number of days or hours of early voting on Sundays would be
subjected to the pre-clearance requirement if they meet either of these criteria:

1. Census data finds that two or more racial or language minority groups each make up 20% of
the voting age population in the jurisdiction.
 2. Census data finds that 20% of the voting-age population on a Native-Americans land is in
one language minority group.[30]

Voter roll maintenance

Any change to election policy that adds a new reason to remove a person from a voter roll or puts in place a
new process to remove a person from the voter roll must seek federal pre-clearance (if it is a jurisdiction
within the state):

1. Two racial or language minorities make up 20% of the population.

2. 20% of the population is a single language minority on Native-American lands.

And if the state itself is imposing such a change then it must seek pre-clearance if:

1. The population of the state contains 2 minorities that make up 20% of the population.
2. A subdivision in the state meets the same requirements, but the subdivision itself would be
the only place affected.[30]

Pre-clearance for states already covered

For the states that already met the requirements for federal pre-clearance under the new formula provided,
the bill states that they will also have to seek approval for any new procedure under the new covered
practices. It allows states that are covered to seek approval from a three-judge panel or the Attorney
General, and allows any appeals of either of these to go to the Supreme Court.[30]

Enforcement

The bill allows both the Attorney General or any ordinary person to sue a state if they believe that they are
avoiding federal pre-clearance. It states that the three judge panel will determine if a policy is supposed to
seek federal pre-clearance, and until the court has made that determination that the policy is blocked from
going into effect.[30]

Reactions and statements

External video
Support President Joe Biden advises
Congress to pass John Lewis
The bill has been supported by Senators Raphael Warnock (who Voting Rights Act (https://www.youtu
used to his first floor speech to advocate for its passage),[34][35] be.com/watch?v=MPK9rUIZ0O4)
and Joe Manchin.[d][36][37] President Joe Biden advocated for the
passage of the bill in his first address to Congress.[38][39]

In July 2021, over 150 companies signed a letter supporting the John R. Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act, including Amazon, Apple, Best Buy, PepsiCo, IKEA, Nestlé USA, Macy's, and
Target, among many others.[40][41]

Opposition
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has expressed opposition to passage of the bill, and said that
its passage is "unnecessary".[42][43]

Legislative history

Summary

Date # of Latest
Congress Short title Bill number(s) Sponsor(s)
introduced cosponsors status
H.R. 2867 (https://w
Voting Rights
114th ww.congress.gov/bil June 24, Died in
Advancement Act Terri Sewell 179
Congress l/114th-congress/ho 2015 Committee.
of 2015
use-bill/2867)
H.R. 2978 (https://w
Voting Rights
115th ww.congress.gov/bil June 21, Died in
Advancement Act Terri Sewell 193
Congress l/115th-congress/ho 2017 Committee.
of 2017
use-bill/2978)
H.R. 4 (https://www.
John R. Lewis
congress.gov/bill/11 February Passed
Voting Rights Act Terri Sewell 229
6th-congress/house 26, 2019 the House.
of 2020
116th -bill/4)
Congress S. 4263 (https://ww
John Lewis Voting
w.congress.gov/bill/ July 22, Patrick Died in
Rights 47
116th-congress/sen 2020 Leahy Committee.
Advancement Act
ate-bill/4263)
H.R. 4 (https://www.
congress.gov/bill/11 August 17, Passed
Terri Sewell 223
John R. Lewis 7th-congress/house 2021 the House.
117th Voting Rights -bill/4)
Congress Advancement Act S. 4 (https://www.co
of 2021 ngress.gov/bill/117t October 5, Patrick Cloture not
48
h-congress/senate- 2021 Leahy invoked.
bill/4)

116th Congress

The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep.

Terri Sewell on February 26, 2019, as H.R. 4 (https://www.congres
s.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4). Originally planned to have
been included in the For the People Act, Democratic leadership
decided to keep it separate because of anticipated court
challenges.[23] The bill had 229 co-sponsors. The bill passed the
House of Representatives (228-187) (https://projects.propublica.or
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaks
g/represent/votes/116/house/1/654) as the Voting Rights
at the funeral service for John Lewis
Advancement Act of 2019 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-co
ngress/house-bill/4) on December 6, 2019. All Democrats voted in
favor of the legislation, and all but one Republican voted against it.

The bill was introduced in the Senate as S.4263 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/4

263) by Senator Patrick Leahy after John Lewis' death in July 2020. The bill received 47 co-sponsors. All
Democrats in the Senate had co-sponsored the bill.[e] The only Republican to co-sponsor the bill was Lisa
Murkowski. The Senate, which was controlled by Republicans, did not bring the bill up for a vote.

The bill was originally titled the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019, but was renamed the John
Lewis Voting Rights Act one week after his death in 2020.[44] No senator had introduced the bill into the
Senate at the time of his death, so when it was introduced in the Senate, it took his name. The bill had
already passed the House of Representatives under its former name before John Lewis's death.
H.Con.Res.107 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/107) was
agreed to in the House to change the short title of the bill to the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act.

117th Congress

The act was introduced in the House on August 17, 2021 by Terri Sewell.[45] It received 223 co-
sponsors.[46] The bill passed the House of Representatives on August 24, 2021 (219-212) (https://clerk.hou
se.gov/Votes/2021260). All Democrats voted in favor of the legislation, and all Republicans voted against
it.

The bill is expected to face a major hurdle of getting through a Republican filibuster in the Senate. It would
require 60 votes to break the filibuster and proceed to an actual vote on the bill, meaning that at least 10
Republican senators would need to support the legislation. Some Democratic senators have stated that they
wish to get rid of the filibuster entirely, with the passage of the bill as a part of the reason why, but a
multitude of others are opposed.[47][48][49]

See also
Amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965
For the People Act
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Shelby County v. Holder
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
Voter Suppression in the United States
Black suffrage in the United States

Notes
a. "Strict", meaning that a voter would have to present (any) government-issued ID at a polling
place before being allowed to cast a ballot.
b. North Carolina was not covered as a whole by the VRA. However, North Carolina would be
covered as a whole under the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.
c. John Lewis VRA coverage predictions are for “states as a whole” only, meaning this
prediction does not consider subdivisions in a state that may be required to comply.
d. Every Senate Democrat had also shown support for the bill in 2020 by having co-sponsored
it, but these are some of the most outspoken advocates for passage.
e. This assessment counts the bill's original sponsor, Patrick Leahy.

References
1. Leahy, Patrick. "John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act" (https://www.leahy.senate.gov/i
mo/media/doc/John%20Lewis%20Voting%20Rights%20Advancement%20Act%20one%20
pager.pdf) (PDF). U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Retrieved January 27, 2021.
 2. Millhiser, Ian (July 21, 2021). "How America lost its commitment to the right to vote" (https://w
ww.vox.com/22575435/voting-rights-supreme-court-john-roberts-shelby-county-constitution-
brnovich-elena-kagan). Vox. Retrieved August 19, 2021.
3. Cava, Marco della (July 25, 2020). "Activists working in John Lewis' shadow warn about
voter suppression ahead of November vote" (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2
020/07/25/john-lewis-voting-rights-act-lawmakers-activists-honor-fallen-leader/547587900
2/). USA TODAY. Retrieved January 27, 2021.
4. Summers, Juana (August 24, 2021). "The House Has Passed a Bill to Restore the Voting
Rights Act" (https://www.npr.org/2021/08/24/1030746011/house-passes-john-lewis-voting-ri
ghts-act). NPR. Retrieved August 28, 2021.
5. "John Lewis Voting Rights Act Fails to Pass Senate" (https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasr
eimann/2021/11/03/john-lewis-voting-rights-act-fails-to-pass-senate/?sh=5646c0fab3d2).
Forbes.
6. "Shelby County v. Holder" (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-96). Oyez. Retrieved
March 20, 2021.
7. Liptak, Adam (June 25, 2013). "Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act" (htt
ps://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html). The New York Times.
ISSN 0362-4331 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0362-4331). Retrieved April 4, 2021.
8. "Section 4 Of The Voting Rights Act" (https://www.justice.gov/crt/section-4-voting-rights-act).
www.justice.gov. August 6, 2015. Retrieved March 27, 2021.
9. Ang, Desmond (July 2019). "Do 40-Year-Old Facts Still Matter? Long-Run Effects of Federal
Oversight under the Voting Rights Act" (https://doi.org/10.1257%2Fapp.20170572).
American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. 11 (3): 1–53. doi:10.1257/app.20170572
(https://doi.org/10.1257%2Fapp.20170572). ISSN 1945-7782 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/
1945-7782).
10. "Texas rushes ahead with voter ID law after supreme court decision" (https://www.theguardia
n.com/world/2013/jun/25/texas-voter-id-supreme-court-decision). the Guardian. June 25,
2013. Retrieved April 4, 2021.
11. "The Effects of Shelby County v. Holder | Brennan Center for Justice" (https://www.brennanc
enter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/effects-shelby-county-v-holder). www.brennancenter.org.
Retrieved March 20, 2021.
12. Feder, Catalina; Miller, Michael G. (November 1, 2020). "Voter Purges After Shelby: Part of
Special Symposium on Election Sciences" (https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X20916426).
American Politics Research. 48 (6): 687–692. doi:10.1177/1532673X20916426 (https://doi.o
rg/10.1177%2F1532673X20916426). ISSN 1532-673X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1532-
673X). S2CID 221131969 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:221131969).
13. 211; 214. "Purges: A Growing Threat to the Right to Vote | Brennan Center for Justice" (http
s://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/purges-growing-threat-right-vote).
www.brennancenter.org. Retrieved March 20, 2021.
14. "Dramatic increase in voters purged from voter rolls between 2014 and 2016: Report" (http
s://abcnews.go.com/Politics/millions-voters-purged-voter-rolls-2014-2016-report/story?id=56
756914). ABC News. Retrieved March 30, 2021.
15. "Voter Information Verification Act" (https://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/PDF/H
589v8.pdf) (PDF). North Carolina General Assembly. HB 589 (2013-2014).
16. "Did North Carolina Admit to Targeting Black Voters with a 'Voter ID' Law?" (https://www.sno
pes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/). Snopes.com. Retrieved March 20, 2021.
17. "United States v. North Carolina" (https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/882456/download?fbclid=Iw
AR0gsUvIihzVTHLI2qP68C1qahI8xA7t8eUozw1XACBzJqy8etoGDGiW73w). United States
Department of Justice. July 29, 2016. p. 39. Retrieved April 26, 2021.
18. "United States v. North Carolina" (https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/882456/download?fbclid=Iw
AR0gsUvIihzVTHLI2qP68C1qahI8xA7t8eUozw1XACBzJqy8etoGDGiW73w). The United
States Department of Justice. July 29, 2016. p. 11. Retrieved March 20, 2021.
19. Domonoske, Camila (July 29, 2016). "U.S. Appeals Court Strikes Down North Carolina's
Voter ID Law" (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/29/487935700/u-s-appeals-
court-strikes-down-north-carolinas-voter-id-law). NPR. Retrieved April 4, 2021.
20. Wines, Michael; Blinder, Alan (July 29, 2016). "Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down North
Carolina Voter ID Requirement" (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/federal-appeals-co
urt-strikes-down-north-carolina-voter-id-provision.html). The New York Times. ISSN 0362-
4331 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0362-4331). Retrieved April 4, 2021.
21. Gerstein, Josh. "Court strikes down North Carolina voter ID law" (https://www.politico.com/st
ory/2016/07/court-strikes-down-north-carolina-voter-id-law-226438). POLITICO. Retrieved
April 4, 2021.
22. Sullivan, Julia Harte, Andy (July 29, 2016). "U.S. court strikes down North Carolina voter ID
law" (https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-northcarolina-idUSL1N1AF1N2). Reuters.
Retrieved April 4, 2021.
23. Nilsen, Ella (December 6, 2019). "The House has passed a bill to restore key parts of the
Voting Rights Act" (https://www.vox.com/2019/12/6/20998953/house-bill-voting-rights-advan
cement-act). Vox. Retrieved May 10, 2021.
24. Beauchamp, Zack (April 6, 2021). "Yes, the Georgia election law is that bad" (https://www.vo
x.com/policy-and-politics/22368044/georgia-sb202-voter-suppression-democracy-big-lie).
Vox. Retrieved May 30, 2021.
25. Newkirk II, Vann R. (July 17, 2018). "Voter Suppression Is Warping Democracy" (https://ww
w.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/poll-prri-voter-suppression/565355/). The Atlantic.
Archived (https://archive.today/20200921025812/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv
e/2018/07/poll-prri-voter-suppression/565355/) from the original on September 21, 2020.
Retrieved June 6, 2021.
26. "Texas Republicans' sweeping voting restrictions bill passes state Senate" (https://www.cbs
news.com/news/texas-voting-restriction-bill-republicans/). www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved
May 30, 2021.
27. Rakich, Nathaniel (May 11, 2021). "Where Republicans Have Made It Harder To Vote (So
Far)" (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-have-made-it-harder-to-vote-in-11-state
s-so-far/). FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved May 30, 2021.
28. "Opinion | How the Supreme Court paved the way for Texas to target Black and brown
voters" (https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/texas-voting-bill-support-trump-s-big-lie-will-
eventually-ncna1269235). NBC News. Retrieved June 7, 2021.
29. "State and local party leaders in Bell County weigh in on Senate Bill 7" (https://www.kxxv.co
m/news/local-news/state-and-local-party-leaders-in-bell-county-weigh-in-on-senate-bill-7).
KXXV. June 2, 2021. Retrieved June 7, 2021.
30. Sewell, Terri A. (July 27, 2020). "H.R.4 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Voting Rights
Advancement Act of 2019" (https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4).
www.congress.gov. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
31. "[USC02] 52 USC 10302: Proceeding to enforce the right to vote" (https://uscode.house.gov/
view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:10302%20edition:prelim)). uscode.house.gov.
Retrieved March 25, 2021.
32. "Jurisdictions Previously Covered By Section 5" (https://www.justice.gov/crt/jurisdictions-pre
viously-covered-section-5). United States Department of Justice. August 6, 2015. Retrieved
May 3, 2021.
33. "The states facing federal preclearance under proposed Voting Rights Act fix" (https://www.f
acingsouth.org/2019/03/states-facing-federal-preclearance-under-proposed-voting-rights-act
-fix). Institute for Southern Studies. March 13, 2019. Retrieved May 3, 2021.
34. "In Honor of John Lewis, Warnock Calls on Congress, Fellow Candidates to Restore the
Voting Rights Act" (https://warnock.apollosites.app/in-honor-of-john-lewis-warnock-calls-on-
congress-fellow-candidates-to-restore-the-voting-rights-act/). Warnock for Georgia. July 21,
2020. Retrieved June 10, 2021.
35. Folley, Aris (March 17, 2021). "Warnock uses first Senate floor speech to urge Congress to
pass voting rights legislation" (https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/543695-warnock-uses-fi
rst-senate-floor-speech-to-urge-congress-to-pass-voting-rights). TheHill. Retrieved June 10,
2021.
36. "John Lewis voting rights bill faces bleak future in the Senate after McConnell deems it
"unnecessary" " (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-lewis-voting-righs-bill-senate/).
www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved June 10, 2021.
37. "Joe Manchin: the conservative Democrat with leverage in a split Senate" (https://www.thegu
ardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/17/joe-manchin-democrat-split-senate-leverage). the
Guardian. January 17, 2021. Retrieved June 10, 2021.
38. Santucci, Jeanine. "Voting rights: Where do the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act
and For the People Act stand?" (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/05/14/v
oting-rights-biden-wants-2-bills-passed-where-do-they-stand/4919517001/). USA TODAY.
Retrieved June 10, 2021.
39. Greenwood, Max (April 28, 2021). "Biden calls on Congress to pass voting, elections reform
bills" (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/550855-biden-calls-on-congress-to-pass-voti
ng-elections-reform-bills). TheHill. Retrieved June 10, 2021.
40. "More than 150 companies back update to Voting Rights Act" (https://www.nbcnews.com/pol
itics/elections/more-150-companies-back-update-voting-rights-act-n1273919). NBC News.
Retrieved August 6, 2021.
41. "More than 150 companies urge U.S. Congress to pass voting rights act" (https://www.reuter
s.com/world/us/more-than-150-companies-urge-us-congress-pass-voting-rights-act-2021-07
-14/). Reuters. July 14, 2021. Retrieved August 6, 2021.
42. Daniel Dale. "Fact check: Breaking down Mitch McConnell's spin on the John Lewis voting
rights bill" (https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/13/politics/fact-check-mcconnell-john-lewis-voting-
bill/index.html). CNN. Retrieved August 6, 2021.
43. Homan, Timothy R. (June 8, 2021). "McConnell: John Lewis voting rights bill 'unnecessary' "
(https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/557404-mcconnell-john-lewis-voting-rights-bill-unnec
essary). TheHill. Retrieved August 6, 2021.
44. "John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of 2020" (https://web.archive.org/web/20210301124015/htt
ps://naacp.org/latest/john-r-lewis-voting-rights-act-2020/). NAACP. July 31, 2020. Archived
from the original (https://naacp.org/latest/john-r-lewis-voting-rights-act-2020/) on March 1,
2021. Retrieved May 25, 2021.
45. Sewell, Terri A. (August 17, 2021). "H.R.4 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): John R. Lewis
Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021" (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/hou
se-bill/4). www.congress.gov. Retrieved August 19, 2021.
46. Sewell, Terri A. (August 24, 2021). "Cosponsors - H.R.4 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): John
R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021" (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-cong
ress/house-bill/4/cosponsors). www.congress.gov. Retrieved August 28, 2021.
47. Montellaro, Zach. "Where (and what) is the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act?" (https://politi.c
o/3fnJxUP). POLITICO. Retrieved April 4, 2021.
48. Manu Raju and Lauren Fox. "Democratic divisions on Biden's agenda broader than just
Manchin" (https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/25/politics/democratic-senate-divisions-filibuster-m
anchin/index.html). CNN. Retrieved May 4, 2021.
49. "Biden's foray into filibuster fight leaves liberals no closer to victory" (https://www.politico.co
m/news/2021/03/17/biden-filibuster-fight-476684). POLITICO. Retrieved May 4, 2021.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Lewis_Voting_Rights_Act&oldid=1060649211"

This page was last edited on 16 December 2021, at 20:35 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.