To mark the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Voting Rights Act, here’s a quick quiz:
State A offers early voting and absentee ballots to all who are registered, allowing voters to cast their ballots before Election Day. State B does not. Which state is being sued for violating the Voting Rights Act?
If you answered state B, you flunked. Now you see the problem with today’s debate about voting rights. …
In practice, violations of the Voting Rights Act only occur when states limit voting opportunities, not when they fail to expand them.
States that liberalize their voting laws and then attempt to rein them in run the risk of violating the law, while states that always had strict requirements on registration and voting are free and clear as long as they don’t make those requirements any stricter.
That distinction makes no sense — and the revision of the law Democrats are pushing now wouldn’t put this right. It merely would restore the requirement, struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013, that states with a history of voting-rights violations submit any changes to their election laws and procedures to the Justice Department for prior approval.
That would affect only a handful of mostly Southern states, many of which offer more voting opportunities than some Northern states.
A more forward-looking approach to voting rights could usefully address another issue.
Laws in New York and other states prohibit independents from participating in primary elections. That exclusion, some argue, is a voter’s choice — but why should voters be forced to join a party to participate in elections funded and organized by their own government?
Equal access to the polls, regardless of party affiliation, should be a voting right, too.
Voting rights are universal, and they should be universally protected. There’s still a need for a robust Voting Rights Act.
But those leading the crusade for changes should aim to treat all the states — and all kinds of voters — equally.
— Bloomberg View
