Bill Overview
Title: Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022
Description: 2022 This bill establishes new criteria for determining which states and political subdivisions must obtain preclearance before changes to voting practices may take effect. Preclearance is the process of receiving preapproval from the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before making legal changes that would affect voting rights. A state and all of its political subdivisions shall be subject to preclearance of voting practice changes for a 10-year period if 5 or more voting rights violations occurred in the state during the previous 15 years, at least 1 of which was committed by the state itself. A political subdivision as a separate unit shall also be subject to preclearance for a 10-year period if, in the previous 15 years (1) 3 or more voting rights violations occurred there, or (2) 1 or more voting rights violations occurred there and the subdivision had minority voter turnout below certain thresholds. A state or political subdivision that obtains a declaratory judgment that it has not used a voting practice to deny or abridge the right to vote shall be exempt from preclearance. The bill expands the circumstances under which (1) a court may retain the authority to preclear voting changes made by a state or political subdivision, or (2) DOJ may assign election observers. States and political subdivisions must notify the public of changes to voting practices. The bill revises the circumstances under which a court must grant preliminary injunctive relief in a challenge to voting practices.
Sponsors: Rep. Turner, Michael R. [R-OH-10]
Target Audience
Population: People living in the United States
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The primary impact of the bill is on states and political subdivisions with histories of voting rights violations, so it directly affects the governmental entities responsible for implementing and overseeing elections.
- The bill aims to protect voters, particularly those in areas with histories of voter discrimination and suppression, by ensuring changes to voting practices are preapproved to prevent infringements on voting rights.
- The demand for preclearance and public notification of voting changes affect all voters in jurisdictions covered by the bill, ensuring their right to partake in fair electoral processes.
- The historical context of voting rights in the U.S. shows that minorities have been disproportionately affected by voting restrictions. Therefore, the bill's protections are particularly targeted at minority voters.
Reasoning
- The total population of the United States is approximately 330 million people, and although not all are directly affected by the policy, voting rights and practices can indirectly affect the entire population. Therefore, a wide variety of individuals, from different locations, backgrounds, and demographics, will be interviewed to gauge varying impacts.
- Those living in areas with a history of voting rights violations will be more directly affected and will likely feel the immediate effects of policy changes, making them crucial subjects in the interviews.
- Minority groups historically affected by voter suppression are a key focus group, as the policy aims to rectify past injustices, making the anticipated impact on these individuals possibly more significant in terms of wellbeing.
- Economic constraints like the policy's budget are considered by evaluating how cost-effective the preclearance process and public notification systems are in both urban and rural areas.
Simulated Interviews
High School Teacher (Mississippi)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a teacher, I think it's important for our students to understand the value of their vote.
- Our community has struggled with voting access, and this policy seems like it could provide the oversight needed to protect our rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Software Engineer (Texas)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having faced barriers myself, I'm hopeful that this policy will ensure fairer processes for our community.
- I see friends and family frustrated with voting obstacles, so preclearance can only help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Journalist (New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy helps ensure transparency, and as a journalist, I'm interested in how it will play out in elections.
- There’s always room for improving voting fairness, especially in historically marginalized areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired Factory Worker (Alabama)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I remember the days when voting was new for us here, and this policy feels like a step back to those protections.
- It gives me hope for my grandchildren's future voting rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Activist (California)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act gives us a tool to challenge injustices we’ve been fighting against.
- It's a necessary protection in today's political climate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
College Student (Florida)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's nice to see steps being taken to ensure that voting remains fair for all.
- As someone who works polls, I think preclearance will help improve trust in the process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Ohio)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not sure if this policy will affect me directly, but I believe everyone should have equal access to vote.
- It's a positive step towards fairness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired School Principal (North Carolina)
Age: 64 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Long overdue, the policy gives our community some reassurance against unfair voting practices.
- I hope it lives up to its expectations with proper enforcement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Farmer (Indiana)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Preclearance rules don't seem to impact our area much, but I see their value for cities with more issues.
- As long as it doesn't complicate voting logistics in our small towns, I support it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Nurse (Georgia)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring every voter has a voice is crucial, and this act is focusing on right areas.
- It's good to know changes will be watched closely, especially with historical patterns of suppression.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $35000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Year 2: $36000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $52000000)
Year 3: $37000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $54000000)
Year 5: $39000000 (Low: $34000000, High: $56000000)
Year 10: $43000000 (Low: $38000000, High: $60000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Resource allocation within the Department of Justice to handle increased workloads due to preclearance requirements.
- Ensuring effective communication strategies for public notification of voting changes.
- Possible legal challenges and opposition from states that perceive the bill as a federal overreach.
- Technological upgrades needed by states to comply with the new requirements.