Bill Overview
Title: Loving v. Virginia Codification Act of 2022
Description: This bill provides statutory authority for interracial marriages. Specifically, the bill prohibits any state from enacting a law or regulation that infringes on the right to marry or not marry a person of another race. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action for violations. It also establishes a private right of action through Section 1983 lawsuits (Section 1983 is a federal statute that allows individuals to sue state or local government actors for violations of constitutional rights).
Sponsors: Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria [D-NY-14]
Target Audience
Population: Interracial couples and those intending to marry interracially
Estimated Size: 32400000
- The bill directly affects individuals who choose to marry someone of another race, protecting their right constitutionally which has been in effect due to the Supreme Court decision since 1967.
- According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as of recent data, approximately 10% of marriages in the U.S. are interracial, which outlines a significant population locally affected by this reaffirmation and strengthening of rights.
- Interracial marriage prevalence varies globally but is fairly common in multicultural societies; hence, affected global populations are significant.
- The global population impacted may include partners in interracial relationships either currently married or considering marriage in jurisdictions influenced by U.S. legal frameworks, norms, or for Americans residing abroad.
- While socially accepted in many parts of the world, interracial marriages can still face legal challenges or societal pressures elsewhere, making international reaffirmation of rights potentially impactful.
Reasoning
- The population of interest includes both current and future interracial couples, which forms a significant portion of the American populace. The 10% of marriages being interracial reflects a wide-reaching, potentially impacted community.
- Given that the constitutional right is currently upheld, the policy acts as a reinforcing measure rather than an entirely new benefit, hence the impact on existing wellbeing might be moderate rather than transformative, especially in more diverse areas.
- The population is not saturated in one geographic area but spread across the entire U.S., with potential higher concentration in urban and diverse environments.
- Budget can be used strategically to support awareness, legal resources, and protections in jurisdictions that might otherwise attempt restrictive measures, ensuring allocation aligns with areas of potential threat.
- For this diverse group, cultural acceptance, variance in state governance attitudes, and social integration trends play crucial roles in differential policy impacts.
Simulated Interviews
Graphic Designer (New York City, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel reassured by this policy. While we haven't faced issues ourselves, knowing there's a legal backing is comforting.
- I think it's particularly important for raising our kids—knowing their parents' marriage is valid everywhere.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Lawyer (Birmingham, AL)
Age: 43 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy solidifies what should be an unquestionable right. Given some lingering prejudice, having this codified helps.
- I work in the legal field so I appreciate clear statutory protections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Tech Entrepreneur (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Living in a diverse city, we don't worry much about being an interracial couple.
- However, I've heard stories from friends in less diverse areas, so this policy gives me hope it wouldn't be an issue wherever we go.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Public School Teacher (Dallas, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having lived in a more conservative area, this gives us a new layer of comfort.
- I hope it signals the start of more comprehensive anti-discrimination initiatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
College Student (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill seems more symbolic since Loving v. Virginia should already cover us.
- Still, the backup is great because who knows if the social climate shifts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Nurse (Chicago, IL)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a positive step. If it had been enacted earlier, there may have been less societal resistance in our small town.
- Better late than never, and it hopefully encourages a healthier dialogue around race.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Software Developer (Portland, OR)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring for someone considering marriage. Knowing the legality won't change regardless of national shifts makes committing easier.
- More than personal, this helps friends and communities that might face these challenges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Small Business Owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law is a relief. It gives my kids stronger assurances about their identities and parents' union legitimacy wherever they go.
- I hope it encourages easier conversations with those less understanding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
University Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 19/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Honestly, in L.A., we rarely think about these issues, but I recognize how important legal clarity is if that changes.
- It supports peers and family who might need these protections more than I do.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired (Buffalo, NY)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having experienced life pre-Loving v. Virginia, we've come far, but it's reassuring to formalize our rights now.
- I hope it inspires younger generations to be more open-minded.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill does not create new rights but codifies and protects existing ones already guaranteed by the Supreme Court ruling.
- Enforcement costs are the main area of expenditure, with DOJ actions against state violations being a potential cost driver.
- Given current societal acceptance of interracial marriage and previous Supreme Court rulings, this act mainly addresses preventative legal aspects.