2019: Schweikert Voted Against The Voting Rights Advancement Act That Would Restore Preclearance Requirements Under The Voting Rights Act. In December 2019, Schweikert voted against the Voting Rights Advancement bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "effectively restore preclearance requirements under the Voting Rights Act for any changes to voting procedures in states and localities with a history of voting rights violations within the previous 25 years." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 228-187. The bill was never taken up in the Senate. [House Vote 654, 12/6/19; Congressional Quarterly, 12/6/19; Congressional Actions, H.R.4]
The Voting Rights Advancement Act Restored A Provision In The Original Voting Rights Act That Was Overturned By The Supreme Court In Shelby County v. Holder. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill was "designed to restore a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that was invalidated by the Supreme Court decision on Shelby County v. Holder. The court ruled in 2013 that the formula used to determine which states and jurisdictions are required to receive preclearance for changes in voting procedures from the Justice Department or a federal district court in D.C., was unconstitutional because it was outdated and no longer responded to contemporary concerns. However, the court also ruled that the federal government could still require that certain states and jurisdictions receive approval before implementing changes in voting procedures to ensure the change does not harm minority voters." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/23/19]
The New Voting Rights Bill Reconfigured The Formula Used To Determine If State Violations Of Voting Rights Require Oversight. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure would amend and expand the 1965 law, most notably by reconfiguring the formula used to determine if there are voting rights violations that require oversight. The formula would cover all states and would come into effect if there are 15 or more violations in a 25-year period, or 10 or more when at least one violation is on a statewide level. States or local jurisdictions that are found to have repeated violations would require preclearance before any new election law can be implemented." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/23/19]
Republicans Opposed The Bill, Citing Concerns Of Expanding The Justice Department's Authority To Investigate Common Voting Laws. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Panel Republicans also expressed concerns about expanding the Justice Department's authority to examine common voting laws. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, said that the measure could allow the Justice Department to find some common voting laws, such as voter identification laws, to be violations." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/23/19]
Congressional Quarterly: Republicans Also Argued That The Bill Was "Another Step Towards Federalizing Elections." According to Congressional Quarterly, "Rules Committee ranking member Tom Cole, R-Okla., however, referred to the measure as a 'partisan bill' and said that it would be another step towards federalizing all elections, a concern that was echoed by his Republican colleagues throughout the hearing portion of the meeting." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/23/19]