What to make of the revolt by Republicans against the negotiated Voting Rights Act renewal before the Congress?  It has jeopardized passage of any bill this year.  Some, such as Rick Hasen, now hope for compromise (see here and here), believing that the Supreme Court could never have accepted the bill in the form presented.  For them the only question is sincerity:  if the Republicans are sincere—if as Charlie Norwood and others insist, it is concerned with the constitutionality of the bill, shared by left and right alike—then there ought to be some appeal to true compromise.  In their view, sincerity invites compromise, which would make of the delayed reauthorization a blessing in disguise. 

      There are indeed proposals of merit that might restructure the Voting Rights Act for the better.  Their soundness as a matter of theory is, however, different from the question of their soundness as a matter of timing.  If offered now, in the spirit of compromise, these proposals could turn out less important in substance and more fateful in politics, since they could aid adversaries of the Voting Rights Act—and of election reform generally—in moving the debate in a new direction, toward a preoccupation with “fraud” and away from an emphasis on rights.  To see how this could happen requires a step away from policy, toward pure politics, and an appreciation of how the mishandling of this politics now could have disasterous consequences for voting rights policy in the years to come.

      At the same time as Republicans protesting VRA renewal urge refreshed solicitude for ‘constitutional’ issues, it cannot escape notice that their leaders—the “Georgia bloc” that lead the way for delay (Margaret Coker and Tom Baxter, “Georgia Bloc Wins Delay in Rights Vote, Atlanta Journal Constitution (June 22, 2006)— represent a state notable principally in recent months for pushing through a discriminatory photo identification requirement.  The constitutional questions raised by these requirements—indeed the Voting Rights Act issues—did not deter them.  This is an initiative of the party as a whole; but Georgia Republicans have proudly taken their place at the head of the parade.  As we all know, this is the stand that many Republicans are comfortable with:  election reform seen as a defense against cheating, not as empowerment of voters for their protection.

      While this is taking place, many Republicans seek to stake their election year strategy in large part on anti-immigration politics, which they have blended into their opposition to minority language assistance (multilingual ballots) under the Voting Rights Act.  And Henry Hyde has introduced—and hearings are pending, to be held soon—a bill to compel the production of proof of citizenship as a condition of registration.  This same Hyde bill would also establish a nationwide photo identification requirement. 

      In sum, the Republican delay of the Voting Rights Act may be seen as a crucial maneuver in the construction of a political program, rather than as a bid for time during which high-minded adjustment of the law, to meet constitutional imperative, may be responsibly debated.  This is the political environment—the political offensive—within which evaluations of Republican “sincerity” must be evaluated.  Any negotiations launched in reliance on such “sincerity” must appreciate the risks, not the least of which will be the victory that Republicans will declare when they have brought Democrats to the table, in these conditions, to address “problems” with the Voting Rights Act.  And not the least of which will be the hard fact that Republicans still have the votes to shape the negotiation to their advantage and to pass only what suits the emerging progress of their “reform” program.

      The politics of the moment simply cannot be regarded as so much background noise that can be turned down for serious constitutional debate and legislative effort.  Those politics have moved to the foreground, and their impact is not only the scheduling of votes on the Voting Rights Act.  More is at stake:  the very definition of what counts as “voting rights.”  To compromise now is not only a legislative act, it is also a political one; and it spares Republicans from having to answer for the type of “voting rights” program that they appear poised with some disturbing success to adopt nationally and throughout the states. 

      None of the work done to date, or in progress, on reform of the Voting Rights Act will have come to nothing if the Republicans are held politically accountable now.  It is not true that renewal of the Voting Rights Act guarantees that, for another quarter of a century, nothing more can be done, such as in examining the use—or lack thereof—of the current bailout provision.  Voting rights issues will not vanish from the agenda upon reauthorization.  To the contrary, the protection of voting rights, in the various ways it may be pursued, appears certain to remain a priority on the domestic policy agenda in the near future—more so than at any time in decades.  Progressives should not allow the nature and timing of the effort to be dictated by conservative Republicans with entirely suspect sincerity and very transparent political motivations—and control, for now, of the national government.

Bob Bauer