Urging Congress to restore and strengthen the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The resolution outlines that the absence of a functioning Section 5 has led to increased litigation against unjust voting laws, making it difficult for affected citizens to challenge such regulations timely. The HCR2 stresses the need for Congress to modernize the provisions of the Voting Rights Act to ensure continued federal oversight and to prevent discriminatory practices from taking root. The resolution claims that without reinstatement of critical sections of the act, millions of voters remain susceptible to disenfranchisement, thereby jeopardizing the foundational democratic principle that all citizens should have equal access to the electoral process.
HCR2 is a concurrent resolution urging the United States Congress to restore and strengthen the Voting Rights Act of 1965, particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder which weakened the provisions of this landmark legislation. The resolution emphasizes the historical context of the Voting Rights Act, highlighting its role in preventing racial and ethnic discrimination in voting and how its major provision, Section 5, mandated federal approval for changes to voting laws in jurisdictions with a history of discrimination. The resolution notes that the invalidation of Section 4(b) has led to the resurgence of discriminatory practices that inhibit voter participation, mainly affecting minorities, low-income households, the disabled, and students.
Advocates for HCR2 argue that the resolution serves as an essential call to action for Congress, reminding lawmakers of their responsibility to safeguard voting rights as integral to democracy. However, there may be opposing viewpoints that express skepticism regarding federal intervention in local voting laws, arguing for states' rights in managing their own electoral processes. The discussion may also raise concerns about the political ramifications of restoring the Voting Rights Act, as some critics may view it as an unnecessary federal overreach in state jurisdictions which could foster further division among lawmakers.