The African-American quest for political equality has been a long and often difficult struggle. Though the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution enacted in 1870 stated “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” this was largely an empty gesture.  

Matters changed dramatically when Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965. (it has since been amended multiple times). The Act mobilized the federal government’s vast power to ensure that African Americans had full, unencumbered, access to the ballot. Section 2 prohibited any state or local authority from imposing any rule that, “results in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color or membership in a language minority group.” Also banned were practices such as the literacy test whose unstated purpose was to minimize black voting.

The Act explicitly barred  jurisdictions with histories of racial discrimination from altering their voting regulations without the U.S. Attorney General’s prior approval (called “pre-clearance”) The Act’s language was further interpreted to mean that voting provisions that hindered blacks from being elected by fellow blacks violated the Act.   

The Act dramatically altered our political landscape and today African Americans have achieved notable electoral successes from twice electing a black president to being elected mayor of almost every major American city. To be sure, while black turnout vis-à-vis-white rates have declined somewhat from the highwater level when President Obama was elected, nobody could possibly deny that the “Black vote” is a fervently courted voting bloc.

Given these successes, what unfinished business remains on the black voting rights agenda? According to leading Democrats, including President Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris, the answer is to enact “The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement of 2024” (John Lewis was a notable civil rights activist). According to one supporter, “It would restore the Voting Rights Act to its place as the crown jewel of American democracy.’’

The proposed legislation would restore the pre-clearance policy that the Supreme Court had invalidated in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013.  With this returned power, the U.S. Attorney General could then intervene to protect the voting rights of  “…cohesive coalition of members of different racial or language minority groups.” In other words, this 2024 proposed Act is a return to the earlier era when blacks were barred from voting by devious tactics such cumbersome registration requirements.

Now, since much has occurred between 1965 and 2024, and blacks dominate many jurisdictions, what specific tactics are being employed to deprive blacks of the right to vote? Significantly, the Act itself is exceedingly vague. For example, evidence of anti-black discrimination could be “Whether there is a lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of members of the protected class.” Another example of voting discrimination offered is “…The use of overt or subtle racial appeals either in political campaigns…” These justifications for Washington’s intervention are a far cry from an earlier era when blacks were physically excluded from voting.

Not surprisingly, however, there is more in the Act than meets the eye. The Brennan Center for Justice, a left-wing think tank closely aligned with black civil rights groups, is more explicit. For them the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2024’s chief purpose is to maximize black voting by loosening election rules. In a sense, the civil rights movement has gone from demanding equal voting access to eliminating almost all barriers on voting. Unfortunately, the quest for racial quality will open the floodgates for fraud.    

According to the Brennan Center, obstacles faced by blacks include limits on mail-in voting, requiring additional information on mail-in ballots, limiting the time when a mail-in ballot can be requested and banning deposit boxes where these ballots can be dropped off. Other supposedly restrictive measures include limiting help that can be given to a perspective voter, restrictions on organizations trying to register perspective voters, tougher rules for absentee ballots, limits on permissible ID’s as well as more stringent rules for allowing convicted felons to vote.

Such practices easily facilitate more egregious violations, notably allowing non-citizens to vote, paying people to “harvest” votes from nursing homes and collecting fake absentee ballots from non-residents.  Obviously, given the ease of generating dishonest “landslides,” the real intent of the John Lewis Act is to maximize the Democratic vote under the guise of enhancing “black voting rights.” 

Nevertheless, despite the bill’s aim to help Democrats, especially black Democrats, its future impact -- if enacted -- may be contrary to expectations. The Bill does not mention blacks by name and as America’s demography shifts, Hispanics (among other groups) may be the future beneficiaries with blacks the losers. Many cities and congressional districts have expanding Hispanic populations, and soon they might be the ones demanding the U.S. Attorney General examine voter repression, ironically at the hands of elected black officials. Chicago, New York City, and Los Angeles, among others, could see Hispanic political machines skillfully employing the John L. Lewis Act to push blacks out of public office.

Moreover, the use of iffy tactics as bogus absentee ballots will eventually undermine the democratic legitimacy of elections themselves. Electoral outcomes must be accepted as fair and, if they become shames, people refuse to accept the outcomes. This is now occurring in Venezuela and similar Third World nations. Why live under such conditions or start businesses when public officials owe their power to ballot stuffing, not competence or heeding the public will? It is hardly accidental that many immigrants fleeing to the United States are escaping nations where elections are fixed despite their “democratic” trappings. Here in the U.S. those owing the positions to fake write-ins and non-citizens will govern depopulated, economically depressed dystopic cities. Do the countless congressional sponsors of the John L. Lewis Act want this outcome?

Finally, those pushing the bill should realize that winning an election, whether honestly or by fraud, is only a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. The Voting Right Act of 1965 demonstrates the power of the federal government to remove barrierss to voting which, in turn, helped thousands of blacks achieve political office. But these accomplishments do not demonstrate that increased voting is the sure path to progress more generally. Whether in major cities like Detroit or small towns in the Mississippi Delta, the evidence shows that winning every office on the ballot does not automatically create prosperity, functioning schools, less crime, and all else that office seekers typically promise.

There are also opportunity costs to pursuing elections as the paramount route to equality. Those currently committed to enacting the John L. Lewis Voting Rights Act of 2024 might ask where they can better invest their time and energy. Perhaps winning elections is no longer the best strategy for racial progress. Almost 60 years have passed since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 became law, while its accomplishments are self-evident, one should ask if there is more to racial progress than just winning elections.  

Image: Library of Congress