ATLANTA — When the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights act last week, it handed Republicans tough questions with no easy answers over how, and where, to attract voters that even GOP leaders say the party needs to stay nationally competitive.
The decision caught Republicans between newfound state autonomy that conservatives covet and the law’s popularity among minority, young and poor voters who tend to align with Democrats. It’s those voters that Republicans are eyeing to expand and invigorate the GOP’s core of older, white Americans.
National GOP Chairman Reince Priebus began that effort well before the court’s decision by promising, among other initiatives, to hire non-white party activists to engage directly with black and Latino voters. Yet state and national Republicans reacted to the Voting Rights Act decision with a flurry of activity and comments that may not fit neatly into the national party’s vision.
Congressional leaders must decide whether to try to rewrite the provision the court struck, but it’s not clear how such an effort would fare in the Democratic-led Senate and the GOP-controlled House. And at the state level, elected Republicans are enacting tighter voting restrictions that Democrats blast as harmful to their traditional base of supporters and groups the Republicans say they want to attract.
States like North Carolina and Virginia provide apt examples of the potential fallout. An influx of nonwhites have turned those Republican strongholds into battlegrounds in the last two presidential elections, and minority voters helped President Obama win both states in 2008 and Virginia again in 2012.
Nationally, Republican Mitt Romney lost among African-Americans by about 85 percentage points and Latinos by about 44 percentage points, margins that virtually ensure a Democratic victory.
Yet presidential math doesn’t necessarily motivate Republicans who control state houses and congressional districts in states most affected by the Voting Rights Act. Core GOP supporters in the region react favorably to voter identification laws and broad-based critiques of federal authority.
Against that backdrop, Southern Republicans celebrated Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion that effectively frees all or parts of 15 states with a history of racial discrimination from having to get federal approval for any election procedure.
The so-called preclearance provision anchored the law that Congress renewed four times since its 1965 passage as the crowning achievement of the civil rights movement for black Americans. The law contains an ‘‘opt-out’’ provision that allowed a jurisdiction to ask a federal court for release from preclearance if it has established a record of nondiscrimination. Roberts said that process — never used successfully by an entire state — wasn’t enough.
‘‘The court recognized that states can fairly design our own [district] maps and run our own elections without the federal government,’’ Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said.
Citizens can still sue to overturn state laws, but they’ll likely have to prove discrimination after the fact, rather than local authorities having to convince federal officials in advance that a law wouldn’t discriminate.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a Republican running for governor, said: ‘‘I do not believe we have the institutional bigotry like we had before.’’
GOP officials in Texas and Mississippi promised within hours of the decision to enforce new laws requiring voters to show identification at polls.
North Carolina Republicans said they would enact their own voter identification law. Texas Governor Rick Perry signed new congressional district maps — tilted to Republican advantage — that federal authorities would have had to review.
‘I do not believe we have the institutional bigotry like we had before.’ — Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia’s attorney general who is running for governor as a Republican
But in Washington, Republicans such as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia embraced the nuances of Roberts’s ruling. The court didn’t actually strike down preclearance, instead tossing rules that determined which jurisdictions got oversight. Congress is free to rewrite those parameters and revive advance review, Roberts wrote.
‘‘I’m hopeful Congress will put politics aside,’’ Cantor said, ‘‘and find a responsible path forward that ensures that the sacred obligation of voting in this country remains protected.’’
Representative James Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, who helped lead the law’s latest reauthorization when the GOP ran Congress in 2006, said the court ‘‘disappointed’’ him. Lingering discrimination, he said, compels Congress to update the act, ‘‘especially for minorities.’’
‘‘There’s no easy answer’’ for the GOP, said Henry Barbour, a high-profile member of the Republican National Committee.
Blatantly racist laws like poll taxes and literacy tests once made preclearance necessary, Barbour said. ‘‘But when you have to go hat-in-hand to Washington every time you want to move a polling place,’’ then it’s evolved into ‘‘federal harassment that’s gone on way too long,’’ he added.