Kamala Harris Wants to Require States to Clear Abortion Laws With Justice Dept. - The New York Times

As numerous states have passed restrictive new abortion laws, Senator Kamala Harris of California on Tuesday is expected to outline a proposal that would require some states and localities with a history of flouting abortion rights to obtain federal approval before such laws can take effect.

Ms. Harris, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, will call for what is known as a “preclearance requirement” at a town-hall-style event that will air Tuesday night on MSNBC, a senior campaign official said.

The requirement would apply to jurisdictions with a history of violating Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in 1973 that established the constitutional right to abortion. These jurisdictions would have to clear new abortion laws with the Justice Department before putting them into effect.

Ms. Harris is one of several Democrats in the 2020 race who have sharply criticized laws passed in Alabama, Missouri and other states that severely restrict abortion. She is also one of several Senate co-sponsors of the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would prevent any government entity from imposing various restrictions on abortion services.

Though some Democratic presidential candidates have already called on Congress to codify abortion rights, Ms. Harris’s campaign says her proposal goes further by shifting the burden to states with a history of skirting Roe; the campaign official cited South Carolina, Iowa and Georgia as examples.

“With reproductive freedom under attack nationwide, we’re heartened to see Senator Kamala Harris rolling out a bold plan to defend our fundamental rights,” said Sasha Bruce, senior vice president at NARAL Pro-Choice America, an advocacy organization.

“Every candidate in this field should know it’s not enough to simply call yourself pro-choice,” Ms. Bruce said. “All candidates need to back up their words with a concrete plan for action, especially given the tenuous thread by which reproductive freedom hangs.”

The preclearance requirement would work much like the one included in the Voting Rights Act, which was first passed in 1965 to combat voter discrimination. From 1998 to 2013, that law blocked 86 proposed election changes and led to the withdrawal of hundreds more, the Harris campaign official said.

In 2013, the Supreme Court effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act, ruling the formula that determined which states had to receive preclearance before making changes to voting procedures was unconstitutional.

It was not immediately clear on Tuesday how Ms. Harris planned to establish her proposed preclearance requirement, which would most likely face legal scrutiny if passed legislatively or otherwise enacted.

The Harris campaign official said any change to abortion laws in a covered jurisdiction would remain legally unenforceable until the Justice Department determined that it adhered to the standards laid out in Roe and by the Women’s Health Protection Act, which remains stalled in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Ms. Harris’s campaign also said a number of guardrails would be put in place to protect the preclearance requirement regardless of a particular administration’s view of abortion.

Astead W. Herndon contributed reporting.