Southwest Virginia Congressman Morgan Griffith pushed back against claims that the proposed “Make Elections Great Again” Act resembles Jim Crow-era voting restrictions during a recent House Administration Committee hearing.
The Ninth District Republican drew parallels to Virginia’s 1902 Constitution, which imposed poll taxes and literacy tests, arguing that historical voting restrictions targeted both Black Americans and poor white voters in western Virginia.
“The concept was to disenfranchise African-Americans. But what people don’t recall is, it was also to disenfranchise poor, white, Republican voters in the western part of the state, the very part of the state that I now have the great pleasure and proud to represent,” Griffith said. “It was done to take them out of the voting rolls, too, because the Republican populous coalition was challenging the dominant Democrats in the state.”
Historical context
Griffith, who grew up during the civil rights era, recalled his early political experiences in Virginia during the late 1960s.
“I participated in that election, not as a voter, but as somebody working out there in the hustings. Yeah, I was a weird kid,” Griffith said. “I remember the debate between the Mountain Valley Republicans and the Democrats who controlled everything and who didn’t want blacks and poor whites from the western part of the state actively participating. So I assure you, Mr. Chairman, your bill is not Jim Crow.”
Proposed legislation
The “Make Elections Great Again” Act would strengthen voter identification requirements, increase penalties for election fraud, and restrict third-party ballot collection, commonly known as ballot harvesting.
During the hearing, Griffith questioned witness testimony about the security benefits of limiting ballot harvesting. Supporters argue these measures would protect election integrity and ensure Americans can vote securely and privately.
Critics of the legislation maintain it could create unnecessary barriers to voting access, particularly for certain demographics.
The bill remains under consideration in the House Administration Committee.
