The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a law that was passed in 1994 to protect women from domestic violence and sexual assault. It expired in 2011 but was later reauthorized in 2013 with bipartisan support. The initial failure to renew the VAWA was due to disagreements over its provisions, such as expanding the definition of “violence against women” to include stalking and cyberstalking, creating a new crime of “domestic violence,” increasing penalties for those convicted of this offense, and providing victims with greater access to federal benefits. There was also opposition to including protections for immigrants, Native Americans, and LGBT individuals in the law. Some members of Congress felt that the law should have protections for immigrants, Native Americans, and LGBT individuals, while others believed that these groups should not be included in the law (Modi et al., 2014). As a result of these disagreements, the VAWA was not renewed for nearly two years. Ultimately, it was reauthorized in 2013 with bipartisan support and signed into law by President Obama (The Administration’s record on Violence against Women, n.d.). Despite these disagreements, VAWA has helped protect millions of people each year since its enactment. However, there is still room for improvement in better protecting vulnerable populations. Although VAWA has helped protect millions of people every year since its enactment, there is always room for improvement, especially in better protecting vulnerable populations”.
Ideology plays a vital role in parliamentary democracies, particularly regarding Violence Against Women policies. Ideological differences between parties can lead to disagreement about how VAWA should be handled and prevented. This can directly affect the process of government formation, as legislators may use their ideological differences to sway the formation of a particular government (Laver, 2009). In some parliamentary governments, a formal motion of confidence in the government is required whenever there is a disagreement about VAW policy. This incentivizes legislators to consider all perspectives when formulating and voting on legislation, as even minor disagreements can affect the entire government’s future.
There have been several reauthorizations of VAWA since it was first passed in 1994. The most recent reauthorization occurred in 2013 when the Senate and House passed different bill versions (The Administration’s record on Violence against Women, n.d.). The Senate version included several substantive changes from the bill’s previous version, while the House version made only minor changes. The main differences between the two versions related to expanded definitions of domestic violence, additional protections for immigrant women, and new grant programs for law enforcement. However, many substantive changes from the first version of VAWA were not retained in subsequent versions. For example, the definition of domestic violence was expanded in 2000 to include stalking and emotional abuse, but these provisions were not included in the 2013 reauthorization (Modi et al., 2014). Similarly, the 2000 reauthorization created a new grant program to fund research on domestic violence, but this program was not reauthorized in 2013. As a result, while VAWA has undergone several changes since its inception, many of its core provisions remain unchanged.
One of the most significant changes was the inclusion of new protections for immigrant victims of domestic violence. The original VAWA was passed in 1994 and provided new protections for victims of domestic violence, including immigrant victims. The second version of the VAWA, passed in 2013, included several substantive changes that further strengthened the protections for immigrant victims of domestic violence (Modi et al., 2014). One of the most significant changes was the expansion of the types of relationships that would qualify an immigrant victim for a VAWA self-petition. Under the new law, an immigrant victim would allow for a VAWA self-petition if they were in a relationship with the abuser that was “similar to a marriage.” This expansion ensured that more immigrants could benefit from the protections of the VAWA (Senk, 2022). VAWA also created a new visa category for abused spouses of lawful permanent residents. This provided an essential path to legal status for immigrant victims of domestic violence. Finally, the 2013 VAWA also increased funding for programs that serve immigrant victims of domestic violence. These changes helped to ensure that immigrant victims would have access to the services and support they needed to escape abusive relationships. Additionally, the second version created a new grant program to help states develop more effective responses to sexual assault cases. Finally, the second version increased funding for existing programs providing services to domestic violence victims.
VAWA provides federal funding for victim services, law enforcement training, and prosecution of offenders. It also created new federal crimes related to domestic violence and sexual assault. The 2013 reauthorization was more contentious than VAWA, which reauthorized in 2000 and again in 2005 with bipartisan support (Hanson & Sacco, 2021). In analyzing the role of ideology in the VAWA, republicans played a crucial role in shaping the outcome of the legislation. While democrats were mainly in favor of the bill, republicans were divided on its provisions, with some arguing that it was too broad and would increase government spending. Republicans objected to provisions that expanded the definition of domestic violence and increased funding for victim services. They also claimed that the bill would infringe on states’ rights. Ultimately, republicans were able to secure several key concessions, including a provision that allows states to opt out of the program and a reduction in the amount of money allocated for grants. While not everyone was happy with the final result, the VAMA passed with bipartisan support thanks mainly to the efforts of republicans. The partisan divide over the VAWA highlights the importance of ideology in shaping both public opinion and legislative action.
Party leaders have a significant influence over the role of committees in the formation of the government; as such, their impact on policy formation should not be underestimated. In the case of the VAWA, the party leadership was essential for its passage. First, when assigning committee jurisdiction to the VAWA, party leaders played an essential role in delineating the committees and consolidating them with similar and overlapping functions (Polsby, 2016). This allowed for a comprehensive approach to address issues of violence against women. Second, assigning exclusive oversight responsibilities to relevant committees was essential to the passage of the VAWA. With this, it was easier to maintain the legislation’s momentum (Polsby, 2016). Party leadership was integral in doing this and helped move the VAWA from committee to a successful passage. Finally, party leaders had to develop a consensus on addressing violence against women within their respective caucuses. This was done through coalition building and compromise between different ideological factions (Polsby, 2016). This enabled party leadership to craft and passing the VAWA, which is essential in protecting women from violence.
done in as little as 1 hour
In the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, Congress employed an unorthodox lawmaking process vastly different from the traditional legislative order. Barbara Sinclair argues in her book “Unorthodox Lawmaking” that this new form of policy-making had a significant role in the passage of VAWA and its subsequent success in combating violence against women. Sinclair (2017) explains that the decision to take an unorthodox approach to lawmaking was a strategic move by advocates and congressional leaders, who needed to find ways to overcome the ideological divisions in Congress over the VAWA. In contrast to traditional legislative order, which relies on committees, hearings, and floor debates, unorthodox lawmaking uses a variety of mechanisms to bypass these obstacles and bring the bill to the floor for a vote. This included tactics such as attaching VAWA to other bills, making it easier for Congress to pass the VAWA by combining it with legislation they already supported.
The regular order of lawmaking would dictate that the bill goes through committee hearings and markups before being brought to a vote on the floor of the House or Senate. However, this process has only sometimes been followed. In some cases, party leaders have bypassed regular order and brought the bill straight to a vote. This has led to contention among lawmakers, with some arguing that regular order should be followed and others asserting that unorthodox lawmaking is necessary to pass meaningful legislation. One notable instance of this occurred in 2012 when then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid brought the VAMA of 2012 directly to the floor for a vote (94th Congress). The bill had been reported out of committee with bipartisan support, but some contentious provisions were still included. Despite this, Reid decided to bypass regular orders and bring the bill to a vote. It ultimately passed with strong bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Obama.
Mayhew’s electoral connection to the VAVA (113th Congress) was significant. As a member of Congress, he was a strong supporter of the legislation and helped to secure its passage. However, Mayhew also played a significant role in shaping public opinion on the issue. In the months leading up to the vote, he spoke out against domestic violence and sexual assault, raising awareness of the issue and helping to build support for the legislation. His efforts paid off: when the bill came up for a vote, it passed overwhelmingly, with bipartisan support (Johnston, 2015). The media have widely recognized Mayhew’s work on this issue, and he has frequently been interviewed on television and radio about the importance of the VAMA. Mayhew’s clear commitment to this issue indicates that he believes that the public/media play an essential role in raising awareness of domestic violence and promoting policies that will help to prevent it. Mayhew’s work on the VAMA is a perfect example of his commitment to protecting women’s rights. He said, “violence against women is an issue that transcends party lines, and I am proud to have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this important legislation (Johnston, 2015).” Thanks to Mayhew’s efforts, the VAMA is making a difference in women’s lives across the country.
In his book, Pivotal Politics, Keith Krehbiel analyzes various theories of lawmaking to explain the passage of this vital act. Krehbiel (2021) applies crucial theories such as Pivotal Politics (p. 39), Responsible Party Government (p. 47), and Conditional Party Government (p.50-51) to understand how an alliance between Democrats and some Republicans was able to pass VAWA over unified Republican opposition. Specifically, the theory of Conditional Party Government suggests that VAWA was passed because Democratic legislators did not have sufficient votes to pass it alone, thus forming a coalition with Republicans who were sympathetic to their cause. Krehbiel (2021) also uses the Median Voter Theorem to explore the role of ideology in the passage of VAWA. According to this theory, when legislators’ preferences are spread along a single dimension, the chosen policy is likely closer to the median legislator’s preference (p. 44). In other words, because most legislators support some form of Violence Against Women legislation, they had the incentive to pass VAWA, which was in line with the preferences of their constituents.
according to your instructions
Finally, Krehbiel (2021) also examines the role of Divided vs. Unified Government in the passage of VAWA. He suggests that because a Democratic president (Bill Clinton) was in power at the time, it gave them leverage to pass legislation and allowed Democrats and sympathetic Republicans to form a coalition (2021). His analysis provides insight into how various theories of lawmaking helped ally with Democrats and some Republicans to pass this critical piece of legislation over unified Republican opposition. His analysis demonstrates that ideology plays a significant role in determining policy outcomes.
The President’s role in the VAMA (113th Congress) was unusual. While most laws are passed through regular order, they originate in the House of Representatives and are then considered by the Senate, and this law was first introduced in the Senate. This meant it bypassed the usual committee process, allowing Congress members to review and amend legislation before the total chamber votes. In addition, the President actively pushed for the bill’s passage, even going so far as to address a joint session of Congress on the issue. President Joe Biden supported the bill by reiterating that power needs to be given to women, and they should be allowed to exercise their power (Montgomery, 2018). The President has played an instrumental role in advocating for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
In 2013, the Secretary of Education sent a Dear Colleague letter to all chief state school officers calling upon them to take action against sexual assault, intimate partner or teen dating violence, stalking, and other forms of gender-based violence. The Vice President launched the 1is2many initiative in September 2011 on Twitter and through the White House website with a call to college students to take actions against dating violence and sexual assault (The administration’s record on Violence Against Women). In July 2011, Vice President Biden launched the “Apps Against Abuse” technology challenge – a nationwide competition to develop an innovative software application or “App” that provides young adults with tools to help prevent sexual assault and dating violence.
In conclusion, the regular order of the lawmaking process failed the 113th Congress when they tried to pass the VAMA. The bill included provisions that would have expanded the definition of “violence against women” to include stalking and cyberstalking. Some senators felt that this expansion was unnecessary and would lead to an increase in false reports. In addition, the bill would have created a new crime of “domestic violence” and increased penalties for those convicted of this offense. The regular order process includes committee hearings where both sides can debate the merits of the bill, markups where amendments can be proposed and voted on, and finally, a vote by the full chamber. However, in this case, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used an unorthodox method known as “reconciliation” to pass the bill. This process bypassed committee hearings and markups and allowed the bill to be passed with a simple majority vote. As a result, the bill was passed without opponents’ input and amendments.
References
Bowler, S. (2009). Electoral systems. In S. A. Binder, R. A. W. Rhodes, & B. A. Rockman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions (1st ed., pp. 577–594). Oxford University Press. Web.
Hanson, E. J., & Sacco, L. N. (2021). The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization: Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service. Web.
Johnston, T. M. (2015). All Politics is Local: Reexamining Representation and the Electoral Connection (dissertation). Berkeley, Berkeley.
Krehbiel, K. (2021). Pivotal Politics: A theory of you. S. Lawmaking. University of Chicago Press.
Laver, M. (2009). Legislatures and parliaments in a comparative context. The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy, pp. 121–140. Web.
Modi, M. N., Palmer, S., & Armstrong, A. (2014). The role of violence against women acts in addressing intimate partner violence: A public health issue. Journal of Women’s Health, 23(3), 253–259. Web.
Montgomery, B. E. E. (2018). Human rights: The violence against women act reauthorization is due. American Journal of Public Health, 108(11), 1490–1492. Web.
Polsby, N. W. (2016). The institutionalization of the U.S. House of representatives. JSTOR. Web.
Senk, K. (2022). When do women represent women’s rights: Exploring seniority and political security. Politics, Groups, and Identities, pp. 1–21. Web.
Sinclair, B. (2017). Unorthodox lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress. Sage CQ Press.
The administration’s record on Violence Against Women. (n.d.). Combating Sexual Assault and Dating Violence. National Archives and Records Administration. Web.
The violence against women act (vawa): Historical overview, funding, and reauthorization. (2019). Web.