[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 153 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>






114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 153

  Expressing the sense of Congress that a day should be designated as 
            ``National Voting Rights Act Mobilization Day''.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 15, 2016

  Ms. Fudge (for herself, Ms. Adams, Mrs. Beatty, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. 
 Butterfield, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Conyers, Mr. 
 Cummings, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. 
  Hastings, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Honda, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Johnson of 
 Georgia, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Moore, Ms. Norton, 
Mr. Payne, Ms. Pingree, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Richmond, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. 
  David Scott of Georgia, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Serrano, Ms. Sewell of 
   Alabama, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Veasey, and Mrs. Watson 
   Coleman) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION


 
  Expressing the sense of Congress that a day should be designated as 
            ``National Voting Rights Act Mobilization Day''.

Whereas the affirmation of the Declaration of Independence that ``all men are 
        created equal'' too often has been disregarded throughout our Nation's 
        history;
Whereas voting is the fundamental political right because it is ``preservative 
        of all rights'';
Whereas the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution prohibit 
        racial discrimination in voting by the States;
Whereas when Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, certain States 
        employed tests and devices that were race-neutral on their face but were 
        used to prevent racial minorities from registering and voting;
Whereas when Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, certain States and 
        their political subdivisions had resorted to substituting new 
        discriminatory practices for ones that were enjoined by the Federal 
        courts, requiring aggrieved plaintiffs to assume the burden of repeated 
        litigation to vindicate their fourteenth and fifteenth amendment rights;
Whereas Congress enacted section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to require 
        certain States and political subdivisions to submit new or modified 
        voting practices for Federal review before they can be used;
Whereas Congress reauthorized section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in 
        1970, 1975, and 1982 after finding a continuing pattern of racial 
        discrimination in voting by the covered jurisdictions;
Whereas the Supreme Court repeatedly has upheld section 5 against constitutional 
        challenges, and pointed to section 5 as a model for the appropriate 
        exercise of Congress's enforcement authority under the Reconstruction 
        Amendments;
Whereas section 5 has proven to be one of the most effective provisions of the 
        Voting Rights Act of 1965 in blocking and deterring many thousands of 
        discriminatory voting practices that would have denied or abridged the 
        ability of minority citizens to register, vote, and elect candidates of 
        their choice;
Whereas Congress in 2006 reauthorized section 5 by overwhelming margins based 
        upon an extensive record of continued racial voting discrimination 
        within the covered jurisdictions;
Whereas section 5 continues to require Federal review for changes in all or part 
        of 16 States with histories of official discrimination, where the 
        legislative record showed that the bulk of racial voting discrimination 
        has remained concentrated;
Whereas States and political subdivisions that show a clean recent record of 
        voting rights compliance can ``bail out'' from section 5 coverage;
Whereas there are ongoing election problems in both the covered and the non-
        covered States which urgently require the attention of Congress, 
        including voting delays, badly designed and executed voter purges, 
        unduly restrictive voter identification laws, and deceptive and 
        intimidating phone calls, flyers, and billboards, but these problems do 
        not necessarily require the non-covered States to comply with the 
        section 5 preclearance remedy;
Whereas section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 remains necessary to protect 
        the hard-won gains in minority electoral participation in the covered 
        States since 1965 against the imposition of new racially discriminatory 
        voting practices;
Whereas the Supreme Court's holding in Shelby County v. Holder severely 
        undermined the effectiveness of section 5;
Whereas in the wake of this decision voting rights have come under increased 
        attack in States across the country; and
Whereas the first Monday in October would be an appropriate day for the Nation 
        to focus upon the historic and continuing importance of the Voting 
        Rights Act of 1965 in ensuring equality at the ballot box: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that a day should be designated as 
``National Voting Rights Act Mobilization Day'', to remind all 
Americans of the critical role that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 
continues to play in protecting the right to vote, and for them to 
voice their support for this landmark civil rights law.
                                 <all>