[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FIELD HEARING ON VOTING RIGHTS AND ELECTION ADMINISTRATION IN GEORGIA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 19, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
https://govinfo.gov/committee/house-administration
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-653 WASHINGTON: 2019
C O N T E N T S
----------
FEBRUARY 19, 2019
Page
Field Hearing on Voting Rights and Election Administration in
Georgia........................................................ 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairwoman Marcia L. Fudge....................................... 1
Prepared statement of Chairwoman Fudge....................... 3
WITNESSES
Ms. Stacey Abrams, CEO and Founder, Fair Fight Action............ 4
Prepared statement by Ms. Abrams............................. 7
Ms. Gilda Daniels, Direction of Litigation, Advancement Project.. 17
Prepared statement of Ms. Daniels............................ 20
Mr. Sean J. Young, Legal Director, Georgia ACLU.................. 26
Prepared statement of Mr. Young.............................. 28
Ms. Stacey Hopkins, Fulton County Voter.......................... 100
Prepared statement of Ms. Hopkins............................ 102
Mr. Cliff Albright, Co-Founder, Black Voters Matter.............. 104
Prepared statement of Mr. Albright........................... 106
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Ms. Tracy Adkinson, President, League of Women Voters of Georgia,
statement...................................................... 132
FIELD HEARING ON VOTING RIGHTS AND ELECTION ADMINISTRATION IN GEORGIA
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Elections,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:38 a.m., at
The Carter Center, 453 John Lewis Freedom Parkway NE, Atlanta,
Georgia, 30307, Hon. Marcia L. Fudge [Chair of the
Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Fudge and Aguilar.
Also Present: Representatives Lewis, Johnson of Georgia,
Richmond, Sewell, and Bishop of Georgia.
Staff Present: Eddie Flaherty, Director of Operations; Sean
Jones, Legislative Clerk; David Tucker, Parliamentarian; Khalil
Abboud, Deputy Staff Director; Elizabeth Hira, Elections
Counsel; Peter Whippy, Communications Director; Veleter Mazyck,
Chief of Staff, Office of Representative Fudge; Evan Dorner,
Office of Representative Aguilar; and Courtney Parella,
Minority Communications Director.
Chairwoman Fudge. The Subcommittee on Elections of the
Committee on House Administration will come to order. On behalf
of our Chairperson, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, I would like to thank the
Members of the Subcommittee, Pete Aguilar, and my colleagues
from the House who are here with us today, as well as our
witnesses and all those in the audience, for being here this
morning.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members have five
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and that
written statements be made a part of the record.
Mr. Aguilar. So moved.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
My name is Marcia Fudge, and I am the Subcommittee
Chairwoman on Elections. I want to thank my colleagues, our
witnesses, and the people of Georgia for joining us here today.
I also want to thank my distinguished colleague who is
going to be here shortly, Rep. John Lewis, a living hero of the
Civil Rights movement, for welcoming us so warmly to his
district as we continue this important work.
I cannot think of a better place to continue our discussion
on why all sections of the Voting Rights Act are still
essential to ensuring all Americans can exercise their
Constitutional right to vote than in this State, the State of
Georgia.
After the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v.
Holder, Georgia moved quickly and aggressively to roll back
voting rights. Between 2012 and 2016, 750,000 more names were
purged from the voter rolls. Then, from 2008 to 2012, of the
159 counties in the State, 156 reported increased removal
rates, including in the State's most populous counties.
Just last year, the State attempted to close seven out of
nine polling places in majority black Randolph County. Georgia
has closed more than 200 polling places statewide since 2012.
We have with us today Georgians who are right in the middle
of the fight for justice:
Stacey Abrams, whose activism and campaigns have brought
national attention to Georgia.
Stacey Hopkins, who will be joining us on the next panel,
an active voter who was illegally purged from the rolls.
Sean Young, a litigator from the ACLU who has represented
disfranchised voters all over the State.
Cliff Albright, cofounder of Black Voters Matter, whose
group speaks up for the vulnerable and marginalized Black
communities.
Lastly, Gilda Daniels of the Advancement Project, who
fights for us all over the country, including Georgia.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
I look forward to your testimony, and I thank you on behalf
of the people of the United States.
Ms. Abrams, welcome. The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF STACEY ABRAMS, CEO AND FOUNDER, FAIR FIGHT ACTION,
AND FORMER HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADER, GEORGIA HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Ms. Abrams. Thank you, Chairwoman Fudge and Committee
Members. I appreciate the opportunity to address this hearing
today.
I hold the right to vote to be the most fundamental
privilege of a citizen. My parents, who were active in the
civil rights movement, instilled in their six children a
reverence for the franchise and an obligation to protect it.
I do not view this responsibility as partisan. When
credible nonpartisan issues on voting arise, I have worked with
all comers to identify the most effective means to guarantee
access. Likewise, when legislators and others sought to
unfairly restrict the right to vote, I worked hard to defeat
it.
In addition to standing as a candidate for governor in
2018, I served in the role of minority leader for 7 years,
where I had a broad view of the challenges facing voters across
the State.
Moreover, as the founder of the New Georgia Project, one of
the State's largest third-party voter registration
organizations, I have firsthand experience with the obstacles
embedded in the registration process, as managed by the prior
secretary of state, Brian Kemp.
Moreover, as a longtime advocate for voting rights, I am
deeply concerned about the impact on our democracy if action is
not taken immediately to support access to voting rights for
all eligible citizens.
On November 6, 2018, Georgia experienced unprecedented
turnout in its midterm election. Communities long isolated from
the electoral process cast their ballots, including increases
in voting across racial and ethnic groups and age groups. Most
fairly, this surge should be attributed to those grassroots
organizations that work hard not only during election cycles
but year-round to build civic engagement and to broaden
participation in the polity of Georgia.
While this dramatic increase in voter participation should
be celebrated, the rise in turnout cannot be allowed to mask a
more troubling trend. Voters, many of whom were first-time
voters, experienced numerous issues with being located on the
voting rolls, receiving and returning absentee ballots, and
were given a disturbing number of provisional ballots rather
than being allowed to vote unhindered.
In some areas, the elections officials refused to provide
provisional ballots, citing a shortage of paper. In counties,
polling locations ran out of provisional ballots and backup
paper ballots.
Frustrated voters received inaccurate information regarding
their rights, and thousands of voters were forced to vote using
provisional ballots due to long lines.
An untold number simply gave up, unable to bear the
financial cost of waiting in line, because Georgia does not
guarantee paid time off to vote.
Across the State, voters faced obstacles that shook their
confidence in the electoral process, leading to more than
50,000 calls to a local voter protection hotline in the 10-day
period immediately following the election. From issues with
registration, to ballot access, to the counting of votes,
Georgians faced a systemic breakdown in its electoral process.
In response, on November 16, while I acknowledged the
outcome of the election, I also called upon my fellow Georgians
to join me in pursuing a fair and equitable system that
operated effectively, efficiently, and equally through the
entity Fair Fight Action. I did so in full awareness of a
decade of actions that had undermined the election system,
often misappropriating existing laws or operating in ways that
faced legal challenge.
While several of these Federal lawsuits worked, the
secretary of state and others pushed through local laws to
restore obstacles to voting.
Yet, we must recognize that Georgia's experience, while
singular, is not unique. In 2013, with the effective neutering
of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, States and localities raced to
restore or manufacture new blocks on voting. Unfortunately,
Georgia has been a leader in this endeavor.
However, this attack on voting rights is not new. Though
the speed of constraints quickened in the years after the
Shelby decision, for Georgians voter ID laws came first,
followed by an increase in closed or consolidated precincts,
assault on third-party registrations, database challenges that
spoiled legitimate registrations, vulnerable or inadequate
equipment, and lax oversight of county application of State
laws, leading to disparate treatment based on county lines.
Incompetence and malfeasance operate in tandem, and the
sheer complexity of the State's voting apparatus smooths voter
suppression into a nearly seamless system that targets voter
registration, ballot access, and ballot counting.
Madam Chairwoman, I know that my time is about to expire,
but I would like to extend my remarks, if possible.
Chairwoman Fudge. Please go forward.
Ms. Abrams. Thank you.
Over again, these hurdles have had their desired effect. In
Georgia, the then secretary of state purged more than 1 million
voters, oversaw local closures of more than 200 precincts, held
the registrations of 53,000 using the flawed process of exact
match, and presided over what some report as the longest voting
lines for Black voters in the Nation. Naturalized citizens had
to sue for their newly secured rights, and organizations
continue to fight for ballots in multiple languages.
Unfortunately, Georgia also neglected its elections
infrastructure, resulting in vulnerable, sometimes inoperable
machines that were inadequately distributed to communities.
Multiple times the lines drawn for districts have been
misapplied or miscommunicated, forcing do-over elections or
disqualifying otherwise eligible candidates.
In isolation, each example is troubling, as it represents a
voter who could not fully participate in the body politic.
Combined, they represent the disenfranchisement of Georgia
voters in general and targeted communities of color or low-
income neighborhoods in particular.
Our goal is to reform Georgia's election management system
by ensuring that voters who are duly eligible to register are
not unfairly blocked or unfairly thrown off the rolls. Georgia
must maintain an accurate, functioning voter registration list.
In Georgia and around the country, the closure or
consolidation of precincts unfairly punishes those who have
challenges with transportation or who have other issues,
including physical disability. Voters should be able to fully
participate in lawful processes, such as absentee ballots.
However, many reported failure to receive duly applied-for
ballots.
Counting duly cast votes is also an uncertainty in Georgia.
A disturbing number of absentee ballots were rejected in 2018.
And previously, the former secretary of state used the lawful
right to absentee voting to target and prosecute citizens.
In addition, Georgia has a provisional ballot system that
is inconsistently applied. Administrative issues plague the
process, including allowing different standards for the
administration of elections in each of Georgia's 159 counties.
In addition, Georgia should be compelled to replace
insecure and unreliable voting machines with paper ballots and
to do so with a procurement process that does not unduly enrich
any allies of the leaders of the State.
We would also benefit from a true statewide election
supervisor who applies uniform standards and adequate resources
for training and election administration.
Georgia is the cradle of the Civil Rights movement and we
are capable of conducting free and fair elections with record
turnout. Yet, on Election Day, voters faced extremely long
lines; registered voters were missing from the rolls; insecure,
inadequate, and malfunctioning voting machines; insufficient
provisional ballots; and election staff who were ill-equipped
to meet voters' needs. These are all issues that can be solved
by people of goodwill who recognize that no electoral process
is perfect, but that perfection should be the goal.
I am fighting for fair elections with the deepest
recognition that improving our system will not change the
outcome of November 6, 2018. However, as a citizen of Georgia
and as an American who believes in our system of representative
democracy, I am obliged to do all in my power to advocate for
an end to voter suppression in all its forms and in all its
spaces.
On behalf of millions of Georgians, I express our gratitude
to this Committee for your willingness to investigate and
understand the threats embedded in our State's electoral
apparatus. Together, we can press forward for an electoral
system that truly represents and listens to its people.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
[The Statement of Ms. Abrams follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very, very much.
First off, thank you for your time. I know it was a little
difficult with some of the shifts we were making, so we
appreciate it.
Let me just say to you that, on behalf of us all, and
especially the work that is going to be done by Representative
Sewell and Representative Lewis with their bill and the work we
are doing, we are here because of what happened in 2016. We are
here because we are going to make it right. At some point, we
are going to make it right. You know, as they say at home, we
are going to fix it, I promise you we will.
I wonder, if you just have a few minutes, I will allow just
a quick question from each one of our Members. Do you have time
for that?
Ms. Abrams. Absolutely.
Chairwoman Fudge. We will start with my colleague on the
Committee, Representative Pete Aguilar of California.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Ms. Abrams. We appreciate your
testimony.
I wanted to ask you about the chilling effect--I know you
have so much history and knowledge on voter registration
efforts. Can you talk about the chilling effect for ongoing
voter registration efforts that exact matches and all these
signature issues play in, and ongoing effects that that is
going to have on voter registration efforts?
Ms. Abrams. Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman, for the
question.
As the founder of the New Georgia Project, I am proud of
the work we have done to register more than 200,000 new
Georgians during my tenure as the leader of the organization.
Since that time, I believe another hundred thousand-plus have
been added to the rolls.
However, what we experienced through the exact match system
necessitated that our organization keep paper records of all
applications and this is despite the fact Georgia offers online
registration.
The challenge with online registration is that there is no
adequate way to monitor and maintain that voters who apply are
processed.
Therefore, we maintain paper copies, which the Secretary of
State, then Secretary of State Kemp disparaged, but which is
the only reason we were able to in 2016 file suit to discover
his illegal, what we would say is unlawful use of the exact
match system.
It unfairly captures people of color and women, it has a
disproportionate effect on people of color, and it has a
chilling effect, because these are communities that are least
likely to register but for third-party registrations.
We have to add to that the fact that under Secretary of
State Kemp two organizations of color were raided by his
office, challenged for their very active registering of these
new voters.
So what I would say is, yes, there is a chilling effect
because of exact match, but also because of the hostility
demonstrated by the then Secretary of State towards the active
registration. Unless you did it his way and the right people
were registered, he displayed a disparaging and I think deeply
disturbing response to registration.
He would argue that he increased registrations, and I would
certainly point out that registrations increased despite his
behavior, not because of it.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you.
Chairwoman Fudge. Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Ms. Abrams, you have had a long history of fighting and
working for the expansion of voter participation and
registration. Of course, the work that you did with the New
Georgia Project was extraordinary.
Early on, you experienced some pushback from the then
Secretary of State, and a number of those 200,000 were
disqualified. You also discovered that Georgia's system of
allowing the Motor Vehicle Bureau, when a person applies for a
driver's license, to have their information sent automatically
for voter registration, I believe during the course of that you
discovered that that information was not being transferred to
the Secretary of State's office, and if it was it was not being
recorded.
I think you also discovered that there were some cases of
prosecution of individuals who availed themselves of the lawful
absentee voter process in Brooks County, for example, which
resulted in a SWAT team descending on the county after the
election where school board members, a majority of the school
board was elected by minorities, and held the school board.
Subsequently, shortly after they took office, they were
indicted. And, of course, there was a 2-year waiting period
between the time of the indictment and the time they finally
went to trial and were acquitted, which had the effect of a 2-
year chilling effect.
Could you discuss that and perhaps even some of the
irregularities in Early County, similar circumstances?
Ms. Abrams. I think what is important to articulate in this
process is that these are not isolated incidents, that the
behavior that was evidenced over the course of a decade by the
then Secretary of State demonstrated a deep disregard for the
voting rights of all Georgia citizens.
What you described is often referred to colloquially as the
Quitman 10: 10 people who during the process of trying to stand
up for their children and their community successfully
advocated for voter turnout levels that allowed African
Americans to sit on the school board at numbers previously
unseen.
In response, they were arrested. They were harassed and
many lost their jobs. Several were never able to reclaim their
good names. One person, I believe, was permanently
disenfranchised despite the fact not a single case was found--
not a single person was found to be guilty during the process
of the litigation.
Similarly, in Hancock County, when too many African
Americans showed up to vote in 2014, the current Chair of the
Judiciary Committee in the Georgia House of Representatives,
Barry Fleming, who is also the purveyor of legislation that
will further, I think, extend disenfranchisement, he authorized
the following home of African American voters to investigate
whether they were lawful voters in Hancock County and this
investigation was conducted sometimes by the sheriffs.
It is not simply a chilling effect; it is an intimidation
effect and what we have to understand is these are Georgians,
these are American citizens whose lawful right to cast a ballot
has been constrained by his behavior.
I know that others who will be testifying can provide
deeper information, but I will say this: We must understand
that voter suppression is not simply a momentary act. It is a
system of disconnecting our citizens from the policies that
govern their lives. If we want communities to stand up for
more, they must be allowed to speak up when they stand up.
Mr. Bishop. Can I just get you to follow up and talk about
the inability to monitor the actual counting of votes, because
the system does not have a paper trail?
Ms. Abrams. I will say that at 3 p.m. today, the State
legislature will be considering legislation that has been put
forward that would trade our currently inoperable, vulnerable,
and hackable system for a further hackable system at a higher
price tag that will then actually benefit colleagues of the
current Governor.
But here is the point: We do not have an auditable trail in
Georgia. We cannot audit our elections. We cannot prove that
the votes cast are the votes counted. And when you have no
faith in the system, you have no reason to participate in the
system. And that chilling effect should be worrisome to us all.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very much.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank the
people who are here on this very important issue.
Thank you, Senator Abrams, for--I am sorry, Governor
Abrams. I don't know, whatever the decision might be. I know
that there is going to be a prefix in front of that name.
I very much appreciate the work that you are doing with
Fair Fight. I don't know if you have spoken about that yet this
morning, but if you could give us a few words about that. But I
also want you to educate the panel on the undercount, the
drastic undercount that took place in the Lieutenant Governor's
race and tell us what your organization is doing in that
regard.
Ms. Abrams. Certainly.
Fair Fight is a nonpartisan voting rights advocacy
organization. I am proud to serve as our founder and chair. The
CEO is Lauren Groh-Wargo.
What we attempt to do in all parts of the State is to lift
up the issue of fair voting, making certain that there is
equitable, efficient, and truly equal access to the right to
vote in the State of Georgia.
It is also about connecting the right to vote to the very
policies that the right to vote undergirds. We know that, for
example, in the 2018 election, in the lieutenant governor
election, there was statistically significant drop-off and
undercount that almost specifically affected African Americans.
It was a statistically significant drop-off because it did not
occur in any other race other than the Lieutenant Governor's
race.
Now, the reason for that could be numerous. The challenge
is, to Congressman Bishop's point, there is no way to find out
what the problem was, because Georgia has machines that do not
provide an audit trail. Unfortunately, the current machines
under suggestion have similar flaws.
We must have a system that allows for paper ballots and for
hand counting of these elections, because machines are
insufficient to guarantee access to the right to vote in the
State of Georgia.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very much.
Mr. Richmond of Louisiana.
Mr. Richmond. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. It is always
good to be back in my second home. I went to Morehouse, and it
is great to always talk to my Spelman sister.
In your experience, let me just ask a very pointed
question, because we are here without the protections of the
Voting Rights Act, more particularly Section 4(b) and 5.
My first question would be, when that was designed and
enacted, the formula was all about jurisdictions that had tests
and devices to keep people from voting. So fast forward to
today. We have to talk about the new conditions and where we
are now.
My question would be, one, in your experience, does Section
2 provide an adequate remedy when you see a problem being acted
before the consequences are too dire? And the follow-up of that
would be, instead of poll tests and other things, what are, if
you could just--in your testimony you say it--but if you could
just specifically and quickly articulate what has now become
the new test and barriers, it would be very helpful.
Ms. Abrams. Certainly. I certainly know there are
additional lawyers who will speak to this more specifically but
here is what I would say.
Section 2 essentially says that a bad action can be used as
a predicate to argue that a new bad action cannot be taken. The
challenge there is that you have to have someone
disenfranchised before you can fight to make certain that
someone else isn't disenfranchised but that means that someone
lost their right to vote. That means that communities were
disallowed from having a voice in their community.
The beauty of Section 5 said that before you commit harm,
you had to be held to a higher standard. Section 2 says once
harm has been committed you have the ability to argue that it
shouldn't be repeated, and, therefore, it is an insufficient
standard for a Nation that is grounded in the notion of
democracy. Representative democracy is the way to push forward
our thoughts and ideas as citizens.
The poll tax issue is this. In the State of Georgia, for
example, you do not receive paid time off to vote. You cannot
be fired from your job for going to vote, but you do not
receive paid time off.
On its own, that seems potentially sufficient, but Georgia
has a disproportionately high number of service workers,
meaning those who are very much paycheck-to-paycheck workers.
In the State of Georgia, if you are African American, you are
more likely to face long lines, sometimes to the level of 4
hours. That is half a day's pay.
For families living paycheck to paycheck, losing an entire
day or half a day's pay--and that doesn't take into account the
time it takes you to get to your polling place and the time to
get back to your job--that is an economic cost that is
quantifiable and, therefore, I believe should be allocated as a
poll tax, which we have said under the 15th Amendment should be
unlawful in the United States of America.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
Representative Sewell of Alabama.
Ms. Sewell. First, a point of personal privilege. I just
want to say to Leader Abrams that you did all of us proud in
your campaign, in your run for Governor, and I wish you much
success in all your future endeavors. All I can say is black
girl magic.
[Applause.]
Ms. Sewell. As a daughter of Selma, I have to say that,
when Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it had a
dramatic effect on allowing African Americans and people of
color, those who were the minorities in their communities, to
have access to the ballot box and, thus, a voice. In fact, the
number of folks that registered increased exponentially. In
places like Marion, Alabama, Perry County, where only 6 percent
of African Americans were registered, it went to something like
80 percent.
In your position as leader, minority leader in the Georgia
State Legislature, after the Shelby v. Holder decision did you
see a dramatic increase in activity by the State legislature to
add further restrictions on voting, such that it made it harder
for folks to vote?
The Supreme Court said in its Shelby decision that our
formula was outdated and that really there was no cause for us
to discriminate against certain States for prior actions.
So I would love to know your thoughts as a legislator, a
State legislator, whether or not the decision had a chilling
effect or did it allow a lot of State laws to be imposed that
were discriminatory. That would go to the heart of whether we
need to, as a Congress, put back in place a formula and put the
teeth back into Section 4.
Ms. Abrams. So here is how I would frame it. In the State
of Georgia, the Shelby decision did have a very insidious
effect. But what we need to remember is that it not only
governed the actions of State legislatures, it governed the
actions of appointed folks or other elected officials,
including secretaries of state and county officials.
What is so pervasive in the State of Georgia with regards
to diminishing the right to vote was that it was the Secretary
of State who had almost unilateral authority to, I would say,
manipulate existing State law, but then impose his own policies
that were not subject to public review or to judicial review or
the judiciary review of the Department of Justice. And,
therefore, without passing a single new law, he took existing
laws and used those laws as weapons against their own people.
During my tenure as leader, we had a very effective
relationship with the majority party, and I was able to
forestall, working in cooperation with members of both my party
and the other party, to forestall more deleterious legislation,
unlike legislation that passed in North Carolina and Texas and
in your home State of Alabama.
We did see in 2017 probably the most perverse expansion of
this power, which is that a Federal judge said that exact match
had a disproportionate effect on people of color and women, and
the secretary of state agreed not to use the system for
approximately a couple of months. He then came to the
legislature and said: ``Please put into law that which I
consented not to use.'' There was no judicial review.
So I think it is important for us to restore Section 5
because we have a complicated system in our country.
Representative democracy doesn't simply happen at the
Congressional or State legislative level, it happens at every
level of elected and appointed government.
Ms. Sewell. Does that rise to the level of needing Federal
oversight?
Ms. Abrams. Absolutely, because that Federal oversight--and
this goes to Congressman Richmond's question--that oversight
allows us to cure problems before harm is caused.
Under the current system, harm must exist, and that harm
has deeply deleterious, longstanding. and deep-reaching
effects.
Going to Congressman Bishop's question, the effect on the
Quitman 10 did not simply harm those folks. It diminished
participation in the elections plus it limited and had a
chilling effect on voters and it hurt children who deserve to
have voices at the table looking out for their best interest.
That is fundamentally what democracy is about, speaking for the
people.
Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
Ms. Abrams, we want to thank you not just for being here
today, but for the work you have done for many years, for your
dedication and your commitment to the people of Georgia and
this Nation.
We will be back in touch with you. We want to go across the
country. We have many more of these hearings to have in other
States. We are going to ensure by the time we get to 2020 we
will not be dealing with the same issues that we are dealing
with today.
[Applause.]
Chairwoman Fudge. I just want to--there is a young man
sitting in the audience that I met this morning. He came and
introduced himself to me. His name is Niles. He is in the 11th
grade. I don't even know why he is not in school.
You have learned a lot already this morning, Niles. Keep up
what you are doing and keep being involved.
He starts to talk to me about the ACLU case in Ohio. I am
looking at him like, where did you come from?
But it is people like you, young people like you that are
the next Stacey Abrams. So keep doing what you are doing, young
man.
Again, I thank you so much.
It is time for our next panel.
Thank you very much, Ms. Abrams.
Ms. Abrams. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
[Applause.]
Chairwoman Fudge. Next panel.
We are pleased to begin our second panel. Again, I would
like to introduce our witnesses. They are Stacey Hopkins, an
active voter who was illegally purged from the rolls; Sean
Young, a litigator from the ACLU who has represented
disenfranchised voters all over the State of Georgia; Cliff
Albright, cofounder of Black Voters Matter, whose group speaks
for the vulnerable and marginalized Black communities; and
Gilda Daniels of the Advancement Project.
Welcome all. Each of you will have five minutes to give
your testimony. We will hear all the testimony, and then we
will open it to the panel for questions.
You will see the light system. Green means go; yellow means
prepare to close; red means close as quickly as you can.
Thank you very much.
We would begin today with Ms. Hopkins.
You don't want to start?
I will start down here. All right. All right. Let us start
with Ms. Daniels.
STATEMENTS OF GILDA DANIELS, DIRECTOR OF LITIGATION,
ADVANCEMENT PROJECT; SEAN J. YOUNG, LEGAL DIRECTOR, GEORGIA
ACLU; STACEY HOPKINS, FULTON COUNTY VOTER; AND CLIFF ALBRIGHT,
COFOUNDER, BLACK VOTERS MATTER
STATEMENT OF GILDA DANIELS
Ms. Daniels. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to
provide remarks on voting rights and election administration in
Georgia. My name is Gilda Daniels. I am the litigation director
for the Advancement Project's National Office.
Advancement Project is a national racial justice
organization that partners with grassroots organizations on the
ground to inspire, empower, and develop community-based
solutions. The premise for this approach is based on the
strategies and courage that produced the landmark civil rights
victories of earlier eras that utilize the tools of social
activism to create meaningful change.
Here in Georgia, Advancement Project is proud to partner
with the New Georgia Project to advance voting rights. In
addition to my work at the Advancement Project, I am a tenured
professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law. Also,
most importantly, I am a former deputy chief in the United
States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Voting
Section during the Clinton and Bush administrations.
I have been a voting rights attorney for more than two
decades. I am a member of the State Bar of Georgia and have
been involved in monitoring voting issues in Georgia, including
during the 2018 general elections.
Accordingly, I have watched the cycles of voting rights ebb
and flow, from the expansion of voter registration
opportunities under the National Voter Registration Act to the
proliferation of disenfranchising tools, such as voter ID and
proof of citizenship laws, that are prevalent today.
Through these twists and turns, the primary tool for
ensuring the free and nondiscriminatory access to the right to
vote has been the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Voting Rights
Act has two -- or had two primary provisions: Section 2, which
is essentially the litigation arm of the Voting Rights Act, and
Section 5, which provided Federal oversight in its covered
jurisdictions, and those jurisdictions were determined by a
formula within the Voting Rights Act.
That was found unconstitutional in the 2013 case Shelby
County v. Holder. That is where the United States Supreme Court
found the coverage formula contained in Section 4 of the act
outdated and, therefore, unconstitutional. This was
significant, because Section 4 determined jurisdictions that
were required to make submissions to the Federal Government
under Section 5 of the act, meaning any voting change had to be
submitted to either the Attorney General for the United States
or the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, to ensure that it did not place minority voters in a
worse position, that it was not retrogressive, that it did not
go back.
Jurisdictions like the State of Georgia and many States in
the South--Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, parts of
Florida, parts of North Carolina, Virginia--were all covered
jurisdictions. Removing the requirement that these
jurisdictions submit these voting changes certainly eliminated
a key weapon in the voting rights arsenal.
Section 5 served as a safeguard for discriminatory voting
changes. It was an important prophylactic that prevented
jurisdictions from implementing laws that harmed minority
voters. It provided important oversight for voting changes and
practices. It prevented jurisdictions from implementing laws
without providing notice to minority communities.
Without Section 5, jurisdictions are free to pass and put
laws into place without considering the impact on its citizens.
These laws go into practice and civil rights groups are
burdened with the responsibility of learning of these changes
that were once routinely submitted to the Federal Government.
More importantly, these legal changes happen after the changes
have occurred, not before, as under Section 5.
After the Shelby decision, we saw new restrictions on
voting have been implemented in Southern States that were
previously covered by the Voting Rights Act's preclearance
provisions.
Georgia, in particular, instituted a number of
retrogressive and arguably discriminatory practices, such as
voter identification and proof of citizenship requirements,
cuts to early voting, closed hundreds of polling places in
communities of color, and undertook massive voter purges.
Leading into the 2018 general elections, as Ms. Abrams
described, Georgia placed more than 50,000 voter registrations
on hold, provided inoperable voting machines and untrained poll
workers for its elections. It also designated eligible voters
as noncitizens and then required them to prove otherwise in a
precarious and opaque system.
Prior to the dismantling of the Voting Rights Act in the
Shelby decision, Section 5 would have required Georgia and its
sub jurisdictions to seek preclearance prior to implementing
these changes. If Georgia had been subject to Section 5, many,
if not all, of these practices would have never been
introduced. It would have had the burden of demonstrating that
the proposed practice did not impede the right to vote. The
years of litigation and frustration would have been avoided had
the protections of the Voting Rights Act remained in place.
Without Section 5, civil rights groups and individuals face
the costly task of litigating voting practices after they have
adversely affected communities of color. I saw some of these
problems manifest firsthand while monitoring voting in Georgia
during the November 2018 midterm elections.
Quickly, I again want to thank the Subcommittee for having
this hearing. It is imperative that we develop a Federal
solution that eliminates discriminatory barriers to the ballot
box. Ideally, Congress should restore Federal oversight over
voting changes. I would also add that we also need an
affirmative and explicit right to vote in the United States
Constitution.
I want to thank Chairwoman Fudge and the Subcommittee on
Elections for holding this field hearing. It is time for
Congress to act to reinstate the protections of the Voting
Rights Act.
[The statement of Ms. Daniels follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very much.
[Applause.]
Chairwoman Fudge. Mr. Richmond.
I now recognize Mr. Young.
STATEMENT OF SEAN J. YOUNG
Mr. Young. Good morning. My name is Sean Young, and I am
the legal director of the ACLU of Georgia.
Today, I am going to highlight three areas in which the
Shelby County decision has made it more difficult for people of
color to exercise their right to vote in Georgia, as well as
the strenuous efforts required to beat back these measures
without preclearance. I am speaking based on my personal
knowledge as a voting rights lawyer in Georgia.
I am going to focus on three areas: redistricting, polling
place closures, and early voting cutbacks.
First, discriminatory redistricting. The ACLU of Georgia's
litigation in Sumter County perfectly illustrates the damage
that the Shelby decision has caused. In 2011, 67 percent of the
Sumter County Board of Education was African American.
Then, the General Assembly proposed a plan that would
reduce that percentage to 28 percent. The DOJ did not preclear
the plan, but then the Shelby County decision was handed down,
and that discriminatory plan was put into effect immediately.
The ACLU filed a voting rights lawsuit under Section 2.
Last summer, after 5 years of litigation, the Federal District
Court issued a ruling finding that the plan was discriminatory
and violated the Voting Rights Act.
That is five years of time-consuming litigation, hundreds
if not thousands of attorney hours, and thousands of dollars in
expert fees. That is five years of discriminatory elections
taking place over and over again in Sumter County and that is
five years in which African American school children and their
parents did not have their interests adequately represented in
the board. We are two years away from another round of
redistricting, in which all of this can happen again.
If the preclearance requirement were in place, none of this
would have happened and that plan wouldn't have seen the light
of day.
Second, I am going to talk about discriminatory polling
place closures. In the last two years, the ACLU of Georgia has
had to beat back polling place closures in three counties:
Randolph, Fulton, and Irwin.
Last August, as Chairwoman Fudge mentioned, in Randolph
County the Board of Elections tried to close seven out of nine
polling places in a county that is 60 percent black on the eve
of the State's general elections in 2018.
The ACLU of Georgia wrote a letter threatening to sue if
they moved forward with the plan. And then my Executive
Director, Andrea Young, and I testified at two public hearings
that the board held. Then our partners had to mobilize massive
community opposition to show up at these hearings and express
their opposition. Our media strategy ensured wall-to-wall media
coverage. We quickly put together a lawsuit that could be ready
to go as soon as this plan went into effect and all of that
happened in less than two weeks.
All that had to happen before the board finally relented
and withdrew their proposal. Then we learned it was a
consultant handpicked by the Secretary of State that had
recommended these discriminatory polling place closures, and he
bragged about having closed polling places in 10 different
other counties in rural Georgia. Nine of those 10 are
disproportionately black.
In Fulton County, the Board of Elections voted to close
polling places in neighborhoods that were over 80 percent
African American, affecting over 14,000 voters. Within days,
the ACLU of Georgia filed a lawsuit over the board's violation
of the State's public notice law which nullified that decision.
The fight wasn't over. Our partners had to quickly recruit
dozens of paid neighborhood canvassers to go out in the
community to draw opposition to this plan in less than a month.
It was only after those efforts that the plan was defeated.
In Irwin County, the Board of Elections tried to close the
only polling place that existed in the only Black neighborhood
in the county, contrary to the recommendations of a nonpartisan
association of county commissioners. The board alleged that it
wanted to save money, yet their plan kept open a polling place
at the edge of the county at Jefferson Davis Memorial Park, in
a neighborhood that was 99 percent white.
It was only after the ACLU of Georgia threatened litigation
that they backed down. And those are only three counties.
Georgia has 159. As we all know, over 200 have closed since
Shelby County.
Playing whack-a-mole is not a sustainable strategy to fight
against voting discrimination.
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. Last--and I will wrap up quickly--discriminatory
cutbacks to early voting. I have some personal experience with
this leading ACLU's litigation in Ohio to fight against their
discriminatory early voting cutbacks.
It seems like every year since Shelby County legislators
have been trying to attack early voting, especially early
voting on Sundays, which everyone knows is when African
American churches organize Souls to the Polls.
In 2014, a State representative criticized his county for
allowing Sunday voting, and he wasn't shy about why. He said,
quote: ``This location is dominated by African American
shoppers and it is near several large African American mega
churches,'' unquote. In his view, he said he would, quote,
``prefer more educated voters.''
As these examples illustrate, discriminatory voting changes
have forced lawyers and community activists to scramble to stop
every discriminatory change that pops up, and that is to the
extent that we hear about them. We don't and can't stop all of
them, and that is why we need a new preclearance provision.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Young follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very much.
Ms. Hopkins, are you prepared?
STATEMENT OF STACEY HOPKINS
Ms. Hopkins. I am going to try to do this under five
minutes. It is going to try not to sound like speed reading.
Chairperson Lofgren, Chairwoman Fudge, Ranking Member
Rodney Davis, and Members of the Committee, I would like to
sincerely express my thanks to this body to allow me to testify
today about my experience as a victim of voter suppression.
I need to clarify, I was not purged from the voting rolls.
Thanks to my attorney, Sean Young, and Andrea Young and the
ACLU, we were able to push back, because no one is ever coming
to take something that was so hardly fought from me or anyone
else in Georgia. They will never take my right to vote.
[Applause.]
Ms. Hopkins. It is a position I also never found myself in
my wildest dreams that I would be here in 2019 fighting the
same issues my ancestors have waged since arriving on these
shores of this country in 1619. We were led to believe that the
promise of America, of liberty and justice and freedom, are
extended to us all. In 1965, we were led to believe that we had
a win contained in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Sadly, I am here to say that the fight in opposition to
that has never ended, not in this State, and it has manifested
itself in disturbing ways in Georgia. For black people and for
people of color, we are still viewed as holding second class
citizenship in this State.
The state of our elections and voting rights is a dire
emergency and a crisis of voter confidence. We have sent out
the warning signs for years. I am asking Congress to intervene
to answer this call to protect and defend what was so hard-
fought for and many of us thought won.
I was born in 1963. I am a child of the Civil Rights
movement. And as an adult, I found myself living in Atlanta,
part of the mighty Fifth District, represented by the Honorable
John Lewis. I had always heard about his stories about his
heroic stance on that day, Bloody Sunday, in Selma, Alabama.
In that same year, a Supreme Court decision was argued and
decided, Gray v. Sanders, and it was initiated by a citizen of
the same county I now reside in, by a Mr. James Sanders, who
successfully challenged the use of a statewide election system
found to be a form of voter suppression, in violation of the
14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, the county unit
system. This system undercut and diluted the strength of the
individual voter and violated the constitutional principle of
one person, one vote.
In 2017, I found myself a Fulton County voter challenging
the legality of my State and county for beginning the process
of illegally targeting myself, three of my adult children, and
over 380,000 voters in one action in one year. We were part of
the 1.4 million Georgia voters that were removed since 2012 by
the Georgia Secretary of State's office headed by now Governor
Brian Kemp.
We were to be classified as inactive voters and designated
to be purged off the voting rolls, using a method known as the
postcard trick. I brought one of those postcards in so that
people can see how innocent they look. This is what it looked
like. This is what I received in the mail. [Indicating.]
I can't really explain all the ranges of emotions that I
felt when I saw this notice. I can only best describe it as an
abbreviated version of the stages of grief, except the one
thing that I would never do is accept this. It put in me a
desire and motivation to stand up and fight back against what
can only be called as massive and systemic voter
disenfranchisement that has gone on virtually unchecked from
the days of Reconstruction in Jim Crow to the erosion of the
Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court in its Shelby v. Holder
decision.
The problem in my case, and there is a fundamental question
that I must ask that cannot be answered: What list was I on?
Because, in my case, I moved intercounty, from one county to
another. According to the remedies that are contained in the
National Voter Registration Act of 1993, there was nothing for
me to do other than to update my address with the U.S. Postal
Service, which I did.
The second problem with me receiving one of those notices
is that it said that I would be deemed an inactive voter. I
could not have been deemed an inactive voter if myself and my
children had just voted that same year in the elections that we
were eligible in.
To this date, I was not on crosscheck. I was not on any
list other than the U.S. Postal Service list. If that had been
followed and in accordance with the law, I would have never
received those notices.
I still ask the question: What list were we on? To date, no
one on the State or county level can answer us or have even
attempted to do so.
What was done was done on the orders of the Secretary of
State, now Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, my county Election
Board, headed by Director Richard Barron, by utilizing a list
of selected voters to receive the mailers, but we still don't
know its source. The actual notice indicated that I had moved
and should have been the first clue of a violation of a voting
statute, but we did not hear that.
Long story short, on the eve of our case being heard in
court, I was contacted about a settlement, and I agreed to it
because there was an election upcoming where it was important
that the statuses be reinstated for these voters.
However, we still saw massive and damaging acts of voter
suppression and disenfranchisement from watching poll locations
being closed, by watching people not finding their names on
poll books who have voted for over 50 years. We saw so many
actions that went on.
This is a plea to you, to Congress, to please come in.
There are things that you can do, and the first is repairing,
strengthening the Voting Rights Act.
[The statement of Ms. Hopkins follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very, very much.
Ms. Sewell. Madam Chairwoman, can we also have a copy of
her postcard for the record?
Chairwoman Fudge. Yes. We will pick up the rest of your
testimony as we get to questions.
Ms. Hopkins. Okay. Thank you.
Chairwoman Fudge. You were very good. I don't know why you
were so nervous. [Applause.]
Chairwoman Fudge. Last, Mr. Albright.
STATEMENT OF CLIFF ALBRIGHT
Mr. Albright. Chairwoman Fudge, all Committee Members,
thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am the
cofounder of Black Voters Matter, along with LaTosha Brown. Our
mission is to build power in predominantly Black communities,
and we view elections as one way of doing so.
During 2018, we traveled throughout seven States, seeking
to mobilize Black voters and supporting over 120 community-
based partner groups. These seven States were Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Tennessee, with honorable mentions of Texas, where we spent
just a few days in Harris County.
Collectively, these States form the bulk of the old
Confederacy--the old failed Confederacy--an historical fact
which is very much related to the topic of this hearing. While
each of these States has its own examples of voter suppression
during the recent midterms, the epicenter of voter suppression
was arguably right here in Georgia.
By now, the Committee is familiar with the headlines and we
have talked about some of them: a gubernatorial candidate
refusing to step down as chief election official, instead
presiding over and picking voters in his own election; purging
of 1.5 million voters; holding onto 53,000 voter registrations,
most of which from black voters; inadequate supply of machines,
which themselves are highly problematic; thousands of
provisional ballots not counted; thousands of absentee ballots
either lost or simply not counted; and, of course, what we have
talked about, the closing of polling places throughout the
State.
Which brings me to the events of October 15, 2018, in
Jefferson County, Georgia. We began our day of the voter
mobilization rally at a senior center. We shared our message of
love and power with dozens of seniors who were excited to
participate.
In fact, the group was so excited that the rally moved into
the parking lot, where we added some music and had a good old-
fashioned dance party as the seniors sang along with James
Brown: ``Say it loud. I am black and I am proud.''
The group then asked if they could ride our bus, the
blackest bus in America, to go early vote at the polling place
just down the street. Before we could depart, the center's
director received a call from the county administrator stating
that the seniors could not ride the bus to go vote.
In the interest of time, I will spare the Committee the
administrator's inadequate and racist response, but will gladly
discuss during Q&A.
Ours wasn't the only vehicle to be blocked from providing
rides to the polls. In Cordele, Georgia, one of our partners
was providing rides to the polls when he was given a parking
ticket by a state trooper. I repeat, a state trooper gave him a
parking ticket and then proceeded to call for backup, resulting
in a total of seven patrol cars, five of which were state
troopers.
What we have seen is a pattern of intimidation, and one of
the most aggressive entities has been the Secretary of State's
office itself. The office has an investigative unit which has
pursued several high-profile yet frivolous cases against
effective voting rights organizations. We mentioned one
earlier, in terms of the New Georgia Project.
Moreover, these armed investigators often conduct home
visits to individual voters or activists, knowing that their
pointless visits can have a chilling effect on civic
engagement. In fact, just a few days ago, just a few days
before this hearing, one of these investigators visited the
community organizer who had invited us to Jefferson County. She
is here with us today.
The intimidation doesn't stop on Election Day. On November
13, a week after the election, in the rotunda of the Georgia
Capitol building, 15 peaceful protesters were arrested simply
for making the very basic demand that the State should count
every vote.
Oddly enough, one of those arrested was a State senator,
Senator Nikema Williams in spite of Georgia law which forbids
the arrest of legislators while the assembly is in session.
Now, some may hear this story and think to themselves that
that was after the election, what does that have to do with
voter suppression?
My answer is very simple: It has everything to do with
voter suppression, because those arrests, just like the
Secretary of State investigations and just like the seven
patrol cars for the rides to the polls, those arrests were
meant to intimidate and silence. It was meant to send a message
to those arrested as well as to those watching that if you
participate in these activities, if you organize and educate
voters, if you demand that your vote be counted, you, too, can
be arrested.
Fanny Lou Hamer once asked the question in a hearing not
unlike this one. She asked: Is this America? Now, 55 years
later, with the weakened Voting Rights Act, evidently the
answer is yes, this is America. This is Georgia.
I am here today to say the same thing we said all
throughout 2018. Every time one of our voters were suppressed,
every time one of our canvassers were harassed, and every time
our bus was threatened, I am here to say today: Can't stop,
won't stop.
Madam Chairwoman, again, I thank you for this opportunity.
I look forward to answering questions from the Committee.
[The statement of Mr. Albright follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. I thank you all so much for your
testimony.
We will begin with the panel, and we will start with
Representative Aguilar.
You are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you all for
the testimony.
My first question: Mr. Young, we have so many issues here
at play, and your testimony highlighted quite a few. And then
our panel expanded on the balance: redistricting exact match,
signature match, polling place closures, voter ID, early voting
changes. But one I wanted to bring your attention to was
specifically about access to language assistance.
What requirements exist within Gwinnett and the other 158
counties within Georgia?
Mr. Young. Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act says that
if a jurisdiction has at least 5 percent, or 10,000 people who
are of a language minority, and they have depressed literacy
rates, and the Census so designates them as such, that county
or local jurisdiction must provide ballots and registration
materials in that language.
In Georgia, only one county so far has been designated as
such, and that is Gwinnett County, which is one of our fastest
growing, in terms of communities of color, counties in the
State.
That is the more familiar provision of the Voting Rights
Act. But there is a lesser--well, it is not lesser. There is a
portion of the Voting Rights Act that is less familiar to
folks, and that is Section 4(e). Section 4(e) says that United
States citizens from Puerto Rico are entitled to a Spanish
language ballot. That applies even if their jurisdiction was
not under that 5 percent rule.
About a year--ago to this date, I testified in Hall County,
which has a rapidly growing Latino population. I explained to
the Board that they were unobligated under Section 4(e) to
provide to Spanish language materials to U.S. citizens from
Puerto Rico and the Board refused. This is the kind of barriers
that we are dealing with in terms of fighting for the rights of
language minority citizens.
Mr. Aguilar. Just to follow up. So outside of Gwinnett
County, what types of language assistance? Is it zero? Do you
have to petition? What remedies are available for individuals
when it comes specific to language assistance outside of
Gwinnett?
Mr. Young. Outside of Gwinnett, it is zero. So we are
trying to find every way we can to get counties to voluntarily
adopt language minority assistance, for example, invoking
Section 4(e), which was unsuccessful in Hall County. But all
the counties are also obligated under Section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act to provide language assistance.
We can't--as we have all started to learn, we cannot count
on the Census and the Commerce Department to equitably
designate counties that must fall under Section 203. So we are
trying to fight everywhere we can.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Young.
Ms. Hopkins, thank you so much for your testimony.
Can you talk to the panel a little bit about--just kind of
the broader intimidation and voter suppression efforts and what
that means in your community?
When your neighbors and friends also received those
postcards, how does that make you feel about the process, and
how does that make you feel about, you know, what we need to
do? I appreciate more specifically your call to action on us to
do more up here as well.
Ms. Hopkins. I think--what I witnessed, I--you know, this
is just one form. It is not really one particular form. It
comes in various manifestations. You have heard the testimony
of the precinct closures, the--what we call the postcard trick.
We see quite a few of what we call whack-a-mole, which, on
Election Day, they will change the precincts, sending people to
wrong precincts to vote.
It is a constant drive to meet those barriers that are put
before us. As one who has done voter registration for years in
the State, it actually--the apathy started to hit me after
this. You know, after the last election, it was heartbreaking
to see what happened in November. And a lot of it comes down to
those voting machines, which is a big part of this.
We are now just finding out that these machines are
systemically moving votes from black precincts. Not just any
precinct, black precincts. So if black votes don't matter,
obviously they do, because someone is going through quite a bit
of work to make sure that they don't.
[Applause.]
Ms. Hopkins. What it does is that it wears one down. As Ms.
Abrams, the other Stacey, spoke about earlier, you do get
apathetic. It does work to psychologically depress the right to
vote.
I think that for us in Georgia, for me in particular, and
for my neighbors, it does not matter what barriers are put
before us. It does not matter what obstacles we face. We will
continue to rise up. We get tired and weary but when you think
about the blood that has been on the ground for us to have this
vote--and I say this quite a bit--black people, we have only
had one win in this country. That was the Civil Rights Act and
for me, it is a part of my DNA. I can no longer turn away from
that fight anywhere than I can turn away from my children. I
will be here, old, tired, a little beaten up, but I will be
here in that fight in any manifestation I can be.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you for your answer.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
Let me just pause one second and introduce our colleague
and friend and the icon I talked to about earlier.
Representative John Lewis has joined us this morning.
[Applause.]
Chairwoman Fudge. Mr. Bishop, you are recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. Let me thank all the
panelists for your very informative and riveting testimony,
especially Ms. Hopkins. I appreciate that very much.
Each of you has identified various items that have resulted
in voter suppression. Could you help us, as we prepare to
repair this process, provide, with respect to each of the
impediments that you have encountered, a prescription for
fixing it.
Ms. Hopkins, when it gets to you, would you talk about--you
are in Fulton County, one of the most diverse counties in the
State--about the precinct administration, the elections
administration on the county level with regard to diversity and
poll workers, and who was actually implementing these policies
that affected you?
Mr. Young. Thank you.
Well, preclearance is the answer for all of them, because
without preclearance, these local elections officials can just
get away doing whatever they want under the radar, knowing that
no one can monitor all 159 counties.
Specifically and briefly, for polling place closures,
polling places need to be frozen in place, and no changes can
be made unless the county has done a thorough and public study
of its racially discriminatory effects of their polling place
closures. They need to do it not two weeks in advance of their
vote, but months in advance so that the entire public and the
media can fully assess whether these closures are legitimate.
For early voting cutbacks, again, those must be frozen in
place. We would argue all counties should have the same early
voting hours. They should just have the same expanded early
voting hours, evening and weekends.
As for the redistricting measures. Again, that is very hard
to catch. I know there is now a bill that would allow State
legislators to have veto power over any redistricting decision
that is made at the local level but those decisions also have
to be made public. The maps that are being proposed most be
public and the algorithms that people are using to draw these
maps, right now they are proprietary and trade secrets or
whatnot, those have to be made public so the public fully
understands how these computer algorithms are drawing these
lines, how the politicians are manipulating the algorithms to
benefit their own party, and for the public to fully understand
it, so that people can be held accountable in the democratic
process.
Ms. Daniels. Congressman Bishop, we need to treat the
active voting as a fundamental right. It is easier to get a gun
in Georgia than it is to register to vote.
It is important that we restore the Federal oversight that
was lost with Section 5. And in the first challenge to the
Voting Rights Act, in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, Attorney
General Katzenbach said that we needed to have this type of
oversight to ensure that we don't have to endure piecemeal
litigation, which is what we are seeing now that we no longer
have Section 5.
Instead of requiring jurisdictions like Georgia to submit
voting changes to the Federal Government to determine whether--
to approve those changes, we are now seeing them just
implemented and then trying to first get notice of those
changes after they have been implemented. And then having
organizations like the Advancement Project, the ACLU and
others, to challenge them under Section 2 of the Voting Rights
Act.
Section 2 is not enough. It is the piecemeal litigation
that Katzenbach warned us about more than 50 years ago that
needs--and we need restoration.
Again, finally, you know, and--and so we can avoid this
piecemeal litigation. You asked this question. It can't be
answered in two minutes. But certainly the most important thing
is to restore the Federal oversight.
Mr. Albright. Just quickly, I would say, definitely
restoring oversight is a start. As was said, investment in the
process, right? Investment and access to the vote. You know,
investment so that there can be more polling places, so that
there could be better education. Changing some aspects of
expanding in a sense of, you know, why aren't 18-year-olds
automatically registered to vote?
So there are so many ways where, with greater investment,
and investment in election protection, to take some of the
burden off of the community groups that are currently doing it,
but to actually invest in Department of Justice's ability to
actually provide election protection, and to deal with some of
the intimidation issues that aren't really fully captured by
preclearance, right? None of the intimidation gets precleared.
So, there has got to be a framework to deal with that, and
that requires investment in resources in order to provide
oversight on the ground, particularly in counties that are so
often in isolation where a lot of these activities take place,
and then they grow like bacteria and spread throughout the rest
of the State.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very, very much.
Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Lewis. Good morning. You are a good-looking group.
Let me just take a moment to thank each one of my
colleagues for being here, and thank you for being here in the
heart of my Congressional district. Welcome.
I said on many occasions that the vote is the most powerful
nonviolent instrument or tool that we have in a democratic
society. We should make it easy and simple for everyone to be
able to cast that vote.
Some of you know, many years ago there was a young guy from
Georgia by the name of Jose Williams, and this young
Congresswoman Terri Sewell, that in her district, her hometown,
it was almost impossible for people of color to register to
vote. Only 2.1 percent of blacks of voting age are registered
to vote in 1965.
There was one county in Alabama, Lowndes County, between
Selma and Montgomery, the county with more than 80 percent
African Americans, there was not a single registered African
American voter in the county.
We may not be having that problem today, but there are
forces in our region trying to take us back to another time and
another period. You are bearing witness that we must not go
back. We must go forward and open the political process and let
everybody come in.
I think President Carter said on one occasion, ``Being able
to register to vote should be as simple as getting a glass of
water.''
Let's make it happen. Let's make it happen.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you for your leadership and for
your vision. I want to thank all my colleagues again. We have a
fight on our hand, and we must win it. We cannot afford to lose
it.
Thank you very much.
[Applause.]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very, very much.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I want to thank
the witnesses for their appearance today and for their work
protecting the rights of Americans to vote.
I have a unanimous consent request that the postcard that--
that a copy of the postcard, or the postcard, be included in
the record of this proceeding.
Chairwoman Fudge. Yes, it has been a--request for a
unanimous consent that your postcard be entered into the
record. I am going to make it with you since I am on the
Committee of jurisdiction.
Hearing no opposition, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I would note that 160,000 Georgians, approximately, over
the last four years, received such requests to update their
addresses when they had simply moved from one location to
another in the same polling location, the same polling
district.
The ACLU filed a lawsuit that would compel the Secretary of
State to follow the law and update their voter registration
files automatically. I want to thank Mr. Young, Attorney Young,
for the work of the ACLU in bringing about that settlement.
What I would like to find out is whether or not there has
been compiled a laundry list of each and every effort
undertaken by the Secretary of State in his, at least four-year
crusade and campaign, to win the governorship with respect to
making it more difficult for people, mostly African Americans
and other minorities, to vote.
Is there such a laundry list that has been compiled? If so,
would you tell us each bullet point that reflects what took
place? I want it for the record, though.
Mr. Young. I can't produce that laundry list on command
right now. But I can tell you that over a dozen lawsuits were
filed last November, including one brought by the ACLU
challenging various actions by the secretary of state and State
legislators that have passed discriminatory voting measures.
I know that Leader Abrams mentioned quite a few. There were
absentee ballots that were rejected because signatures didn't
match, which was a violation of procedural due process, as the
Court found; there was exact match that disproportionately hurt
people of color; there were absentee ballots illegally thrown
out because they didn't have the right birth date or the birth
date blank was not filled out. It is a confusing absentee
ballot form.
We had a lot of last-minute litigation challenging polling
places suddenly closing, or absentee ballots not even being
processed. There were thousands of absentee ballots that were
just sitting there because we didn't have enough election staff
or oversight of the Secretary of State's office to make sure
that those applications and ballots were processed within 24
hours.
I personally know someone who was disenfranchised because
his absentee ballot arrived too late in the mail, even though
he applied for one a week in advance of Election Day. So we can
help put together such a list, but those are just a few off the
top of my head.
Mr. Johnson. If you would, submit it for the record for
this proceeding.
Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Daniels. Congressman Johnson, may I also add, that it
is not only what former Secretary of State Kemp did, but also
what each and every jurisdiction within the State of Georgia
did in regards to making--in regards to moving--closing polling
places, moving polling places, redistricting, and other things
that occurred after 2013 that would have been required--would
have necessitated a Federal approval before they were
implemented.
So a laundry list of just what Secretary Kemp--the changes
that Secretary Kemp made would quell in comparison to what----
Mr. Johnson. With respect to the local and State boards of
elections did.
Ms. Daniels. Right. Absolutely. Every voting change.
So when I was in the Department of Justice, of course, we
received every voting change prior to its implementation. And
so, that would be a list of hundreds, if not thousands, or tens
of thousands of changes.
Mr. Johnson. Last but not least, I would just note for the
record that the 7th Congressional District race, which was won
by the incumbent Republican, was lost by the Democrat by about
400 votes. There were 1,500 or so absentee ballots that were
not counted, that were discarded for various reasons. And I
will just simply state that for the record.
And with that I will yield back.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Richmond, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Richmond. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Let me just quickly ask Mr. Young, if you could, your
testimony has been entered into the record, but your exhibits
have not. So if you could provide us with those exhibits,
because they are actually the cases in evidence we will need
when any future voting rights we know is passed. And that would
be the redistricting fight in Sumter, Randolph County, the
polling places, Fulton County, proper public notice; Irwin
County, closing voting poles, and early voting cutbacks. So if
you can get those, it would be very helpful.
To the panel, when you know of specific cases, and, Ms.
Hopkins, let me just tell you, I am so in awe of your
fortitude, your courage. You resemble not the struggle, but the
strength and courage to overcome the obstacles. When we see
you, we applaud you. We are very proud of you.
If you know anybody that didn't have the courage that you
have, or who may have been beaten down too much to continue to
fight, Mr. Albright, you would know, and, Ms. Daniels, you
would know, if you know those people, if we can get their
stories, it becomes very important for us to build a record as
to why what we have now doesn't work.
I am from Louisiana. Fighting after the harm is done is too
late. The other point, and Mr. Young, you may be able to
elaborate on this, but we keep talking about deliberate actions
that I think we can prove. We also have to talk about willful
ignorance and willful incompetence.
You know if you don't provide enough voting machines or you
don't send in enough paper, if you don't know--if you don't do
those things and do your job properly, you know what the effect
will be, and that is creating another barrier for minorities to
vote.
As we talk about the deliberate actions, which I think we
are covering very well, we still talk about the effects when we
can't prove it is intentional, but we can prove the effects of
the incompetence, whether willful or not, is creating a
barrier.
Mr. Young. That is right. I will just say two things in
response to that. Number one, intentional discrimination is not
easy to catch, as we all know. Even decades ago, courts have
routinely said it is hard to catch. People are a lot more savvy
now.
Even where there is not that specific racist intent, there
is a--from my experience, there is a culture of indifference,
and I will come short of saying incompetence, but indifference
among many election officials that don't realize how precious
is the right to vote. They treat it like it is another
bureaucracy.
Anyone in this room who has dealt with government
bureaucracy knows how frustrating it can be, no offense to the
legislators. When they deal with the voting system, that is the
same kind of attitude. It is up to, actually, both the
Secretary of State and the county commissioners to take the
right to vote seriously, and to provide adequate staffing and
training so that people know that they are dealing with nuclear
material. I mean, this is really precious.
So, I agree that there is a kind of persistent culture of
indifference, even sometimes disdain, when people bring up the
discriminatory impact that their actions may have.
Mr. Richmond. I guess with Ms. Daniels, anybody wants to
comment, but also in the holding of Shelby, they talked about
the fact that African American turnout had gone up
significantly. That is not the standard. I mean, we also have
better access to transportation. We have a whole bunch of
things. But the standard is not that turnout has gone up; the
standard should be that turnout is what it is supposed to be in
terms of everybody who wants to vote can vote, not that we are
doing better than we did in 1963.
So if you want to comment on that before my time runs out.
And with that answer, Madam Chairwoman, I will just yield
back the balance of my time before she starts.
Ms. Daniels. Congressman Richmond, I also want to let you
know, I am a daughter of the South. I am from Winnfield,
Louisiana, by the way.
In regard to effects and the Shelby County decision, it is
certainly important to note that the Supreme Court acknowledged
that racism still exists in active voting. However, it did not
consider it enough to continue the protections of the voting--
of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
The Shelby County decision has been compared to Plessy v.
Ferguson to having the same level of impact in that regard when
talking about the effects that it has had, particularly on
communities of color, in denying access, and certainly in
making sure that there is a disparate impact.
We have seen in these cases throughout the South,
particularly in Texas and North Carolina, in North Carolina
where the Advancing Project was certainly working in that case
where the court said that the State of North Carolina--that the
legislators of North Carolina acted with precision, surgical
precision, to essentially carve out African American
communities and other communities of color to ensure that they
diluted their right to vote.
The impact is vast. Unfortunately, the courts are not
recognizing it. We don't need to prove intentional
discrimination. We need to prove that these practices and
procedures discriminate certainly against people of color. That
is in using Section 2.
But the bar is so high, and it is so expensive. As Mr.
Young has mentioned, the case that he was involved in lasted 5
years. Section 2 cases last an average of three years, and cost
more than $1 million, where, as compared to Section 5, where it
is administrative, where the jurisdictions submitted the
changes through the mail.
The Department of Justice then reviewed them and had 60
days to do so. In a 60-day period, the change was either
approved or denied as compared--and then implemented as
compared to the process that we currently have, which needs to
be fixed.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Richmond.
Ms. Sewell is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I would like to introduce to the record this lovely
prepared statement that my staff so eloquently prepared. I
would just like to submit it for the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Sewell. This is very personal for me. It is personal
because so many of us know that we stand on the shoulders of
folks like Rep. John Lewis. It is not enough that we keep
saying we are standing on the shoulders. We must do something
about it. All of us have the ability and the wherewithal
wherever we sit, be it a Member of Congress, be it in your
capacity as lawyers or as activists or community, you are a
citizen of this United States, and you have a right to vote.
Your vote is your voice. So we have to use it.
So I am going to use my time to talk about the Supreme
Court case and the challenge that was issued by the majority
opinion that Chief Justice Roberts entered.
Chief Justice Roberts said, and I am just going to quote
him, ``There is no denying that the conditions that originally
justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the
covered jurisdictions.''
What he was saying is that we are picking on States like
Alabama and Georgia and Louisiana. What is your retort, as
experts in this field, as to why it is--because I get this all
of the time. My colleagues do, too. Why are we having to pick
on certain States?
If it were up to me, I would say in response to my
Republican colleagues, we should be preclearing every change in
voting rights in every State and political subdivision. The
reality is that we would have to have a whole division called
preclearance in order to do that, and we would not be making
that investment. We should be making that investment. We can't.
So we have to figure out ways to figure out the egregious
actors.
So I would love to know from our two lawyers here, what you
think the response should be to Chief Justice Roberts? How
would you help us, as lawmakers, having to come up with that
formula, articulate that?
Mr. Young. I will have two quick responses. Number one, as
we have seen in the testimony today, racism is absolutely not
over in Georgia or in the South. And anyone who has eyes and
ears will tell you that. As we have seen in the testimony
today, we desperately need preclearance in the South.
But the second point, I completely agree with you,
Congresswoman, that we need to have preclearance in other
places as well, the North and the West and these other places
that haven't had that acute visible history of racial
discrimination. They think they can get away with it because
they are not the South.
Before I came to Georgia, I litigated in early voting
cutbacks in Ohio that were discriminatory where they surgically
tried to target Souls to the Polls and eliminate Golden Week.
That was after Shelby County.
Then I also litigated in Wisconin. Wisconsin was not under
preclearance, and they passed a discriminatory voter ID law.
That litigation is still pending to this day.
So absolutely we need to look at other States.
Ms. Sewell. Now, Ms. Daniels, the other thing that Chief
Justice Roberts said, ``The question is whether the Act's
extraordinarily measures, including its disparate treatment of
the States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements.''
He wants to know whether or not we have the right to
supersede the 10th Amendment, which gives States their powers
that are not enumerated in the Constitution.
So can you help me articulate how we in Congress can come
up with a formula that actually would do that, aside from the
fact that we have a formula that would look back, not 1964,
1968, and 1972, which he specifically said, we would look--25-
year lookback, 1994 going forward.
But surely, there are other things we need to articulate in
that formula.
Ms. Daniels. Congress clearly has the authroity to, under
the 14th and 15th Amendments, to address these issues. It could
also do it under the Elections Clause, which it used for the
passage of th NVRA. The Supreme Court certainly issued the
challenge to Congress to act in saying that Congress could
change the formula so that it would not be considered outdated
and unconstitutional.
We do have contemporary examples of vote discrimination
that I think--that it is important that Congress saw and used
in the 2006 reauthorization, which was overwhelmingly----
Ms. Sewell. Yes. But it is 15,000 pages--I am going to
reclaim my time and close this out.
There are 15,000 pages that were submitted back in 2006
when we overwhelmingly--Congress passed a 25-year
authorization.
I just want to end by saying that all of us here today have
the power of our own opinions, our own voices to help
articulate. Do know that we plan on filing a bill to replace
Section 4, and we need you all to use Twitter and every social
media to get the stories, as Congressman Richmond said, about
voter suppression that is alive and well.
We need a steady drumbeat as we prove to America that we
can restore the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But we must do so
now. Not later, but now. Standing on the shoulders of people
like Rep. John Lewis is not enough. What are we doing about
paying it forward for the next generation.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you. Thank you all so much.
Mr. Young, I am from Ohio. I live in Cuyahoga County, where
we have about a million and a half residents, and we have one
early voting site. One. But they say it is fair because every
other county only has one, those counties that have 500 people.
Our county has over a million.
For those who would talk about States' rights, we do
realize that there are some things that clearly are within the
purview of the States. But I want to remind people that States'
rights is why we had slavery as long as we did. So I think it
is important that we recognize what States' rights really
means.
I want to thank all the witnesses for your testimony. I
want to thank my colleagues, our recording studio who has been
live-streaming this as we speak, all of those who have made
this happen, all the staff that does all of this. I just come
and sit down and talk. They do the work, and I want to thank
them for that, my colleagues. I want to thank the Carter
Center.
I want to close by just saying these things: This is the
democracy upon which all democracies are measured. And if we
are falling short the way we are, we have to do something. We
are talking about a democracy in Venezuela and we can't get
people to vote in the United States.
[Applause.]
Chairwoman Fudge. There was a French historian by the name
of Alexis de Tocqueville who, some 200-plus years ago, came to
this country to determine why we are great. One of things he
said was that this country is great because we have always had
the ability to repair our faults. We need to repair our faults.
But he also determined that America is great because Americans
are good.
So it is time for good people to ensure that every American
has the unfettered and unabridged right to vote in this
country. It is time that people in Congress who sit with me
have the courage to say to the President, or whoever else is
trying to be an impediment, we are going to walk past you. We
are going to make sure that all the people we represent know
that we represent them, not just the ones we like, not just the
ones who agree with us, but all Americans.
So we are going to be here. We are going to keep this fight
going. If something like this is still happening in 2020, I am
going to be a mad sister, I promise you.
[Applause.]
Chairwoman Fudge. Without objection, this Subcommittee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]