[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
VOTING RIGHTS AND ELECTION ADMINISTRATION IN NORTH CAROLINA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
APRIL 18, 2019
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-administration
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-117 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C O N T E N T S
----------
APRIL 18, 2019
Page
Voting Rights and Election Administration in North Carolina...... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairwoman Marcia L. Fudge....................................... 1
Prepared statement of Chairwoman Fudge....................... 3
Hon. G.K. Butterfield............................................ 5
Prepared statement of Hon. Butterfield....................... 7
WITNESSES
Mr. Irving L. Joyner, Professor of Law, North Carolina Central
University..................................................... 10
Prepared statement of Prof. Joyner........................... 12
Mr. Tomas Lopez, Executive Director, Democracy North Carolina.... 34
Prepared statement of Mr. Lopez.............................. 36
Rev. Dr. William Barber II, President and Senior Lecturer,
Repairers of the Breach........................................ 91
Prepared statement of Dr. Barber............................. 93
Hon. Dan Blue, Senate Minority Leader, North Carolina State
Senate......................................................... 111
Prepared statement of Senator Blue........................... 113
Ms. Caitlin Swain, Co-Director, Forward Justice.................. 115
Prepared statement of Ms. Swain.............................. 117
Hon. Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Vice Chair, U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights................................................... 129
Prepared statement of Hon. Timmons-Goodson................... 131
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Kristin R. Scott, Board of Elections Director, Halifax County,
North Carolina, statement...................................... 142
North Carolina's Racial Politics: Dred Scott Rules from the
Grave, Irving L. Joyner, article............................... 143
Report, An Assessment of Minority Voting Rights Access in the
United States: 2018 Statutory Enforcement Report, United States
Commission on Civil Rights..................................... 212
FIELD HEARING: VOTING RIGHTS AND
ELECTION ADMINISTRATION IN NORTH CAROLINA
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Elections,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., at
the Centre at Halifax Community College, 200 College Dr.,
Weldon, North Carolina 27890, Hon. Marcia L. Fudge [Chair of
the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Marcia L. Fudge and G.K.
Butterfield.
Staff Present: Jamie Fleet, Majority Staff Director; Sarah
Nasta, Elections Counsel; Eddie Flaherty, Director of
Operations; Veleter Mazyck, Chief of Staff; Meredith Connor,
Professional Staff Member; David Tucker, Senior Counsel and
Parliamentarian; Peter Whippy, Communications Director; Mannal
Haddad, Majority Press Secretary; and Courtney Parella,
Minority Communications Director.
Chairwoman Fudge. Again, good morning, everyone. Our third
panelist is on his way in, but we do need to begin. The
Subcommittee on Elections of the Committee on House
Administration will come to order.
I would like to thank the Members of the Subcommittee 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 today.
I ask unanimous consent that Members have five legislative
days to revise and extend their remarks and that written
statements be made part of the record. Hearing no objection, so
ordered.
Our third witness has arrived, so we will let him take his
seat.
Good morning, my friend.
Good morning again.
I want to thank Mr. Butterfield, our witnesses, and the
people of North Carolina for joining us here today. I want to
thank my distinguished colleague again, Mr. Butterfield, for so
warmly welcoming us to his district as we continue this
important work. Congressman Butterfield has a long and
exemplary record protecting the right to vote, and I am so
grateful for the leadership he shows with our Committee.
We are here to examine the state of voting rights and
election administration in North Carolina. I cannot think of a
better place to continue our hearings to ensure that all
Americans can exercise their right to vote.
The right to vote is the core of what it means to
participate in our democracy. The power of the ballot sets the
direction for our communities, our families, and our lives.
When the Supreme Court struck down a core provision of the
Voting Rights Act in 2013, Chief Justice Roberts wrote
nonetheless that, and I quote, ``Voting discrimination still
exists, no one doubts that.''
Two months later, legislators in North Carolina proved that
point. They rushed through an omnibus piece of legislation
known by many as the monster law that slashed a week of early
voting, mandated an overly restrictive form of photo ID that
African Americans disproportionately lack, eliminated same-day
voter registration, ended the counting of out-of-precinct
ballots, and eliminated preregistration for 16- and 17-year-
olds.
Fortunately, that same day, when the Governor's signature
was barely dry, a group of North Carolinians sued, and they put
in years of work. They organized and they won. As we are likely
to hear this morning, a unanimous three-judge panel for the
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that the
challenge provisions of the monster law were unconstitutional,
a violation of the 14th Amendment, and a violation of what
remains of the Voting Rights Act. The Fourth Circuit found that
the new provisions targeted African Americans, and again I
quote, ``with almost surgical precision and clearly enacted
with discriminatory intent.'' And so those challenged
provisions of the law were blocked.
We have with us today people from North Carolina who are
leaders, fighters in the cause of justice. We are going to
learn how much more we must do to ensure voting remains free
and fair in North Carolina. This hearing and the others we are
holding will help as the Congress of the United States examines
what must be done to ensure every eligible American can vote
and have that vote counted.
I would now yield to my colleague Mr. Butterfield for his
opening remarks.
[The statement of Chairwoman Fudge follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Butterfield. Let me thank you, Chairwoman Marcia Fudge,
for your friendship, and thank you for your leadership, and
thank you certainly for your willingness to bring this field
hearing to northeastern North Carolina.
When we first had the conversation about the location for
this hearing, I told Marcia that my preference was Halifax
County, because it is a very dear county to me, but in the
interest of convenience, since Raleigh-Durham was pretty close
to the airport, it may be nice to have it at the NCCU School of
Law. And so I gave her the option of those two locations, and
she emphatically said, we need to go to Halifax County, North
Carolina.
And so, thank you so much for your willingness to bring
this hearing to this location.
Thank you to the panelists for your willingness to share
your valuable testimony today that will weigh heavily in future
legislation to protect the right to vote.
Now, I know my colleagues are laser-focused on the
developments in Washington today as the Mueller report is being
made available to the Congress and to the public. Immediately
following this field hearing, I will quickly--and I am sure
other Members will as well--obtain a copy of the report and
read it from cover to cover.
Attorney General Barr has a solemn obligation, as Attorney
General, to provide the American people with definitive answers
about the President's conduct and whether President Donald
Trump violated the trust that the American people have reposed
in him. This report today contains the answers the American
people deserve to see.
Madam Chairwoman, Halifax County is a significant portion
of my Congressional district. As a Superior Court judge for
some 15 years, I held dozens of weeks of court in this county.
In fact, my last week presiding before going to Washington was
in this county.
My relationship with Halifax dates back for many, many
years. My mother and her sister taught at the Rosa Wall School
here. Her brother, my uncle, was the principal of the Weldon
Graded School, which is right down the street. My uncle, my
dear uncle, was pastor here for 64 long years.
And so, as a young lawyer I found myself entangled in
dozens of cases in this county, including representation of Mr.
Horace Johnson in a Section 2 case of Johnson v. County of
Halifax, which dismantled at-large commissioner districts and
resulted in the creation of districts that have now elected
four African-American commissioners out of seven, one of which
is here today, the chairman of the Board of Commissioners, Mr.
Vernon Bryant. I might add that the NAACP Legal Defense Fund
was the lead counsel in the case--I did not have the
resources--was the lead counsel in the case and provided all
the resources.
I am proud of Halifax County, I am proud to be their
Representative, and I am proud to have this hearing today.
Finally, Madam Chairwoman, when slavery ended there were
10,300 slaves here in Halifax County. Almost 7,000 slaves lived
across the river in Northampton County. The former slaves
became registered voters. They elected African Americans to the
legislature from this county, elected African Americans to the
Board of Commissioners, and in 1882 an African American was
elected to Congress from this county who served for two terms.
His name was James Edward O'Hara from the town of Enfield.
The ability to vote was taken away from African Americans
in 1900 with the passage of the literacy test. The literacy
test was nullified by the enactment of the 1965 Voting Rights
Act.
I might add very briefly that part of the legislative
record for the Voting Rights Act emanated from Northampton
County, right across the river. A lady named Louise Lassiter
from Seaboard presented herself to register to vote in that
county, was denied the right to register because she could not
read nor write. She retained an attorney from Weldon here. His
name was James Walker. Walker retained Sam Mitchell, who was a
black lawyer from Raleigh.
Those two lawyers litigated the case all the way to the
U.S. Supreme Court challenging the literacy test. Though they
lost that case, it laid the legislative record that was used
for the enactment of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Hearings like
this are critically important in the legislative process.
Since 1965, black citizens in this county have become
politically active, but there continue to be obstacles that
remain, which I am sure the witnesses will discuss today. Most
notable is the fact that only one--one--early voting site
serves this entire county. Halifax County is a persistent
poverty county with a poverty rate of 28 percent, with one of
eight households without transportation.
And so, Madam Chairwoman, this hearing is very important as
we prepare to take up legislation to guarantee the unfettered
right to vote to every American. We are determined--yes, we
are--we are determined to fix Section 4 of the Voting Rights
Act, hopefully with bipartisan support, which was invalidated
by the Court.
Prior to the Supreme Court decision, 40 counties in North
Carolina and the State legislature were required to submit
voting changes to the Department of Justice for preclearance,
thus preventing discriminatory changes in election law and
procedure. Not having the benefit now of Section 5, affected
communities must now resort to very expensive litigation or
suffer the effects of the discriminatory voting change.
This Subcommittee must build a record to provide the
legislative basis for the passage of strong voting rights
protections and amending Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to
meet the concerns of the Supreme Court.
I want to thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for your time, thank
you for your friendship, and I am prepared to hear from these
witnesses.
[The statement of Mr. Butterfield follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Butterfield.
It is now my pleasure to introduce our witnesses for today.
First we have Professor Irving Joyner, Professor of Law at
North Carolina Central University School of Law, a leader in
this State on the cause of voting rights, the rule of law, and
the Constitution.
Mr. Tomas Lopez, a leader with Democracy North Carolina,
whose organization is on the front lines of protecting the
right to vote.
Last but not least, Dr. Reverend Barber, who is my good
friend--thank you, nice to see you, sir--President and Senior
Lecturer with Repairers of the Breach, whose moral leadership
and activism has inspired generations of people in this State
to push back against North Carolina's voter suppression and so
much more.
Mr. Joyner, we will begin with you. You will have five
minutes. There is a lighting system. When the light is green,
obviously that means go; when it turns yellow, you will have
about a minute left; and when it turns red, I would ask for you
to try to close.
Thank you, sir. You are recognized.
STATEMENTS OF IRVING L. JOYNER, PROFESSOR OF LAW, NORTH
CAROLINA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW; TOMAS LOPEZ,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DEMOCRACY NORTH CAROLINA; AND REV. DR.
WILLIAM BARBER II, PRESIDENT AND SENIOR LECTURER, REPAIRERS OF
THE BREACH
STATEMENT OF IRVING L. JOYNER
Mr. Joyner. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before
you, Chairwoman Fudge; Congressman Butterfield. I want to thank
you for coming here and giving me the opportunity to come to
Halifax County again. I want to stop in Halifax County for this
purpose rather than just driving through it on my way to D.C.
Let me just introduce myself. I am a Professor at North
Carolina Central University School of Law. I chair the North
Carolina NAACP Legal Redress Committee, and I have served as
its legal counsel and have engaged in research in this voting
rights area, as well as engaged in litigation of voting rights
issues here in this State.
As a people, the most important right that we have is the
right to vote. It is beyond dispute that voting is of the most
fundamental significance under our Constitutional structure.
Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to
vote is undermined.
I have submitted a statement to this panel already, along
with a law review article that I prepared a couple years ago
for the Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy,
which discusses much of the history dealing with voting rights
in North Carolina. I am just going to kind of scan through that
since I only have five minutes.
Up until 1835, free Africans in this State could vote as a
matter of law, and they could vote up until the time that the
General Assembly made a decision that they were going to
disenfranchise those free Africans from voting. The free
Africans who owned property in the State who qualified
otherwise as voters could vote, and there was a decision made
by members of the General Assembly that they did not want
African Americans at that time to vote, because they feared
what they called Negro domination.
Even though no records indicate that any African American
had been elected to any office, the mere fact that they were
voting was just too much for members of the General Assembly,
who adopted the notion--and later confirmed in the Dred Scott
decision--that this American democracy and its Founders never
intended that people of color would be citizens or would be
able to vote. There was an intentional decision made at that
time to disenfranchise African Americans.
Representative Butterfield has already talked about the
Reconstruction governments in which African Americans could
vote. Following 1868, with the development of a new
Constitution in North Carolina, led by Abraham Galloway and
others, the right to vote was enshrined in the North Carolina
Constitution, giving to African Americans the right to
participate on equal grounds with Whites in the vote. From 1868
until 1898, that right was observed. Although there was a lot
of violence, a lot of pressure and harassment directed toward
those African Americans who could vote, 90 percent of our
community registered and regularly participated in the process
up until that time.
In 1898, the General Assembly made decisions to
intentionally disenfranchise those individuals from the right
to vote. The literacy test, poll taxes, and a number of other
devices were put in place that took away from African Americans
deliberately and intentionally, because they wanted to avoid
the possibility of what was then described as ``Negro
Domination'' of whites, where African Americans would be
lording over whites. So there was an intentional decision made
at that time.
In 1947, Kenneth Williams, Reverend Kenneth Williams in
Winston-Salem, became the first African American to be elected
to a city council position in that city. It was a single-member
district in which an African American ran against a white, and
for the first time in history African Americans were able to
elect a member of their own. After that, there was an
intentional decision to get rid of the right to vote by multi-
member districts and at-large campaigns that Representative
Butterfield spoke to.
I am going to stop. My time is up. And I will be available
to answer any questions that you have.
[The statement of Mr. Joyner follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very much. We will have
questions after all the panelists speak.
Mr. Lopez, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF TOMAS LOPEZ
Mr. Lopez. Madam Chairwoman, Representative Butterfield,
thank you for being here and for the opportunity to testify. My
name is Tomas Lopez, and I am the Executive Director of
Democracy North Carolina. We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization that works to, among other goals, protect the
right to vote in this State.
As part of this work, we seek to bring North Carolinians,
especially historically underrepresented people of color, into
the political process and encourage their participation and
leadership through voting, elections monitoring, and issue
advocacy.
We also advocate for policies and practices that we believe
will increase voter access and participation, author original
research on election administration, and help coordinate a
statewide nonpartisan poll monitoring and voter assistance
network that staffed 1 in 10 North Carolina polling places in
2018.
Prior to my role here, I was a voting rights attorney at
the Brennan Center for Justice, where I litigated voting rights
cases in the Federal courts, contributed to original research
on election issues, and supported State-level election reform
efforts.
My written testimony speaks to a consistent, concerted,
years-long effort to limit voter participation and impact in
North Carolina for the sake of short-term political advantage.
That includes things like the 2013 monster law.
I want to focus my comments here on a more recent
development, and that is the impact of efforts to revive
elements of the 2013 law, namely through a revived photo ID
requirement and through recent reductions to early voting.
As to the ID requirement, last year, in 2018, the North
Carolina General Assembly placed onto the ballot a measure that
requires photo ID to vote. It was broadly worded, did not
provide specifics as to what kind of ID would be required, and
no word of what kind of ID would be required was provided prior
to the referendum in which it was put into place.
Following that election but prior to the seating of a new
General Assembly where there was no longer a supermajority, the
legislators put in place an ID requirement that looks very
similar in wording to the original law from 2013 that was
overturned in 2016. A key difference in that law, or at least a
surface-level difference in that law, is that this new law
provides for the use of student and employee IDs for voting.
The problem that has been emerging in practice is that
while the law says that you can use student IDs to vote, what
we have seen is that, as written, the law requires
universities, colleges, and community colleges to attest under
penalty of perjury as to citizenship verification, imposes
administrative challenges that have discouraged campuses from
applying, and has led to a situation where there are a total of
37 community colleges, colleges, and universities out of over
100 eligible institutions that have even applied to get their
student IDs to be usable in 2020. And of those, 11 campuses
were denied, including the 10 constituent universities of the
University of North Carolina system, which include the flagship
in Chapel Hill and one Historically Black College.
The General Assembly is considering legislation that would
modify these requirements, including by lifting the attestation
requirement. That measure passed the State House, but it is
unclear what will happen with it in the Senate.
The second issue I want to raise is early voting. Last
year, in June, the State legislature passed a law, SB 325, that
requires counties to stage early voting for the same hours
across all sites. And while uniformity presents theoretical
benefits, it has in practice reduced the availability of early
voting.
What happened in the past was counties, especially in low-
resourced areas, made early voting available at different times
across a variety of locations during the early voting window,
but the 2018 law makes this impossible by requiring counties
that are early voting sites to be open for the same amount of
hours if they are open during the week. So what has happened is
that the most popular way to cast a ballot in North Carolina,
which is before election day through early voting, is less
available.
We have 43 counties reducing the number of early voting
sites in 2018 compared to the last midterm, 51 that have
reduced the number of weekend days offered, 67 that have
reduced the number of weekend hours. In 8 counties where a
majority of voters are black, 4 have reduced sites, 7 have
reduced weekend days, and all 8 reduced the number of weekend
hours during early voting, and none saw increases in sites or
weekend options.
Now, this map up here shows Halifax County. In 2012, 2014,
and 2016 there were three early voting sites here, in Roanoke
Rapids, Halifax, and Scotland Neck. After the 2018 law required
this uniformity, we are left with just with an early voting
site in Halifax.
Last year's midterm election had very high turnout. It was
across the State, across all demographic groups, dramatic
increases. There were only three counties that actually reduced
turnout. Two were counties that were directly affected by
Hurricane Florence in pretty dramatic ways and the other was
Halifax County.
We see as a whole the cumulative effects. I realize my time
is running here. The experience in North Carolina across these
issues and the set of things that we will be talking about this
morning speak for Congress to do two things. First is to
restore the full protections of the Voting Rights Act in a way
that is responsive to the way in which voting discrimination
happens today. The second is to ensure, like legislation like
H.R. 1, to ensure that government is playing the role that it
should be in facilitating real participation in the political
process.
[The statement of Mr. Lopez follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very much.
Reverend Barber, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BARBER II
Rev. Barber. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and to
Congressman Butterfield as well.
I want to remind us today that the word for ``vote'' and
``voice'' in Hebrew is the same word. And here we are in Holy
Week, and it says Jesus said in Holy Week no matter what else
we do, if we do not attend to justice we have left undone the
weightier matters of the law.
I am also a member of the National Board of NAACP and
President Emeritus of the North Carolina NAACP. And we must
have a full restoration of the Voting Rights Act in this
country.
Here in North Carolina, we have spent the better part of a
decade defending our State against an all-out attack, an all-
out attack on voting rights. In 2008, North Carolina's 15
electoral college votes went to America's first Black
President, and it sent shock waves through a racially
polarized, White-dominated Republican Party that had since the
time of Nixon banked on winning elections in the South through
campaign strategies that stoked racial tensions and suppressed
the vote.
When this Southern strategy failed to deliver in 2008 and
was instead defeated by a multi-racial fusion coalition in
North Carolina, right-wing extremists scrambled to invest
unprecedented sums of money in State legislative races,
resulting in an extremist takeover in 2010.
The Governor would veto an attempt to put in place a photo
ID in 2010 but could not veto the racist redistricting maps
that were put in place. The majority put them in place, redrew
both the State legislative districts and the U.S. congressional
districts in their favor. This was an act that was coordinated
by the former speaker, now Senator Thom Tillis, and a host of
other regressive lawyers, led by Thomas Farr.
When they made those new maps, it allowed for a
supermajority to be elected in 2012. This supermajority, when
elected in 2013, immediately began to introduce legislation and
voting options and voting policies that would block the
expansion of the electorate that we had fought so hard for. It
would take us eight years, eight years to overturn these
efforts, eight years to overturn this supermajority that was in
place, because of sweeping unconstitutional racial
gerrymandering.
In 2013, they passed the Senate Bill 666 during this very
week, Holy Week, 666. It was the worst attack on voting rights
we have seen since Jim Crow. Then they tabled it and they
waited. They waited until June 25, 2013, when the Supreme Court
gutted the heart of the Voting Rights Act. And some of the
leadership in this State said, now that the headache has been
removed, we can move forward.
Immediately, just hours after the Shelby ruling was handed
down, the leadership then of the North Carolina General
Assembly announced that because the headache has been removed,
they would move forward now with the monster voter suppression
law, the monster voter suppression law.
That law was passed, and, as you said, before the ink was
dry we filed suit, the North Carolina NAACP, with others. But
this law sought to eliminate same-day registration,
preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds, out-of-precinct
ballot, the first week of early voting, and instituted one of
the Nation's most stringent voter ID requirements. We have been
battling for 2,023 days today, 5 years, 9 months, and 24 days
since the Voting Rights Act was gutted in 2013.
This monster voter suppression law was the worst of its
kind after Shelby in the Nation, and it was only possible
because the preclearance protection was no longer in place. It,
in fact, has been the worst we have seen since Jim Crow.
We heard the lawyer who was leading the effort say in court
that retrogression was okay now that the Voting Rights Act was
no longer in place. We heard a Federal judge ask, it is on the
record: ``Why don't people want people to vote in North
Carolina?'' In response to this, thousands, thousands were
arrested, thousands marched of every race, color, creed, and
party.
Without the voting rights preclearance, it took us years of
organizing and fighting. Finally, in July 2016, a unanimous
panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals, the Fourth Circuit, held
that the law that targeted African Americans with almost
surgical precision was, in fact, unconstitutional.
However, they have not stopped. Even in 2018 there is a
continuing effort to suppress the vote, to put in place in the
Constitution voter suppression through photo ID.
We must have a restoration of the Voting Rights Act in this
country. It is, in fact, continuing to undermine the very power
that now African Americans, whites, and brown people have,
particularly in the South, that could open up the politics of
this country. The Southern strategy is still being worked
through all these efforts to suppress the vote at the very time
that we have more power and potential than we have ever had in
history.
[The statement of Rev. Barber follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
And thank you all.
We are now going to open for questions, and I am going to
recognize my colleague, Mr. Butterfield, for five minutes.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Let me first address my initial question to Professor
Joyner.
Mr. Joyner, thank you for your testimony today. You have
been on the front lines in this State for a very long time, and
I just want to thank you and those that work with you and
beside you for all the work that you do.
You mentioned Dr. Kenneth Williams in Winston-Salem who
became the first African American alderman in North Carolina in
1947. You are absolutely right about that and as a result of
that, Winston-Salem went from district elections, I believe, to
at-large elections.
The next African American elected was in Fayetteville,
Cumberland County. The same thing happened. The third was in
Durham. The fourth was in my hometown of Wilson, North
Carolina. After the African American candidate won in Wilson in
1953, in 1957 the city changed--without notice--changed the
method of election from district elections to at-large
elections, and the African American candidate lost miserably in
1957.
I remember it so well. I was 10 years old. I have the same
name as the candidate who lost that election.
But the question that I raise is, is it critical to
minority communities to have district elections? Is there a
benefit? Is there a leveling of the playing field when you have
fairly drawn election districts?
Mr. Joyner. And the answer to that is yes, because what
happens and what happened with your father in Wilson, to
Kenneth Williams in Winston-Salem, was that large populations
of African Americans were submerged into larger white
populations and prevented individuals from being able to be
elected, because you had race-based voting that was occurring
at that time.
But following up with that was the strategy adopted then by
African Americans to single shot or bullet ballots in order to
overcome the disadvantage of being submerged. And then the
legislature then outlawed that, made it illegal for you to
single shot.
Mr. Butterfield. We are notorious for cutting off
witnesses, so please don't take this personally, but the five
minutes go pretty fast.
The next question. Do at-large elections still exist? Do
you still encounter at-large elections or are they a relic of
the past?
Mr. Joyner. They are not a relic of the past. They are
still present and they are coming back.
Mr. Butterfield. And in those jurisdictions, do you find
African American communities and other minority communities
submerged in these at-large systems and their votes are
diluted?
Mr. Joyner. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Butterfield. And do these jurisdictions every 10 years
redistrict, as they are supposed to according to law?
Mr. Joyner. The smaller districts typically do not. On the
State level they redistrict, but typically at the smaller
level----
Mr. Butterfield. City Council----
Mr. Joyner. City Council----
Mr. Butterfield [continuing]. County Commission, Board of
Education?
Mr. Joyner. They don't.
Mr. Butterfield. All right.
Mr. Lopez, as I have a little time left, let me again thank
you for your testimony as well. You mentioned Halifax County as
an example of a county that has only one early voting site in
the whole county.
I have been coming to Halifax County for more than 50
years, and I can tell you firsthand this is a large county. It
stretches from Littleton on the west end to Scotland Neck on
the east end. That is a long ways, and a substantial number of
households do not have transportation. And to have only one
early voting site in the county, do you find that to be
problematic?
Mr. Lopez. It is deeply problematic, sir.
Mr. Butterfield. I have a statement, Madam Chairwoman, from
the Chairman of the Halifax County Board of Elections. Her name
is Kristin R. Scott, Elections Director. I have a letter that I
would offer for the record that explains the difficulties
encountered by her office in funding multiple locations of
early voting.
Chairwoman Fudge. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8117A.088
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Now, you mentioned voter ID, Mr. Lopez. I believe the
original voter ID law passed by the legislature was struck down
by the court.
Mr. Lopez. Yes.
Mr. Butterfield. Which court struck that down?
Mr. Lopez. That was the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.
Mr. Butterfield. That is a Federal court.
Mr. Lopez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Butterfield. Right. And then I believe the legislature
came back some time later and adopted a constitutional
amendment, and that proposition was placed on the statewide
ballot. Is that correct?
Mr. Lopez. Yes.
Mr. Butterfield. And then that constitutional amendment was
struck down by which court?
Mr. Lopez. There was a State court in North Carolina that
struck down the amendment that said basically that because the
legislature that passed it was unlawfully constituted, per a
Federal court decision as to gerrymandering, that really it
violated North Carolinian constitutional principles as to its
authority to actually pass amendments.
Mr. Butterfield. And finally, is it true that the
legislature is of the opinion they can still continue with the
voter ID law because of the enabling legislation,
notwithstanding the unconstitutionality of the amendment?
Mr. Lopez. That is my understanding. And my understanding
is that they are also appealing the State Court decision.
Mr. Butterfield. So unless something changes, we will have
voter ID in 2020?
Mr. Lopez. Yes. And I would say, in addition to the actual
amendment legislation, the enabling legislation is also being
litigated.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
Let me just ask each of you, if there were two things that
you would say that the Federal Government needs to do to assist
you in your efforts to make sure that North Carolinians are
treated fairly, that we can once again give some confidence
back to the people that we are doing all we can to be sure that
everyone has the right to vote, what would those couple of
things be?
We will just start with you, Professor Joyner, and just go
straight across.
Mr. Joyner. Well, I want to adopt everything that has been
said already about the Voting Rights Act and its importance.
What I would add to that is that we need to have an independent
voter protection agency as a part of the Federal Government to
regulate and oversee efforts to guarantee that this fundamental
right is honored.
Voting is a fundamental right and it is just as fundamental
as is communications, as is election financing, and the
independent agencies at the Federal level to oversee that.
We have lost faith in the Justice Department to protect our
rights. So, therefore, we need something more permanent than
that, and it ought to be in the form of an independent agency
with the authority and power to oversee and regulate voting.
Chairwoman Fudge. Okay. So you would not support the
position that the Department of Justice should still do
preclearance?
Mr. Joyner. I would not personally, in light of egregious
decisions that have been made by that agency in the past years.
Chairwoman Fudge. Mr. Lopez.
Mr. Lopez. As I stated earlier, I think Congress, by
restoring the full protections of the Voting Rights Act with a
coverage formula that was able to account for the kinds of
voting discrimination that we see today, that addresses a range
of States--Madam Chairwoman, you are from Ohio, that is a State
that has a number of major issues involving voting rights--and
one that recognizes also the changing nature of the country.
North Carolina's citizen voting age population increased by
7.1 percent between 2012 and 2017, but Spanish language limited
English proficient citizens, that population increased by about
40 percent in that time. The nature of who is living and who is
voting and who are eligible voters is changing in this State
and around the country. And so language access is going to be
an important piece of that picture, as well, among the many
other things that we are talking about here.
Chairwoman Fudge. Well, certainly one of the things that
these hearings across the country are attempting to do is to
create the very record that you are talking about so that we
can have a formula that would satisfy not only the Supreme
Court, but the Congress of the United States.
Any data that you may have, you know, clearly--and I will
just read this now. The record is going to remain open for at
least five business days for additional material. So if you
have materials, we would very much love for you to submit them.
And we will take a look at them and decide whether they should
be a part of our permanent record.
Reverend Barber.
Rev. Barber. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
First, I think we should fully restore and expand the
Voting Rights Act. Looking at the dynamics today, 40 percent of
the population in the South is now people of color. We should
fully expand it.
I think that we have to be very careful when I hear people
wanting to make this about partisanship and keeping it where it
is, about race. Ultimately, voter suppression is racist voter
suppression. That has always been and that is what we continue
to see. The Supreme Court said here in North Carolina, it was
with surgical precision regarding race.
I think we also--and I would like to submit some additional
things--but also issues like automatic voter registration at
18. If you can be registered for war at 18 automatically, you
should be registered to vote automatically at 18, to expand the
vote. We should be looking at ways we can expand and more
institutionalize early voting. All those things that allow more
participation.
I am haunted by that question the Federal judge asked: Why
is it that people don't want people to vote? And I would hope
you would pull that from that Federal--he asked it in court. It
is in the record.
Lastly, and I don't know how we deal with this, but beyond
just restricting the right to vote, what we have had in North
Carolina and in other places is an unconstitutionally
constituted legislature then blocking the people of North
Carolina from benefits like Medicaid expansion, like living
wages.
And then an unconstitutionally constituted legislature,
once they lose in the Federal court and lose in the State
court, turn around and put things in the Constitution. And some
way that is very troubling, that you can be elected by a
procedure that the courts say is unconstitutional but use your
unconstitutional ill-gotten power to then implement policies
that affect people from their voting rights to their wages to
how we address poverty to women's rights to immigrants' rights.
That is, if it is not wrong legally, it is certainly wrong
morally. I believe it is a fundamental undermining of democracy
for those who have been unconstitutionally elected to then have
the power to affect the lives of the people in every aspect and
form of their daily lives.
Mr. Butterfield. As we conclude, let me just use this last
minute to again thank you the three of you for your testimony.
It has been very valuable.
I just want to reassure you. We were in North Dakota 2 days
ago, in Bismarck, North Dakota, on an Indian reservation, and
one of the witnesses there was very concerned that this would
be an exercise in futility, that we were just politicians
coming down just to check it off a list.
But I want to assure you that your testimony today will be
in the Congressional record. We are the Elections Subcommittee
of the United States House of Representatives, and what you
have said today will benefit us greatly.
We are having seven field hearings across the country. We
have already been to Brownsville, Texas, and Atlanta, Georgia.
This week we are in North Dakota. Of course, we are here today.
Next week, we are in Cleveland, Ohio. I don't know how we got
to Cleveland, Madam Chairwoman, but that is the chair's
hometown. And then we traverse down to Birmingham, Alabama. And
then we conclude in Broward County, Florida.
And so I just want to use my last minute to assure you that
this is not just a political exercise; this is the real deal,
and it is creating the official record that will be used to
legislate on voting rights in the United States Congress.
Thank you very much for your testimony.
Chairwoman Fudge. Let me just ask this one last question,
and I think you all have touched on it. But how do segregation
and poverty create an additional barrier to voting, especially
in places like Halifax County? Just go right down the line.
You start, please, Professor Joyner.
Mr. Joyner. Well, among other things, it erodes the trust
that people have in the process and in the system. It erodes
the belief that the system is serving them fairly and serving
them well and is looking out for their best interests.
The system has been created in such a way that people are
locked into a series of deprivations, and with that they lose
faith and trust in the system, therefore they are not willing
to participate actively in making sure that the system works.
Chairwoman Fudge. Mr. Lopez.
Mr. Lopez. In some sense, democracy is a deal, that in
exchange for your participation, your engagement, your needs
are addressed. And where people see their needs not being
addressed, they don't see the value of participating, as
Professor Joyner stated.
I would also say that it also makes alternatives to
democracy and alternatives to participation more appealing. So
that when you are told that the answer doesn't have to come
from voting in this way, the answer doesn't have to come
through certain kinds of solutions, you may be more open to
that.
I would also say that there are clearly ways in which these
laws have been structured to take it to place barriers that are
especially difficult to surmount for people who have these
things that they are dealing with. And so that is why
transportation access, food access, the ability to be a member
participating in the economy are all things that actually
matter as democracy issues.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
Dr. Barber.
Rev. Barber. Yes, Madam Chairwoman.
There was a concept that we used in our fight called an
impoverished democracy. And that impoverished democracy says
that when you deny things like early voting that we fought for
years to put in place, finally won expansions in 2007 before
the 2008 election, that you are undermining people who every
day of their lives have to fight just to exist and may not be
able to be off on election day. We actually believe Election
Day ought to be a holiday. But early voting allows them,
Saturday voting, to get there. When they don't have that, that
is a form of an impoverished democracy.
Photo ID, when you make people, as, God rest her soul, our
dear plaintiff, Rosanell Eaton, before she died, she testified
and was on the record of how many miles she had to travel and
gas she had to spend. And she had voted for years, 50, 60
years, but under the new law it prohibited her. She had to try
to get this new ID. That is a form of poll taxing in the 21st
century.
But here is the other piece of it. We in the Poor People's
Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival have done a
mapping, and that mapping is we mapped every State that has
engaged in racist voter suppression, particularly since 2013,
and we then overlaid that map with poverty. And this is what we
found, and I can introduce this into the record: that every
State that has massive racist voter suppression law elects
politicians who are adversely against the poor.
And so the same States that have racist voter suppression
laws have the highest poverty, the highest child poverty, the
highest women in poverty, the most adamant politicians against
living wages. They all blocked Medicaid expansion. They all
have policies that hurt women, the LGBTQ community, and
immigrants.
Ironically, the States that have the worst voter
suppression elect politicians who end up passing policies that
hurt mostly White people, because a majority of the poor are
White in terms of raw numbers, even though the majority of poor
per capita are Black.
In this State there are almost 2 million poor and low-
wealth people. There are 140 million poor and low-wealth people
in this country. And all of the States that have voter
suppression have the worst policies toward the poor.
So if you only knew that a State had racist voter
suppression, you could hypothesize that that State is backwards
when it comes to living wages, healthcare, workers' rights,
laborers' rights, protection of the immigrant community,
protection of the LGBTQ community.
So voting rights targeted, voter suppression targeted, at
Black people ends up hurting all people, because it is
fundamentally against democracy.
[Applause.]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
Mr. Butterfield. Madam Chairwoman, I introduced into the
record a statement of Kristin Scott, elections director for the
County of Halifax. What I failed to do was to also enter into
the record a map of Halifax County showing--and I have it on
the screen now--showing the contours of the entire county with
the single early voting site being in Halifax, which is in the
center of the county, which is many, many miles from the other
communities.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Fudge. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you.
Chairwoman Fudge. Let me just close by saying a couple
things.
Clearly, we know that our neighborhoods and our schools are
probably as segregated now as they were in 1968. We know that
people of color in this country have been singled out for
precisely the kind of voter suppression that we are talking
about here today.
Now, we have colleagues who believe that there was fraud in
this country in voting. But the woman you are talking about who
voted for 50, 60 years and then all of a sudden she couldn't
vote anymore, to me it is an abomination to who we are as a
Nation.
We are here to be sure that we can create the kind of a
record that is going to be satisfactory to at least get a
formula back in place, because if we don't it will get worse,
it will not get better.
As an African American, I know what it means to be an
African American and I understand that it is hard to be black
in America today, but I also know that it is hard to be poor in
America today. It is hard to be a woman in America today. So we
all have to come together to be sure that we can make America
live up to her promise that all of us have the unabridged,
unfettered right to vote.
I thank you for being here today to talk about what it is
you think we need to do, because there is much we need to do.
We cannot change people's attitudes, but we clearly can change
the law. I thank you all so much for being here, and I
appreciate your time. Thank you so much.
[Applause.]
Chairwoman Fudge. If the panelists can just stay right
here, we are going to walk around and take a photograph as we
prepare to bring our second panel up. Thank you.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you all so much. Let us begin our
second panel. If you can either take your seats or take your
conversations out of the area, we would like to begin. Thank
you so much. It is now time for our second panel.
Let me begin by introducing Senator Dan Blue, who is a
member of the North Carolina Senate, where he serves as his
chamber's Minority Leader. He also previously served as Speaker
of the House in North Carolina and is a tireless leader in this
State. Welcome.
Caitlin Swain is co-Director of Forward Justice. Ms. Swain
has litigated challenges to North Carolina's voting laws and
works at the intersection of law, policy, and civil rights in
the South.
Last but not least, Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Vice-
Chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Justice Timmons-
Goodson was most recently an Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court of North Carolina from 2006 to 2012, and before that, was
an Associate Judge on the North Carolina Court of Appeals, and
a District Judge of the 12th Judicial Circuit. President Obama
appointed her to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in July
2014.
Thank you all so much for being here.
Mr. Blue, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENTS OF DAN BLUE, SENATE MINORITY LEADER, NORTH CAROLINA
STATE SENATE; CAITLIN SWAIN, CO-DIRECTOR, FORWARD JUSTICE; AND
HON. PATRICIA TIMMONS-GOODSON, VICE-CHAIR, U.S. COMMISSION ON
CIVIL RIGHTS
STATEMENT OF DAN BLUE
Mr. Blue. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman and
Congressman Butterfield. We are glad you are in North Carolina
conducting this hearing. Just quickly, in 1978, North Carolina
had one of the lowest black participating voting rates. Over
the next 30 years, by 2008, North Carolina had one of the
highest black participation rates in elections, and that was
because of a series of laws that were enacted over that 30-year
period to encourage voting and to remove the obstacles to
minority voting, and we were successful at it.
One of the things that I have heard talked about earlier
today was the monster law in 2013, I lived through it, I was in
the Senate at the time, and it was designed to totally reverse
the history that I just related to you. It was aimed at all
those measures that we had taken over the previous 30 years to
ensure participation and access to the ballot for all the
citizens of this State.
Now, I would like to address, briefly, some fallout, I
think, from this whole discussion of Section 4, because it
relates also to the question of overall voter suppression. And
I think that voter fraud has been the basis upon which a lot of
these laws have been enacted. In North Carolina, that is
basically a nonstarter. There is very little voting fraud in
North Carolina.
The real issue has been election fraud in this State much
more, I think, recently than voting fraud. And in-person voting
fraud has been a red herring from the beginning of the
discussions that I have heard from the early 1980s forward, and
it still is a red herring. An audit of votes in the 2016
general election found one case of in-person voter
impersonation out of 4.8 million votes cast. One case.
When Republicans have amplified the false narrative that
in-person voter fraud is rampant, now we have discovered true
election fraud, and you don't have a colleague representing the
Ninth Congressional District in North Carolina. That is the
real challenge. Ballot harvesting by political operatives
compromise more than 2,500 votes in Robeson County, and Bladen
County in North Carolina. It is the election fraud as opposed
to the voter fraud that is the real challenge to us here. And
we have been chasing this problem that is not a problem.
But, to date, North Carolina General Assembly passed yet
another voter ID law, claiming that it is going to prevent
voter fraud, and nothing has gone on in a discussion of what we
do about voter harvesting. The real cost of voter ID in the
State, and we made this argument, is that this legislation that
was enacted last year, this new amendment to our State
Constitution, puts a tremendous burden on the State and local
boards of election without the funding to back up these
obligations that it makes access to the ballot even less
likely.
You have heard the testimony of the distances that people
travel, but as importantly, it will cost $17 million to
implement a photo ID requirement without any funding having
been provided specifically for that. The original fiscal note
attached to the implementing legislation that was referred to
only addressed the voter fraud protection, and not these other
broad ranges of issues that are present in this discussion.
While local boards of election are tasked with creating new
photo IDs, we haven't given them the funding to do it.
Now, voter suppression is also occurring through voter
confusion, which is another issue. The recent bill put the
unnecessary burden on voters mandating that they must comply
with new photo ID requirements at the polls in just five months
from now. Five months from now, these are our local elections.
And so we have a requirement for voter ID without any
implementation for providing it.
Of the 850 universities, colleges, government agencies, and
tribes, only 72 applied for their voter identification
requirements to be approved. Among them, 12 of North Carolina's
17 UNC system schools were rejected for failing to meet the
statutory requirements. Of our UNC system schools, only North
Carolina State, North Carolina Central, Elizabeth City State,
Appalachian State, and UNC-Asheville, students will be allowed
to use their voter IDs to vote.
Voter ID is required in an election occurring less than a
month from now. A bill to fix the problem has been introduced
in the House, but the Republican leadership in the Senate said
there is nothing to fix. So it goes on. This whole issue of
voter suppression, by way of confusing voters, as to what ought
to be required in order for them to vote.
[The statement of Mr. Blue follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very much. Ms. Swain, you are
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF CAITLIN SWAIN
Ms. Swain. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Congressman
Butterfield, hopefully you can hear me now. My name is Caitlin
Swain, and I am co-Director of Forward Justice, a law, policy,
and strategy center based in Durham, North Carolina, dedicated
to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S.
South. It has been our privilege to serve as counsel in several
litigation efforts in North Carolina, post-Shelby, serving on
behalf of the North Carolina NAACP.
At Forward Justice, we know that when we enlarge the ``We''
in ``We, the people,'' we are stronger as a Nation. When we
expand that ``We,'' we rise to the higher call of our moral and
constitutional dictates. Freedom from racial discrimination in
voting is not a partisan value, it is how we measure the
guarantee of our shared commitment to a free, fair, and
inclusive democracy. Yet, in North Carolina and across the
Nation, our commitment to perfecting the union is in crisis.
For the better part of a decade, shamefully, history is
repeating itself.
Post-Shelby, as you have heard today, and as this committee
is well-aware, North Carolina has infamously become the testing
ground for a crushing avalanche of anti-voter and racially
discriminatory voter suppression policies. As soon as
protections were lifted, as detailed in my written testimony,
and as the committee has already heard this morning, the
General Assembly of North Carolina enacted the most
comprehensive voter suppression law seen since the Jim Crow
era, targeting African American access to the ballot with what
the Court of Appeals has termed ``surgical precision,''
eliminating same-day registration, a week of early voting, the
safeguard of out-of-precinct voting, and pre-registration of
16- and 17-year-olds. And also enacting one of the strictest
discriminatory photo voter ID laws in the Nation.
We know that photo voter ID in North Carolina is a solution
in search of a problem. While the North Carolina NAACP and many
other plaintiffs, including 96-year-old Mother Rosanell Eaton,
who you heard about earlier this morning, ultimately succeeded
in eliminating the law in historic litigation. Untold damage
was done in the three intervening years before that decision
came down and was ultimately supported by the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Right after the victory, in 2016, as I detail in my written
testimony, the fight did not end. There are intersecting
barriers to the right to vote at the local level, including
early voting access issues that Tomas Lopez spoke about earlier
today, as well as voter purge issues, which I have given
detailed information about. I will speak to one of those
issues.
On the eve of the 2016 election, during the 30 days before
Election Day, a challenge was made to the registration of 100-
year-old Grace Bell Hardison, based on an unreturned mailing.
Ultimately, what we discovered in our investigation is that
this challenge was a part of a mass systematic removal strategy
in this State. Again, while we were victorious in the ultimate
litigation, harm was done as we continued to have to divert our
resources toward litigation and away from enfranchising voters.
Access to the ballot should not be a party-line decision.
We all have a stake in returning dignity to our democracy, and
we know what works. And yet, as soon as the Supreme Court
decision ultimately finding that the North Carolina NAACP v.
McCrory case would be law took place, the General Assembly
leadership came forward and said that they would be pursuing a
constitutional amendment to enshrine voter ID in the North
Carolina Constitution. And I just want to note, obviously we
have spoken about this today, but a quote from the General
Assembly leadership at that time, the Republican General
Assembly leadership, that the goal was to mute future court
challenges.
We must restore the Voting Rights Act preclearance regime.
It is a shameful--it is shameful here in North Carolina what
voters have had to do to have confidence in this democracy. I
look forward to answering your questions as to specific
concerns, and I thank you for this opportunity.
[The statement of Caitlin Swain follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. I thank you as well. The Honorable
Patricia Timmons-Goodson, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICIA TIMMONS-GOODSON
Judge Timmons-Goodson. Thank you very much. Chairwoman
Fudge and Representative Butterfield, thank you so very much
for inviting me to appear today. I am Patricia Timmons-Goodson.
Chairwoman Fudge. Pull the mic.
Judge Timmons-Goodson. Thank you. I am Patricia Timmons-
Goodson, Vice-Chair of the United States Commission on Civil
Rights, and I come before you today to speak about our 2018
statutory enforcement report entitled ``An Assessment of
Minority Voting Rights Access in the United States.'' That
report is available, in full, on the Commission's website.
Congress has directed the Commission to annually examine
Federal civil rights enforcement efforts. Pursuant to that
mandate, the Commission conducted a day-long briefing and
public comment period in Raleigh, North Carolina, in February
2018. The decision to come to North Carolina was a bittersweet
one for me. On the one hand, like Representative Butterfield, I
delight in bringing visitors to my home State. On the other
hand, I suspected that recent political and legislative changes
would prevent--would present North Carolina in less than a
favorable light. I understood that the visit was a must, and in
the best interest of our State.
The day after the Shelby County v. Holder decision, the
General Assembly in North Carolina amended a pending bill to
make its voter ID law stricter, and added other provisions
eliminating, or restricting opportunities to vote that had been
beneficial to minority voters, as Senator Blue has shared
earlier. Federal courts later found these actions in North
Carolina to be intentionally, racially discriminatory after
years of litigation.
The Commission, after its hearing, unanimously voted for
the following key recommendations:
Number one, that Congress should amend the Voting Rights
Act to restore and/or to expand protections against voting
discrimination that are more streamlined and efficient than
existing provisions of the Act.
Secondly, that in establishing the reach of an amended
Voting Rights Act coverage provisions, Congress should include
current evidence of voting discrimination, as well as evidence
of historical and persisting patterns of discrimination.
Another key recommendation, that a new coverage provision
should account for evidence that voting discrimination tends to
recur in certain areas.
The Commission heard from 33 members of the public during
our public comment period. Let me quickly share some of those
comments. There was a common refrain, such as, ``Democracy
works better when more people participate.'' ``A concerted
coordinated effort is underway to undermine democracy in North
Carolina.'' And we heard--continue to hear about a monster
piece of legislation, and that that was to blame.
Just sharing snippets of those public comments, from Ms.
Mary Elizabeth Hanchey, she indicated that we were drowning in
North Carolina in artful barriers to access the ballot, and
that our minority communities were particularly subject to
these artful barriers. From Ajamu Dilahunt, as he spoke of the
monster law, he shared with us that racial gerrymandering
prevented black political power through packing, and as he
said, cracking, and used an example of the General Assembly
splitting a precinct in the historically black college at A&T
down the middle. One part of the campus was in one district,
and the other part in another part of the district. And I am
going to submit the transcript from that hearing.
As you will see from the transcripts and the small snippets
of North Carolina voting rights stakeholders that I just
shared, there is growing and continuous concern for the voting
rights of Americans. The distressing data from our report
further adds to the urgency of Congress to restore and/or
expand voter protections. Thank you.
[The statement of Judge Timmons-Goodson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you. Thank you all. And with your
report, with no objection, we will enter it into the record. So
ordered. Thank you. We will begin with our questions. Mr.
Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. Again, thank you very much, Madam
Chairwoman, for yielding time to me. Thank you. First, let me
acknowledge that all three of you are lawyers, so that is very
helpful to us. While we are interested in history and what
happened during Reconstruction and Antebellum era, and I am
guilty of it as well, we are trying to create a contemporary
record that will be valuable and relevant in the inquiry that
we are engaged in. Thank you for speaking to contemporary
issues that are present here in North Carolina.
We were in, as I mentioned, North Dakota on Tuesday of this
week. It is interesting to know that North Dakota does not have
voter registration. I didn't know that before I got there, but
they do not have voter registration. You just so show up on
Election Day and you vote. But the fact of the matter is, that
after the Shelby decision was made, the State came up with a
voter ID requirement in North Dakota. And prior to that, the
communities were so small that the community natives could
identify every person that came through the polling place,
because they were all friends, but after Shelby, they had this
voter ID requirement.
But the problem that we had to encounter was that there are
Indian reservations in North and South Dakota where the Native
Americans do not have street addresses, they have P.O. Boxes,
that is their culture. They were being prohibited from casting
their vote and being able to participate and so your testimony
today is very helpful.
Let me start with you, Senator Blue. Again, thank you. You
and I have been friends for 105 years, 110 years, but it is
good to see you again. According to the Brennan Center for
Justice, Senator, between September 2016 and May of 2018, North
Carolina purged 11 percent of its voter rolls. Just 19 of its
counties purged fewer than 10 percent of their voters. No
county purged fewer than 8 percent. These purges have been
especially troubling for voters of color. In 90 out of 100
counties, voters of color were overrepresented among the purged
group.
Can you shed any light on that? Why has North Carolina
purged so many voters?
Mr. Blue. Well, part of the challenge is--and, again, you
are familiar with the Federal court decision prior to the last
election that stopped the purge somewhere in the middle
district, I forget exactly which county, maybe it was in
Cumberland County, or either Forsyth County. But, nevertheless,
there are more dependable ways to determine where someone is
now. And simply mailing a postcard, whether it is one of those
post office boxes in South Dakota or mailing it to someone that
you know is mobile and determining that as a soul reason to
purge someone is not a way to do it in 2021--in 2020, rather.
You can find out where someone is using much more modern
techniques now rather than just sending a post card to find out
whether they have moved, if they haven't voted in the last two
Presidential elections.
I think a lot of it is updating our way of determining
one's whereabouts, using modern technology rather than 400-
year-old technology.
Mr. Butterfield. Sometimes even modern technology has its
flaws. I had a witness in North Dakota who said that they came
up with a scheme, that you called 911 if you didn't have a
street address the technology would identify your location. And
they identified this fellow's location as a liquor store, which
is obviously where he didn't live.
But, anyway, to you, Caitlin Swain, thank you. Let's talk
about preclearance for a second. You know, I practiced voting
rights law for a very short period of time and even I did not
recognize in the beginning the power and effectiveness of
Section 5 preclearance. It was a powerful tool until it was
suspended by the Court. It was essentially at no cost. The
burden of proof was on the jurisdiction seeking to obtain a
change in election precision, and the jurisdiction had the
obligation to submit the data and the request to the Department
of Justice for preclearance. Sometimes there was preclearance;
sometimes there was not preclearance. But there was no cost
associated with it, and it was very effective, if you had a
fair Department of Justice.
On the other hand, Section 2, which was the provision that
we used here in this county, is very expensive. When I did it
years ago, it was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and
now I suspect it is in the millions of dollars to fully
litigate a Section 2 claim without preclearance. The time and
expense of protecting the right to vote has increased,
litigation can be costly. Sometimes lawsuits can't be decided
very quickly.
My question is, can you describe the sorts of resources
that are necessary to litigate voting cases? Where does this
money come from?
Ms. Swain. Absolutely, Congressman Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. And I am running out of time, so if you
could truncate your response.
Ms. Swain. I would be happy to. In the Section 2 litigation
that we have spoken about today, the counsel, all together,
estimated more than $10 million of costs, just on the
plaintiff's side. That was close to doubled when you also
include nonprofit groups, estimates of the cost that we took on
as well as the State's cost in bringing in private counsel to
represent the Governor as well as the General Assembly. All
those costs are borne disproportionately by the taxpayers of
this State now, as well as by the--as well as a nonmonetary
cost, which is that the burden is on the voters now, and I have
detailed that.
Mr. Butterfield. And, Ms. Timmons-Goodson, if you would
give an addendum to that. Has the loss of preclearance made it
more difficult to track these changes at the local level that
could have--that could have a discriminatory effect----
Judge Timmons-Goodson. It absolutely----
Mr. Butterfield [continuing]. From the Civil Rights
Commission's perspective?
Judge Timmons-Goodson. From the Civil Rights Commission's
perspective, it certainly has made tracking more difficult. At
one point, there was a single source or a limited number of
places that we could go to get the information, but when it is
left to individual citizens and organizations to do the filing,
it makes it far more difficult to track them.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you. Before we go any further, I
was asked a question by someone in the audience about whether
the audience could ask questions. This is an official
Congressional hearing, so it does not allow for audience
participation by way of asking questions. Just so that you
would know that we are not ignoring you, this just happens to
be an official hearing.
Senator Blue, now I was talking to some of my sorority
sisters last night, and they were telling me how the State
legislature a few years back did everything they could to make
it difficult for educators and the young people they educate by
changing lots of rules. Now, I see that they are making it
difficult for people to vote.
What do your colleagues say, if they are ever asked? What
is it that they have against hard-working people or against
poor people, or against people who just want to participate and
have their rights? What do they say?
Mr. Blue. They don't say, Congresswoman. It is just that
their belief is that fewer people who vote, the better their
chances for sustaining themselves. That is what we experienced
in the redistricting. The thought that the more people that I
exclude from it, the more regressive the policies I adopt are,
and they are not able to do anything to me about that.
I think that Dr. Barber described it adequately that when
you put extra burdens on people who are already overburdened,
then they are going to have to make choices as to what they
choose to do. And so they will choose not to vote, if it is
more difficult, if you got to spend money to go vote. The
question that Congressman Butterfield asked me about, the
purging. If, in fact, you know that the poorer people are less
likely to own their homes, and more likely to rent, they are
going to be moving to different places, different apartments
and stuff, and they are more subject to being purged. And there
is data that backs that up, and so they look at that as they
make the decisions.
It is not a desire to get 100 percent represented
democracy. It is a desire on their part, at least as I see it,
to get representation for the people who agree with them, and
not the people who might have a different experience or
different idea as to how government ought to operate.
Chairwoman Fudge. It is interesting to me, and G.K. said
that we are all lawyers, the Constitution doesn't say that you
can only vote if you vote in every election. It didn't say that
if you skip two or three, that you can't vote. The Constitution
doesn't say that. The Constitution says you have an unabridged,
unfettered right to vote.
I really believe that purging is unconstitutional. And for
all of those who constantly want to recite the Constitution and
talk about the First Amendment, and read it when we start
Congress, they really don't care about the Constitution,
because if they did, they would make it easier for people to
vote and not harder.
[Applause.]
Chairwoman Fudge. Ms. Timmons-Goodson, when you prepare
reports, as the one that you have described to us, where does
that report go? Is there a Congressional committee that you
make--that you testify in front of, or what happens to those
reports?
Judge Timmons-Goodson. Yes. The Commission, upon deciding
the issue that we are going to examine, commences to bring
together experts in and on a particular issue. So those experts
may come from government, may come from the Academy, may be
regular citizens, and they testify, much as we are doing here
today.
The report that was filed in connection with voting rights
represented our statutory report. By law, the U.S. Commission
on Civil Rights must submit to Congress and the President at
least one report each year, and so the voting rights was our
issue for the year.
A copy was sent to the President, and to the leaders of
Congress. And when I say ``leaders,'' I am talking about the
leadership, and then we make available to other Members of
Congress a copy of the report.
Chairwoman Fudge. I am going to ask you all the same
question I have asked on every panel, because we are
responsible for Federal elections. Obviously, sometimes they
overlap. But if there was something that you would believe that
the Federal Government could do to assist in making elections
fairer in North Carolina, what would it be? And I will just
start and go straight down the line. Senator?
Mr. Blue. I would give you two quick suggestions. One would
be for the Congress to weigh in on this whole question of
redistricting. You do have the power and authority to determine
what Federal elections look like. And if you set the model
using Federal elections, I think the States mostly will follow.
Secondly, the Congress can weigh in to make it easier for
people to vote. When we started early voting, same-day
registration, and all of those, they were designed to make it
easier for people to vote. Because in interviewing people
across the State and in representing people across the State,
they couldn't get off work on Election Day. And if you are in
rural North Carolina, for the most part, where I grew up, you
were encouraged not to vote, and you were penalized if you did.
I think that Congress could engage in the discussion of
Election Day itself. We are probably one of the few advanced
societies that does not recognize Election Day as a holiday, as
a day that everybody can take off to go vote.
Now, if you got ample one-stop voting or early voting, you
don't have to do it, but you got to have 3 or 4 weeks of early
voting in order to offset this 1-day vote so that people can
express themselves.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you. Ms. Swain.
Ms. Swain. Thank you. In addition to reinstating the
preclearance regime, which we have spoken about today, I have
two further recommendations:
One, as is included in H.R. 1, invest in incentives for
State investment and voting infrastructure, voter modernization
efforts, and expanding access to the ballot at the State level.
So that would be Federal incentives to make those changes.
Secondly, we believe that we must expand the right to vote
to include those disenfranchised based on criminal convictions
in this country. In North Carolina, this is a vestige of the
1900 white supremacy campaign in the State. The constitutional
amendment creating felony disenfranchisement was the same that
created the literacy test. The Congress does have a role to
play in this, though these are also State-based laws. I believe
that that is also included in the current version of H.R. 1, we
would endorse that here in North Carolina. Thank you so much.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you. Ms. Timmons-Goodson.
Judge Timmons-Goodson. Yes. I concur fully in the
suggestions that have been put forth thus far and would not
have any additional ones to add to that.
Chairwoman Fudge. Well, I thank you all for your testimony,
and I thank the audience for being here. I want to thank our
staff for the work that they have done to make sure that this--
basically all I do is come and sit down, they do all the work.
I want to thank them for the work they are doing. As well, I
would like to thank Halifax Community College for hosting us
today.
And with that, I would thank my colleague, who is your
Representative, and a good one at that. This hearing is,
without objection, adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]