    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

              VOTING RIGHTS AND ELECTION ADMINISTRATION IN ALABAMA

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

                               COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                                 ADMINISTRATION
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 13, 2019

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        Available on the World Wide Web:
             https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-administration

                                    __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    38-128                     WASHINGTON : 2019

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                  MAY 13, 2019

                                                                       Page
    Voting Rights and Election Administration in Alabama.............     1

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Chairwoman Marcia L. Fudge.......................................     1
        Prepared statement of Chairwoman Fudge.......................     4
    Hon. G.K. Butterfield............................................     6
        Prepared statement of Hon. Butterfield.......................     8
    Hon. Terri Sewell................................................    11
        Prepared statement of Hon. Sewell............................    13

                                   WITNESSES

    Ernest Montgomery, Council Member, Calera County Council.........    15
        Prepared statement of Mr. Montgomery.........................    17
    James U. Blacksher, Attorney at Law..............................    18
        Prepared statement of Mr. Blacksher..........................    20
    Jenny Carroll, Professor of Law, University of Alabama...........    32
        Prepared statement of Ms. Carroll............................    34
    Nancy Abudu, Deputy Legal Director of Voting Rights, Southern
      Poverty Law Center.............................................    56
        Prepared statement of Ms. Abudu..............................    59
    Isabel Rubio, Executive Director, Hispanic Interest Coalition of
      Alabama........................................................    64
        Prepared statement of Ms. Rubio..............................    66
    Benard Simelton, Sr., President, Alabama State Conference of the
      NAACP..........................................................    69
        Prepared statement of Mr. Simelton...........................    72
    Scott Douglas, Executive Director, Greater Birmingham Ministries.    77
        Prepared statement of Mr. Douglas............................    79

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    League of Women Voters of Alabama, submission....................    87
    Alabama Voting Rights Project, submission........................    89
    Hon. Steven T. Marshall, Attorney General of Alabama, submission.   107
    Southern Poverty Law Center, response letter to AG Marshall
      statement, submission..........................................   121
    Jenny Carroll, Alabama Advisory Committee to U.S. Commission on
      Civil Rights, response letter to AG Marshall statement,
      submission.....................................................   125
    Jenny Carroll, Alabama Advisory Committee to U.S. Commission on
      Civil Rights, letter of May 17, 2019, to Chairwoman Fudge, Rep.
      Butterfield, and Rep. Sewell...................................   132
    Alabama Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil
      Rights, Barriers to Voting in Alabama report of June 2018,
      submission.....................................................   135

              VOTING RIGHTS AND ELECTION ADMINISTRATION IN ALABAMA

                                  ----------

                              MONDAY, MAY 13, 2019

                      House of Representatives,
                             Subcommittee on Elections,
                             Committee on House Administration,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., at
    the Birmingham City Hall, 710 20th Street N, Birmingham,
    Alabama, Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (Chair of the Subcommittee)
    presiding.
        Present: Representatives Marcia L. Fudge and G.K.
    Butterfield.
        Also Present: Representative Terri Sewell.
        Staff Present: Jamie Fleet, Majority Staff Director; Eddie
    Flaherty, Chief Clerk; Sean Jones, Legislative Clerk; David
    Tucker, Senior Counsel and Parliamentarian; Peter Whippy,
    Communications Director; Mannal Haddad, Press Secretary; and
    Joy Yunji-Lee, Minority Counsel.
        Chairwoman Fudge. Good afternoon. Thank you all so very
    much for being here.
        I see we have been joined by the Mayor of this great city.
        Mayor Woodfin, please join us for a moment and give us a
    few words of greeting.
        Mr. Woodfin. Good afternoon, everyone.
        I will be brief because this room is packed and we are here
    for a very important topic.
        Let me first start by thanking these strong black leaders
    you see seated before you.
        Chairwoman Fudge. Use one of these mics right here, please.
        Mr. Woodfin. Yes, ma'am. I am going to use the mic.
        What about this, everybody?
        Chairwoman Fudge. All right.
        Mr. Woodfin. Let's try this again. Good afternoon. My name
    is Randall Woodfin, and I serve as the Mayor of the City of
    Birmingham. And we are happy that you all have chosen the city
    of Birmingham to have this very important discussion and
    hearing.
        On behalf of the citizens of Birmingham, this is what I
    will say. For all the issues facing our country, for all the
    ways people are fighting, it is good to see some good folk
    fighting on our behalf.
        Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
        Mr. Woodfin. I am speaking to all Americans in this country
    about a very important topic that I feel is under assault,
    personally.
        To my Congresswoman, I know the fact that you have
    personally taken on this, and I want to say thank you.
        To Chairwoman Fudge and to Representative Butterfield,
    thank you all for being in our city.
        Let me get out of the way. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Fudge. Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you.
    Thank you for allowing us to be here in this chamber. We
    appreciate it.
        Let me just give you all a couple housekeeping things
    before I open the hearing.
        One is we are live-streaming this, so you may be on at any
    time. So just understand that it is possible you will be on the
    live stream, so nobody should be doing something silly and not
    realize you are being on television.
        I do have some family here that--you know, since I am the
    Chair, I can just do this--I have some family here. Could they
    just stand up? My family is from Birmingham, so--I just want my
    family to stand up.
        And, of course, there are a lot of women out here in red,
    my sorority sisters. If they would stand up, members of Delta
    Sigma Theta sorority.
        Listen, Terri thinks I am going to--I am going to introduce
    her mother just because she didn't want to forget.
        Ms. Sewell, please stand up.
        This is Terri's mom.
        I have a former colleague here, but Terri is going to
    introduce the elected officials so that I won't make a mistake.
        The Subcommittee on Elections of the Committee on House
    Administration will come to order.
        Let me thank the Members of the Subcommittee and my
    colleagues from the House who are with us today, as well as our
    witnesses and those in the audience for being here today.
        I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative
    days to revise and extend their remarks and that any written
    statements be made part of the record.
        Hearing no objection, so ordered.
        I ask unanimous consent that Ms. Sewell be invited to sit
    on the dais for the Subcommittee hearing today.
        Hearing no objection, so ordered.
        Good afternoon. I want to give a special word of thanks to
    my distinguished colleague, Ms. Sewell, for her warm welcome to
    this district as we continue this important work. I want you to
    know that you have an outstanding Representative in Congress.
        Today we are here to examine the state of voting rights and
    election administration in Alabama. As this Subcommittee
    travels the country, it became clear we needed to come to
    Alabama, the home of Selma, Montgomery, and Shelby County, the
    place that started it all.
        The right to vote is fundamental to a strong, thriving
    democracy. And yet, in our travels around the country and here
    in Alabama, we have seen repeated attempts to suppress the
    vote, through overt tactics, such as those seen in North Dakota
    and North Carolina, to sometimes more covert tactics, such as
    constant election administration changing in places like my
    home State of Ohio.
        The people of Alabama have marched and bled, gone to jail,
    and some even died for the fundamental right to vote, the right
    to participate in the democracy that governs their very lives.
        Nearly 6 years after the Supreme Court decided Shelby
    County v. Holder, we know that voter suppression and
    discrimination still exist today. Administrative barriers that
    may have previously been denied by the DOJ disenfranchise
    voters through changes to polling places or voter ID laws that
    create new forms of poll taxes and other changes.
        Alabama has closed polling places, enacted a strict voter
    ID law, been slow to restore the rights of previously
    incarcerated citizens, attempted to close DMV offices that
    issue the valid IDs in predominantly minority areas, and more.
        The greatest democracy in the world must not regress. We
    must recognize our faults and continue to move forward. We must
    progress.
        Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts said himself,
    discrimination still exists. We must acknowledge this fact and
    do all we can to ensure that every American can exercise his or
    her right to vote. Overcoming barriers to increase voter
    turnout does not make those barriers right.
        Today we will hear from experts, activists, plaintiffs, and
    litigators who have worked for years to ensure that every
    Alabamian can exercise his or her right to vote. Their
    testimony will help as Congress seeks to understand what needs
    to be done to safeguard every American's right to freely access
    the ballot.
        I would now ask for opening statements from my colleague,
    Mr. Butterfield of North Carolina.
        [The statement of Chairwoman Fudge follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Butterfield. Let me begin by thanking you, Chairwoman
    Fudge, for your leadership on this issue.
        At the beginning of this Congress, House Speaker Nancy
    Pelosi looked among our Democratic Caucus and looked for one to
    lead this Subcommittee and it was no question that the one who
    was ready, willing, and able to serve in this important
    position was Congresswoman Marcia Fudge.
        Marcia is the Chairwoman of the Elections Subcommittee. And
    there are, three Democrats and one Republican on the
    Subcommittee. We have been holding field hearings all across
    the Nation.
        We started in Brownsville, Texas, several weeks ago and
    have just meandered our way across the country. And for some
    reason, every city that we go into, there is always a sea of
    red in the audience, except for North Dakota. I don't know what
    happened in North Dakota.
        We started off in Brownsville, Texas, and went over to
    Atlanta and then down to North Carolina and over to Cleveland.
    Last week we were in Broward County, Florida, and today we are
    here in Birmingham, and it is our joy to be here.
        I always make these comments at the beginning of each
    hearing, and that is to remind--of course, my colleagues
    certainly know it, but to remind those who are listening that
    this is not a political rally, this is not a political
    convening. This is an official Congressional hearing of the
    United States House of Representatives. We are engaged in a
    very serious process of collecting evidence that will either
    support or refute claims of voter suppression that are taking
    place across the country.
        We all know about the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Voting
    Rights Act was enacted several days after I finished high
    school in 1965. It was a very powerful piece of legislation,
    very powerful. I practiced as a voting rights attorney for some
    years, and even I did not realize the power of the Voting
    Rights Act until I got deep into the weeds in litigating these
    cases.
        The first thing the act did was to eliminate the literacy
    test. And you certainly know all about the literacy test in
    Alabama.
        The second thing it did was to give minority communities,
    regardless of where you are situated, the right to bring an
    action in Federal court if you feel that your vote is being
    diluted or that your community's vote is being diluted because
    of race. We call that Section 2. It is nationwide; it is not
    limited to any particular jurisdiction.
        However, Section 5 is different. Section 5 was limited to
    several Southern States in their entirety, Alabama being one of
    those, my home of North Carolina. It was only limited to 40
    States. Congress enacted a formula that determined which
    jurisdictions were in and which ones were not in coverage under
    Section 5. Southerners have been--many Southern elected
    officials and those in office, have resisted Section 5 for
    generations, but we have always come out on top every time
    there was a challenge to Section 5.
        But, unfortunately, in 2013, in the Shelby County case that
    you know so well, we were dealt a severe blow by the U.S.
    Supreme Court. The Court told us that Section 5 is a
    constitutional provision of the act but that the formula that
    was used to determine which jurisdictions are covered was an
    outdated formula and needed to be updated. Therefore, the Court
    has called on the Congress to update Section 4.
        We cannot just flip a coin and decide which States and
    which counties are included under Sections 4 and 5. We have to
    collect evidence to support that. And that is why we are here
    today, to collect evidence, to build a Congressional record, so
    that we can reauthorize Section 4.
        Congresswoman Terri Sewell has a very profound bill that is
    pending in the House, and hopefully it is going to be marked up
    and heard later in the year. We are going to decide how to
    enforce Section 5, and we need your help in building this
    record.
        Thank you to the panelists for your testimony. I see them
    nodding their heads. They know exactly what I am talking about.
    This is just not a feel-good exercise today. This is building a
    Congressional record so that we can protect the right to vote
    in the United States of America.
        Thank you very much.
        [The statement of Mr. Butterfield follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Fudge. I am going to ask you, if you would,
    please silence your phones.
        As we know, if you look at television at all, if you read
    anything, you understand that we are under siege in this
    country, especially people of color, poor people, and
    immigrants. I want you to know that your Congresswoman fights
    every day to represent not only you but people like you all
    across this country.
        I would now recognize my colleague from Alabama, Ms.
    Sewell.
        Ms. Sewell. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Marcia Fudge of
    Ohio.
        I want to thank Chairwoman Fudge of Ohio and Congressman
    G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina and the Committee on House
    Administration Subcommittee on Elections for holding this field
    hearing right here in Birmingham, Alabama.
        I want to thank Mayor Randall Woodfin and the Birmingham
    City Council for allowing us to host this field hearing right
    here in City Hall, in the council chamber.
        Likewise, I would also like to thank all the witnesses. You
    have a very important role to play, as Congressman Butterfield
    has said.
        I would also like to take a point of personal privilege to
    acknowledge in the room today is former Congressman Earl
    Hilliard, Sr.
        Will you please stand, sir?
        He was the first African American since Reconstruction to
    represent the Seventh Congressional District.
        We also have in the audience my mentor. I clerked for him.
    He was the first black Federal judge in the State of Alabama,
    Judge U.W. Clemon, who served on the Federal bench for over 30
    years and to whom all of us owe a debt of gratitude for your
    service, sir, in the judiciary.
        I would also like to acknowledge all the elected officials
    who have blessed us by being in this room.
        Will you please stand?
        We have elected officials on the State level, State
    representatives, and we also have local representatives who are
    here. If any of our city council members are here, I would like
    to recognize them as well.
        I also would like to take a personal privilege and
    acknowledge my mother, who has already been welcomed warmly,
    but also the ladies of AKA as well as the ladies of Delta Sigma
    Theta from Birmingham, Alabama, and Tuscaloosa, Alabama, who
    have made their way here today.
        I want to thank all of you for being here, because we know
    how important voting rights is in the State of Alabama. I think
    it is very befitting, Madam Chairwoman, that we are here in
    Alabama, befitting that this Subcommittee would come here to
    Alabama to hold one of its seven field hearings.
        After all, it was the citizens of Alabama, many the city
    citizens of my Congressional district, that had the audacity to
    march, pray, and die for the sacred right to vote, which led to
    the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
        And it was also in the State of Alabama, in Shelby County,
    that brought us the landmark decision of Shelby County v.
    Holder in 2013 that nullified Section 4 and gutted Section 5
    preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
        We are honored to have on our first panel Councilman Ernest
    Montgomery, who was one of the official plaintiffs in the
    Shelby County v. Holder decision and who has now taken his
    rightful place as a councilman for Calera, Alabama, after
    making sure that he and all of his constituents had the right
    to vote.
        I just want to say in the closing of my opening statement
    how important it is that we create this record. Old battles
    have become new again. Many of us thought we had already fought
    the battle and won the battle for the equal right of all
    Americans who reach the age of 18 to vote in this Nation. And
    what we have seen with the Shelby decision is a rolling back--
    rolling back of protections that had been there.
        It is incumbent upon Congress to come up with a modern-day
    formula. And I am proud to have as H.R. 4 the Voting Rights
    Advancement Act as my seminal piece of legislation that will
    put a modern-day formula.
        This hearing as well as all of our field hearings are
    critically important, and you witnesses are critically
    important in providing that record. People need to know what is
    happening in States across this Nation since Shelby County. I
    think that the 2018 mid-term election is proof positive of the
    need for a stronger Voting Rights Act of 1965. And that is
    because we saw Alabama and 20 other States invoked more
    restrictive voting laws since the Shelby County decision.
        It may sound innocuous that you have to just present a
    photo ID, but it used to be that those who were disabled could
    present a validly issued Federal ID called a Social Security
    card and vote in Alabama. That is no longer the case. It is
    unfortunate that we are making it harder for people to vote and
    not easier for people to vote.
        I want to thank this Subcommittee for coming here. I want
    to thank all of our witnesses. I want to thank you, the
    audience, for your interest. But it is incumbent upon all of us
    to make sure that our voices are amplified at the injustices
    that we see in voting across America and especially in Alabama.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        [The statement of Ms. Sewell follows:]
       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Fudge. I want to introduce our first panel. Just
    a reminder, each of you will be recognized for 5 minutes. Your
    written statements, of course, will become a part of the
    record. You will have 5 days to add additional material, if you
    so wish.
        James Blacksher, Esquire. Mr. Blacksher has been a civil
    rights lawyer in Alabama since 1971 and has been the counsel on
    record in numerous landmark voting rights cases. Mr. Blacksher
    is currently co-counsel with the Legal Defense Fund on a
    Section 2 case, NAACP v. Pleasant Grove, challenging the city's
    at-large method of election for city council.
        Mr. Ernest Montgomery, council member--Calera?
        Mr. Montgomery. Calera.
        Chairwoman Fudge. Calera--Calera, Alabama, City Council.
    Mr. Montgomery has lived nearly his entire life in Calera,
    Alabama. Mr. Montgomery was the only African American member of
    the five-member city council when the city redrew its district
    lines, diluting the African American vote. The ensuing battle
    over the election became the basis for the eventual Shelby
    County v. Holder case.
        Ms. Jenny Carroll, Professor of Law at the University of
    Alabama and Chair, Alabama State Advisory Committee to the U.S.
    Commission on Civil Rights. Ms. Carroll is the Wiggins, Childs,
    Quinn & Pantazis Professor of Law at The University of Alabama,
    where she joined the faculty in 2014. In addition to serving on
    the law school faculty, in 2016 Ms. Carroll was appointed chair
    of the Alabama State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission
    on Civil Rights.
        Mr. Montgomery, you are recognized. You will see a light
    system in front of you. When the light turns green, you may
    begin. When it turns yellow, you have 1 minute left of your
    time. When it turns red, we would hope that you would start to
    wrap up.
        You are recognized, sir.

       STATEMENTS OF ERNEST MONTGOMERY, COUNCIL MEMBER, CALERA,
        ALABAMA; JAMES U. BLACKSHER, ATTORNEY AT LAW; AND JENNY
       CARROLL, PROFESSOR OF LAW, THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA, AND
          CHAIR, ALABAMA STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE USCCR

                     STATEMENT OF ERNEST MONTGOMERY

        Mr. Montgomery. Again, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and to
    the other Members who are here. A little nervous about this
    here, but we are happy and thankful for the invitation you have
    given to us to come speak in this field hearing.
        Again, my name is Ernest Montgomery. I am a City council
    member from the City of Calera, located in the southern part of
    Shelby County and since I was a resident in Shelby County in
    2010, I became one of the intervenors in the Shelby v. Holder
    case.
        Like many of my friends and associates, I knew very little
    about the Voting Rights Act prior to 2010 and had no knowledge,
    much, of the preclearance section of the Voting Rights Act. I
    am sure that it was not taught during in any of my civics or
    democracy classes. But, anyway, I was privileged to witness
    every step of the oral arguments. I learned about the States
    and the jurisdiction that was under the covered provisions, and
    I learned why.
        After sitting in and hearing the arguments in the district
    court and the appeals court and finally in the Supreme Court,
    keeping an open mind, I could clearly understand how, after
    Reconstruction, say, in the mid-1800s or the latter part of the
    1800s, how it had disenfranchised such a large portion of our
    American population prior to the 1900s. I do understand now how
    important the power to vote is. I believe the greatest survivor
    to our democracy is the power to vote.
        Our government must commit to assuring that every legal
    citizen be included; every barrier that prohibit be destroyed;
    every election, from our local schools all the way to our
    Federal elections, be fair.
        I hope our elected leaders in Washington, D.C., can soon
    come up with some solution to protect every person's right to
    vote by some formula or preclearance. For we all know, as has
    been said, that one ounce of prevention is more valuable than a
    pound of cure.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Montgomery follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
        Mr. Blacksher.

                    STATEMENT OF JAMES U. BLACKSHER

        Mr. Blacksher. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Fudge,
    Representative Sewell, Representative Butterfield. Thank you
    for inviting us. Thank you for coming.
        I am James Blacksher. Yeah, I have been litigating voting
    rights cases for a lot of years.
        Today, African Americans are the largest minority group in
    the State of Alabama. According to the most recent U.S. Census
    Bureau estimates, blacks constitute approximately 26.5 percent
    of the Alabama population and 26.2 percent of the voting-age
    population in Alabama. Latinos are about 4 percent now of the
    population and 1.7 percent of the voting-age population.
        Alabama's motto is ``We dare defend our rights.''
    Throughout its history to the present, Alabama has invoked
    States' rights to preserve white supremacy and to subordinate
    its black citizens in the political, social, and economic role
    of a cheap labor force.
        The most crucial component of this white supremacist policy
    has always been either denying or suppressing the right to vote
    of African Americans.
        Ms. Sewell. Can you speak into the microphone? Sorry. Bring
    it closer to you.
        Mr. Blacksher. Oh, I need to bring it closer?
        Ms. Sewell. Yes. There you go. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Blacksher. When the Supreme Court in Shelby County v.
    Holder in 2013 held that things had improved in Alabama and in
    other previously covered States with respect to the suppression
    of the black vote, they pointed to data that were the product
    of the enforcement efforts of the Federal courts and the
    Department of Justice. The State of Alabama has never
    voluntarily taken any action to provide equal opportunity for
    its black citizens to vote or to have access to equal
    opportunity in the political process.
        What the Supreme Court and Shelby County refused to
    acknowledge was that, even though these numbers are up, what
    remains is what I call the architecture of white supremacy. And
    that is embedded in Alabama's 1901 Constitution.
        In 1985, in the case of Hunter v. Underwood, the Supreme
    Court of the United States, in a unanimous decision written by
    Chief Justice Rehnquist, said that the State acknowledged that,
    in adopting the 1901 Constitution, the purpose of the
    convention was to establish white supremacy in this State.
        Today, in Federal court actions that I am involved in, the
    State of Alabama is taking as much advantage of Shelby County
    as it can to reclaim the benefits of this architecture of white
    supremacy.
        In doing so, it is arguing that the equal sovereignty
    principle cited by Chief Justice Roberts in Shelby County is a
    call for the reassertion of States' rights and demanding that
    Federal courts presume that today's Alabama legislature is
    acting free of any racially discriminatory motives.
        That is why I have devoted most of my written statement to
    demonstrating how that architecture is still there and given
    the opportunity, I would like to emphasize three
    recommendations that I hope this Committee will take into
    serious consideration as it drafts remedial legislation for the
    future.
        And I see my time is nearly up.
        Chairwoman Fudge. Go ahead.
        Mr. Blacksher. Say again?
        Chairwoman Fudge. Give us your three recommendations.
        Mr. Blacksher. You know how lawyers are.
        Chairwoman Fudge. There are three of us sitting right here,
    so we know.
        Mr. Blacksher. Yes.
        Well, the first recommendation, of course, is to restore
    Alabama and other States who practiced Jim Crow and suppressed
    the voting rights of its black citizens for years and years, to
    restore it to coverage under Section 4, Section 4(b), of the
    Voting Rights Act.
        It is ironic that the Supreme Court in Shelby County did
    not cite any provision of the United States Constitution that
    the 2006 voting rights amendments violated. Instead, Chief
    Justice Roberts based his decision entirely on an
    extraconstitutional principle of equal sovereignty of the
    States. And that equal sovereignty principle can be traced back
    to its origins in an 1857 case called Dred Scott v. Sandford.
        Chairwoman Fudge. We are going to put a pin in that, and we
    are going to come back when we get into the questions to go
    into more detail with that, sir.
        Mr. Blacksher. All right. But my first--well, I started to
    preach then--is to restore Alabama and other Southern States to
    coverage under Section 4.
        My second----
        Chairwoman Fudge. Okay. Now, you have to give them to us
    quick. Just tell us what they are, and we will come back and
    get into----
        Mr. Blacksher. Okay.
        The second is to amend the language of both Section 2 and
    Section 5 to make it clear that State actions that
    discriminatorily deny or abridge the electoral power of
    protected minorities and their elected representatives after
    the election are also matters involving their voting rights and
    deserve protection.
        Finally, my third recommendation--and I make this on behalf
    of my coauthor, Lani Guinier, who urged on us when we were
    writing our article for the Harvard Law and Policy Review to
    press Congress to use its power under Section 5 of the 14th
    Amendment to restore the right to vote in Section 1 of the 14th
    Amendment.
        The Privileges or Immunities Clause was originally intended
    by the drafters of Section 1 to include a right to vote. What
    is the most important privilege or immunity of citizenship in
    the United States?
        Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Blacksher. Thank you so
    much.
        [The statement of Mr. Blacksher follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Fudge. Ms. Carroll.

                       STATEMENT OF JENNY CARROLL

        Ms. Carroll. Thank you.
        Since the Shelby County decision, Alabama has passed and
    implemented a variety of regulations on voting. While these
    regulations are facially neutral, they raise real concerns
    about the opportunity of enfranchisement among the very
    population that the Voting Rights Act was designed to protect.
        The days of a sheriff standing in the doorway of the
    polling place may be a thing of the past, but current voting
    regulations may produce the same effect on minority and poor
    populations in our State. The method may be softer and more
    subtle, but the results are exactly the same.
        Now, today, I want to provide a general overview of
    impediments to voting in Alabama, and then I want to focus on
    one such impediment, felon disenfranchisement. There are more
    we could certainly talk about. The history and complexity of
    current voting regulations is long, but my time to testify is
    short. I will happily entertain any questions about any other
    area.
        From voter identification laws to curtailed polling places,
    to limited polling hours, to lack of early voting, to no no-
    excuse absentee balloting, Alabama election laws
    disproportionately affect the voters in our State even as they
    claim to improve election integrity.
        Such laws create barriers to voting in their reliance
    either on a one-size-fits-all notion of Alabama voters, in
    which every citizen interested in casting a ballot has access
    to the required identification and documentation,
    transportation, and the resources necessary to realize the
    right to vote, or they rely on the notion that small
    impediments to voting are tolerable.
        Such perceptions and their harms are not justified by
    purported needs to ensure voter integrity. In fact, testimony
    received at the February 22nd hearing before the State Advisory
    Committee revealed that this was an illusory risk, that, in
    fact, after the passage--or prior to the passage, rather, of
    the voter ID law, there was no evidence of individual voter
    fraud in the State.
        Further, the State's position, that until individual voters
    appear and complain that they cannot register, the government
    will maintain their position that all who want to register can.
    This not only mischaracterizes the true threat to Alabama's
    elections, but it adopts a position of willful blindness to the
    impact of such neutral laws on the very people these laws
    should work hardest to protect.
        Finally, widespread confusion over election law and voter
    requirements and inconsistent implementation of laws across and
    within counties exacerbates this impact.
        Consider felon disenfranchisement in Alabama. The 1901
    Alabama Constitution permits disenfranchisement of those
    convicted of felonies of moral turpitude. The Definition of
    Moral Turpitude Act of 2017 served to decrease inconsistent
    application of the felony disenfranchisement rule by defining
    disqualifying crimes.
        Now, despite the standardization and limitation of such
    crimes, 7.62 percent of the State's voting-age population
    remain disenfranchised, and the road to restoration is not
    smooth in Alabama. Confusion persists over whether or not those
    convicted of nondisqualifying crimes may vote while serving
    their sentences. The short answer is they can; they have never
    lost their right to vote under Alabama's law. And yet their
    road to realizing that right to vote even while incarcerated
    remains complicated.
        Now, for those convicted of disqualifying crimes, they must
    apply to the Board of Pardons and Paroles for a certificate of
    restoration of eligibility to vote or a CERV (Certificate of
    Eligibility to Register to Vote) to have their voting rights
    restored. CERV applications are neither routinely provided or
    available, and misinformation persists regarding the process
    for eligibility, in no small part because the Secretary of
    State's office that governs elections in our State has done
    little to disseminate information or to make such applications
    available.
        Finally, the requirement that CERV applicants have paid all
    fines, costs, and fees ordered at the time of sentencing on
    disqualifying cases in full creates a significant impediment to
    voting, particularly when coupled with the 30-percent
    collection fee tacked on to all such fines and fees, and it is
    imposed 90 days after the sentence has been imposed.
        Now, the Attorney General has issued an opinion that the
    collection of this fee must be paid in total before you can
    begin attacking the underlying debt. What this means is, for
    those unable to make complete payment immediately, they will
    not be able to realize their right to vote.
        So, once again, what is the result? The poor, who are
    already disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice
    system, face a barrier to realizing their right to vote.
        In conclusion, I cannot do justice to the myriad of
    barriers that the most vulnerable voters of Alabama face in 5
    minutes. What I can tell you is that, in my efforts to
    ascertain the lay of the land in regard to voting access in my
    State, I met with confusion, inconsistency, and frustration. I
    also met with the willingness of State officials and private
    actors to respond to inquiries in candor about the failures of
    the system and the law.
        Now, this gives me hope, but hope is not enough. Voting is
    a citizen's fundamental right. It is not earned; it is not
    given. It belongs to each of us. That some of us are able to
    realize this more completely than others should appall us all.
    And all of us should push to realize a system where the default
    is enfranchisement and not a series of hurdles that must be
    cleared to vote.
        I have one more paragraph, I promise.
        If ongoing debates in the current State General Assembly
    have taught me anything, it is that in a State, like Alabama,
    controlled almost entirely by one party, there is little
    incentive to change at the State level. Until consistent and
    comprehensive Federal policy is implemented, I fear that the
    inequity of the past will persist.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Ms. Carroll follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you all.
        We are going to start our questioning.
        I would just say that, last week, the Secretary of State of
    Alabama came before our Committee, and he said everything was
    wonderful here.
        I would now yield 5 minutes to Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
        Let me just, since it is the most recent thing on my
    minority, Ms. Carroll, let me get back to you, if I can, very
    quickly. Are you saying that, in order for a convicted felon to
    register to vote, they must completely satisfy their monetary
    obligation to the court? Is that right?
        Ms. Carroll. That is correct. And they not only have to
    satisfy their monetary obligations--and, again, these are only
    for felonies that fall within the disqualified felony
    category----
        Mr. Butterfield. Such as?
        Ms. Carroll. There is a long list. I am happy to provide it
    in a supplement.
        Mr. Butterfield. Drugs? Property crimes?
        Ms. Carroll. Distribution of drugs; some property crimes,
    not all; crimes of sexual assault; some additional crimes
    involving personal injury----
        Mr. Butterfield. If you sell cocaine, you go to prison for
    four years. You get out of prison. You are a convicted felon.
    The court ordered you to pay restitution, costs, fines, and all
    of that. In order to register to vote, they served their four
    years, plus they have to pay this money in order to register to
    vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Yes. And keep in mind--and I want to make this
    really clear--that not only do you have to pay those fines and
    fees, but during the time you are incarcerated, once that 90-
    day period elapsed, regardless of whether or not you are
    incarcerated, a 30-percent fee is tacked on to that.
        So you not only have to pay whatever those fines and fees
    are that have been ordered by the court, you also have to pay
    that 30-percent collection fee. And this is where it gets
    really challenging for poor people in----
        Mr. Butterfield. Do you have any data that shows whether
    this disproportionately affects African Americans?
        Ms. Carroll. I can certainly look up data for that for you,
    sir, but I will tell you that----
        Mr. Butterfield. If you could get that to this
    Subcommittee----
        Ms. Carroll. Okay.
        Mr. Butterfield [continuing]. It would be very helpful.
    Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Well, and keep in mind, the 30-percent fee has
    to be paid before you can attack any of the debt too. So, in
    terms of what can people expect their money to go towards, it
    goes to that collection fee first.
        Mr. Butterfield. Talk to me about voter purging in Alabama.
        And then I am going to get to you, Mr. Blacksher, and if I
    have time, I will get over to Mr. Montgomery.
        Talk to me about voter purging. We have heard about this in
    other States. Is that an ongoing problem in Alabama?
        Ms. Carroll. It is. As I indicated in my written testimony,
    as well as we heard testimony at the February 22nd hearing, it
    is an ongoing problem.
        There are two aspects to it. There is purging from the
    rolls. There is also designation as an inactive voter. If you
    have been designated as an inactive voter, you aren't purged,
    but you have to complete additional paperwork before you can
    cast a ballot even though you are entitled to vote----
        Mr. Butterfield. I don't understand the public interest in
    purging an inactive voter. An inactive voter has the
    constitutional right not to vote as well as she does to vote. I
    don't--if they are present in the community. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. And I think that gets to the point that the
    default is not enfranchisement. The default is that you have to
    prove that you are eligible and deserve to vote. And that is
    taking away a right that is fundamentally the right of the
    citizen.
        Mr. Butterfield. Mr. Blacksher, let me get over to you, if
    I can. Thank you for all the work that you have done in the
    voting rights space. As I said, in my younger days, I also did
    the work that you are doing. In fact, Lani Guinier and I were
    co-counsel on many cases in North Carolina, and I have such
    fond memories of her, and I am sure you do as well.
        What is the average cost of Section 2 litigation?
        Let me build upon that just a little bit. Let me start with
    a small case. Let's say that the Board of Elections moves three
    polling place locations out of the African American community
    into another community that is not considered to be a voter-
    friendly community--let's put it that way--and the African
    American community feels that this move is discriminatory.
    There is no Section 5 preclearance that would give DOJ an
    opportunity to take a look at it before its done. So it seems
    to me that the only remedy is either to accept it or to
    litigate under Section 2.
        How much would litigation cost a private plaintiff? Let's
    say if 10 people in this audience lived in Precinct 23 and they
    wanted to challenge the moving of their polling location, how
    much would it cost them to litigate in Federal court, on
    average? Over a million dollars?
        Mr. Blacksher. Well, when it came to polling place changes,
    it would certainly cost at least hundreds of thousands of
    dollars, if it was successful.
        And let me just say, Representative Butterfield, that back
    in 1982 I testified before a House committee regarding the
    Voting Rights Act and pointed out how expensive it was in the
    Mobile case to have to go back and prove intentional
    discrimination in order to get relief. That was one of the
    reasons Section 2 was amended to provide a result standing----
        Mr. Butterfield. I was in the audience. Senator Hatch and
    Senator Kennedy were front and center that day.
        Mr. Blacksher. That is correct.
        Mr. Butterfield. Let me finally ask you this. Let's take a
    bigger case. Let's say you take a Census here in 2020, right,
    and you are going to redraw the lines. Terri, in 2021, your
    district is going to be reconstructed. Let's say the African
    American community is dissatisfied with the way that--what is
    your district number?
        Ms. Sewell. Seven.
        Mr. Butterfield [continuing]. District 7 is reconfigured,
    and some private citizens want to litigate a redistricting case
    under section 2. Wouldn't that cost millions of dollars?
        Mr. Blacksher. Well, it certainly cost us millions of
    dollars in the last go-around of redistricting the house and
    senate of Alabama.
        Mr. Butterfield. But, by contrast, if we had section 5,
    wouldn't the burden just be on the State to present this map to
    the Department of Justice for a preclearance?
        Mr. Blacksher. Well, in fact, today, it is impossible for
    private counsel like me to bring one of these lawsuits without
    substantial assistance, financial and legal, from big law
    firms.
        I mean, I have four cases going on right now where I am
    local counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, who is
    challenging photo ID; for the Campaign Legal Center, who is
    challenging the felon disenfranchisement; for the Lawyers'
    Committee for Civil Rights, who is challenging the at-large
    election of the Alabama Supreme Court; and the SEIU, Service
    Employees International Union, is challenging the minimum wage
    preemption standard--those organizations are needed to bring
    the resources just to get the case started.
        Mr. Butterfield. I needed that in the record. Thank you
    very much. I yield back.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you.
        Ms. Sewell, you are recognized for five minutes.
        Ms. Sewell. For the record, I just want to ask some
    questions just to make sure that the record accurately reflects
    what is going on in Alabama. And a lot has been said and not
    said, and you did provide a lot of materials written, but I
    think that it is important for us to state the current status
    of voting rights in Alabama.
        Are there any African American elected officials, statewide
    elected officials, in the State of Alabama?
        Mr. Blacksher, yes or no?
        Mr. Blacksher. There have only been two in the history of
    Alabama, Oscar Adams and Ralph Cook.
        Ms. Sewell. Secondly, Ms. Carroll, you said that Alabama's
    current State legislature, predominantly dominated by one
    party, the one-party system, has not fared well for the poor
    and for vulnerable communities. That is what you testified to.
        Can you elaborate a little bit about that in the space
    particularly about voter IDs? Can you talk a little bit about
    the most popular form of ID, which is the DMV's, and what
    happened in October of 2017?
        Ms. Carroll. Sure. In October 2017, Governor Bentley made a
    decision--Republican Governor Bentley--and that is the one
    party that controls politics in the State of Alabama--at the
    statewide level, made a decision to close a series of DMVs, 31
    offices, in predominantly black and poor counties throughout
    our State.
        As I indicated in the written testimony I provided, ALEA,
    the Alabama Law Enforcement Association, and DOT, the
    Department of Transportation, conducted a study and concluded
    that that was going to disparately impact citizens who were
    predominantly poor, as you noted, and predominantly black.
        Ms. Sewell. And so what happened to that? Were full hours
    of operation reinstated, or what is the current state?
        Ms. Carroll. No, in fact, they were not. Not only were they
    not reinstated, but I, myself, found it very difficult to
    locate exactly what times offices were open in Wilcox County
    and in other counties that are predominantly African American.
        Now, you contrast that with predominantly white counties,
    like Jefferson County or Shelby County, they have three DMV
    offices that are open 8 days a week--or, I am sorry, eight
    hours a day----
        Ms. Sewell. Eight hours a day.
        Ms. Carroll [continuing]. Five days a week. Feels like
    eight days a week sometimes.
        Ms. Sewell. Yeah.
        Ms. Carroll. Bottom line is, you are much more likely to be
    able to go to a DMV office, the most common source of these
    IDs, according to Secretary of State Merrill, and get an ID if
    you live in one of these much more affluent, white-populated
    counties.
        Ms. Sewell. Okay.
        So more restrictive photo ID laws, would you say yes or no,
    in the State of Alabama?
        Ms. Carroll. Yes. We have among the most restrictive of any
    State.
        Ms. Sewell. Talk to me about transportation. Is it easy to
    get to polling locations, to get to these voter ID--I mean the
    voter registrar offices where you can get your photo ID?
        Ms. Carroll. Not at all. Not only is it difficult to
    ascertain information about when they are open, what their
    locations are, but there is a lack of public transportation in
    Alabama, particularly in rural areas. And I say this as someone
    who grew up in rural south Texas, where you all just visited,
    down by Brownsville. It is hard to travel if you do not have
    access to transportation.
        And I have heard from voters who tell me that they waited,
    they were unable to get rides, or they were able to procure a
    ride and once they got there the DMV office was either closed
    or the line was so long they could not get their
    identification.
        Ms. Sewell. Okay.
        Can you also talk to me a little bit about what has been
    happening in the State of Alabama since Shelby v. Holder?
        One of the big things that was said in the dissent, it was
    that--well, let's talk about the majority. The majority opinion
    by Chief Justice Roberts said that States like Alabama were
    being penalized for what happened in the 1960s and the 1970s.
        So we have to produce a modern-day record of what is going
    on right now. Have there been any States or counties in Alabama
    that have been opted in to having to be precleared,
    particularly Conecuh County? Can you talk a little bit about
    that?
        Mr. Blacksher. Conecuh----
        Ms. Sewell. Mr.--yes?
        Mr. Blacksher. Conecuh County, as far as I know, is the
    only--well, it is not Conecuh County. It was the city of
    Evergreen in Conecuh County who, as part of a settlement
    disclosure, was bailed in for what we call pocket preclearance.
        Ms. Sewell. So they currently have to be precleared. So
    even though we gutted--Shelby v. Holder gutted, there is a city
    in Alabama, Evergreen, Alabama, that must have every voting law
    that happens precleared.
        Mr. Blacksher. Yeah. And we can thank Jerome Gray for that.
    That is his hometown. And but for Jerome Gray----
        Ms. Sewell. I have a few minutes.
        Mr. Blacksher. Yeah.
        Ms. Sewell. Okay. I just want to say in closing, can you
    give me one sentence that just sums up what the state of play
    is in the State of Alabama and what you, if you were sitting
    where we are, would do about it?
        Ms. Carroll. Well, it is going to have to be two sentences.
        Ms. Sewell. Okay, two sentences.
        Ms. Carroll. So, first of all, if you are poor, if you are
    a person of color in the State of Alabama, it is a longer,
    harder road to the ballot box.
        Ms. Sewell. Even today?
        Ms. Carroll. Even today. And, I would say, increasingly so.
        We have an attorney general's office that is consistently
    handing down opinions that makes it more difficult for people
    to exercise their right to vote.
        We are seeing budget cuts at the State level which makes it
    not only difficult to travel, in terms of transport, it makes
    it more costly to get the documentation necessary for ID, and
    it means that these DMV offices are going to continue to be
    closed during hours where working folks may be able to----
        Ms. Sewell. What do we need to do?
        Ms. Carroll. What do we need to do? We need a comprehensive
    Federal law that will deal with this.
        Ms. Sewell. Federal oversight?
        Ms. Carroll. Yes.
        Ms. Sewell. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
        I am going to prepare to close this panel, but I just have
    one question, Mr. Montgomery. Do you think things are better or
    worse today than before Shelby?
        Mr. Montgomery. I think they are possibly--probably worse
    since that time. I mean, I don't see much of that just, say, in
    the Calera and Shelby County area that I know of. Around the
    State, I have learned a more--it has been a little bit more
    challenging in other places. Maybe because the spotlight is
    still on Shelby County, maybe because everybody is watching
    Shelby County to see what happens.
        But, again, the preclearance section is definitely,
    definitely the way to go.
        Chairwoman Fudge. Well, it is like my granny would say: The
    more things change, the more they stay the same.
        And what I am hearing from you today--even, Ms. Carroll,
    you were saying that the days of having a sheriff at the door
    are gone. No, they are not gone. When we were in Brownsville,
    Texas, they were telling us about having a polling place that
    was in a police station. Those days are not gone.
        We talk about felon disenfranchisement. When we were in
    Florida last week, the State of Florida last year voted by
    almost 65 percent to reinstate full voting rights to all felons
    who had served their time. Self-executing. But the legislature,
    last week, said they had to pay all their fees and fines or
    they could not vote. So they put a poll tax on these people
    that was not a part of the original amendment that passed by 65
    percent of the voters.
        The more things change, the more they stay the same.
        I can only say to you that, at some point, people of
    goodwill have to say something. People who are left out need to
    vote just out of spite so that these people will stop treating
    you the way that they do. Because it is not going to stop until
    we do something about it.
        I am going to close this panel and just say to you all,
    keep up what you are doing. The fight is worth fighting. And
    there are so many people who feel left out, who don't feel they
    have a voice, but your vote is your voice. That is the only
    time in this country that every single one of us is equal, is
    on election day.
        So I thank all so very, very much for being here. I thank
    you for your testimony.
        And know that we are going to continue to try to pull
    together the data that the Supreme Court has said that we need
    to pull together. Chief Justice Roberts did not deny that there
    was still discrimination in this country. What he said was
    that, I can't continue to punish States like Alabama, because,
    you know, you have old data, and maybe they should not be under
    preclearance.
        Chief Justice Roberts, if you are listening, they should
    always be under preclearance.
        I thank this panel. We will bring our new panel, our second
    panel up. Thank you all so very, very much.
        [Recess.]
        Chairwoman Fudge. Thank goodness we have so many people
    here. There are too many people here. So if you would take your
    seats.
        But all the staff, whether they be our staff, city staff,
    et cetera, they are going to put you in a holding room where
    you can watch. So if you could help us do that, then the fire
    marshal wouldn't have to do it for us. So thank you so much.
        Okay. Our second panel: Nancy Abudu, Deputy Legal Director
    of voting rights, Southern Poverty Law Center. Ms. Abudu leads
    a team of legal and technical experts dedicated to ensuring the
    voting rights of minority communities and other politically
    vulnerable populations primarily in the deep South.
        Isabel Rubio, Executive Director, Hispanic Interest
    Coalition of Alabama. HICA is a community development and
    advocacy organization that champions economic equality, civic
    engagement, and social justice for Latino families in Alabama.
        Mr. Simelton, Sr., President, Alabama State Conference of
    the NAACP. Mr. Simelton----
        Ms. Sewell. Simelton.
        Ms. Fudge [continuing]. Simelton is a life member of the
    NAACP and has served as President of the Alabama State
    Conference of the NAACP since 2009. The Alabama NAACP is the
    oldest and one of the most significant civil rights
    organizations in Alabama.
        And last but not least, Mr. Douglas, Executive Director of
    Greater Birmingham Ministries. Greater Birmingham Ministries
    was founded in 1969 in response to urgent human rights and
    justice needs of residents of greater Birmingham. The central
    goal of GBM is the pursuit of social justice in the governance
    of Alabama.
        Welcome to each of you.
        Ms. Abudu, you are recognized for five minutes.

      STATEMENTS OF NANCY ABUDU, DEPUTY LEGAL DIRECTOR OF VOTING
     RIGHTS, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER; ISABEL RUBIO, EXECUTIVE
       DIRECTOR, HISPANIC INTEREST COALITION OF ALABAMA; BENARD
       SIMELTON, SR., PRESIDENT, ALABAMA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE
         NAACP; AND SCOTT DOUGLAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GREATER
                         BIRMINGHAM MINISTRIES

                        STATEMENT OF NANCY ABUDU

        Ms. Abudu. Thank you. Thank you, and good afternoon,
    Congresswoman Fudge and this esteemed panel.
        I am so honored by this invitation to share with you the
    travesties that the Southern Poverty Law Center and our
    partners have witnessed with respect to the dismantling of the
    franchise in Alabama and the disparate impact that Alabama's
    voting laws have on racial minorities, low-income people, and
    those living in more rural areas.
        SPLC did submit written testimony that provides more detail
    and citations to support the facts and figures we presented,
    but I remain more than happy to supplement that testimony based
    on the panel's inquiries today.
        So, with my five minutes, however, I will present a
    condensed version of a few of the major voting rights issues
    that the SPLC staff has witnessed and investigated across the
    State and show how these problems are directly linked to the
    actions and inactions of State officials who see voting as a
    privilege to be earned rather than a fundamental right to
    safeguard.
        As we all know, Alabama has long been ground zero in the
    fight for voting rights, and it remains so today,
    unfortunately. The infamous Shelby County v. Holder case, which
    gutted the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act,
    originated just down the road in Shelby County, Alabama.
        In the years since that devastating decision, Alabama
    lawmakers have enacted a bevy of laws that make it harder for
    citizens to access the ballot box while simultaneously
    declining to implement reforms like no-excuse absentee or early
    voting that are now commonplace across the Nation.
        I am going to talk a little bit about voter turnout. Voter
    turnout in Alabama is regularly below the national average. In
    the 2018 midterm election, only 47.5 percent of eligible voters
    cast a ballot in Alabama despite historic turnout nationally.
        Alabama's top election officials have plainly expressed
    their view that casting a ballot should be a challenge. In
    2016, Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill told a
    documentary film crew, and I quote, ``If you are too sorry or
    lazy to get up off your rear and to go register to vote, then
    you don't deserve that privilege. As long as I am Secretary of
    State of Alabama, you are going to have to show some initiative
    to become a registered voter in this State.''
        He also expressed hostility to early voting on multiple
    occasions, saying--and, again, I quote--``There is no future
    for early voting as long as I am Secretary of State.''
        So this means that the man in charge of administering
    Alabama's elections freely admits that he does not see voting
    as a fundamental right that he is charged with safeguarding
    but, instead, as a privilege reserved only for those with the
    time and resources to navigate the outdated and archaic system
    he continues to oversee.
        You talked a little bit about photo ID laws. You are going
    to have an opportunity, of course, to hear from Mr. Simelton
    and Mr. Douglas. I am very honored that I had an opportunity to
    represent the NAACP years ago in the Shelby County case as
    intervenors and actually litigated or have been investigating
    issues in Alabama for about 15 years in terms of, again, the
    needs that remain here.
        So we talked, again, about Alabama's photo ID. This was a
    law that was enacted initially in 2011 but not enforced until
    after the Shelby County decision, most likely because the State
    knew that if it had to go through Section 5 preclearance it
    would be denied.
        The NAACP and the ministries that Mr. Douglas represents
    filed a lawsuit challenging the law as discriminatory based on
    their estimate that over 100,000 people, registered voters in
    Alabama lacked the necessary ID. You are talking about almost 5
    percent of the registered voters in the State who, simply
    because of this photo ID law, essentially are losing their
    right to vote.
        One of the main State senators who worked for over a
    decade, as far as we can tell, to pass this voter ID law was
    also quoted in media outlets as saying that his photo ID law
    would undermine Alabama's black power structure--that is a
    quote--and that the absence of a voter ID law--and, again, this
    is a quote--benefits black elected officials.
        And as many of these legislators who voted in favor of the
    photo ID law knew full well, everyone does not have the same
    opportunity to obtain one of these photo IDs. As you mentioned
    in the earlier panel, the closures of the DMVs quickly after
    the Shelby County decision and enactment of this law. And so we
    see that the real consequence is that, as a result of this
    voter ID law, people continue to be disparately impacted. And
    those individuals, by coincidence, happen to be voters of color
    and low-income individuals, which results in depressing voter
    participation in the State.
        Wow, my five minutes went by fast.
        So I just want to touch quickly also about voter
    registration. You all talked about voter registration and voter
    purges. Secretary Merrill is presenting confusing and
    misleading numbers when it comes to his voter registration
    rates. We have 3.6 million people who are of voting-age
    population in Alabama, according to the Census form, but John
    Merrill presents that only 350,000-some-odd people are not
    registered. He cannot present any evidence to support that low
    number. And if indeed that were the case, then Alabama would
    have one of the highest voter registration numbers in the
    country, not just in the South.
        And so our research is showing that he is playing around
    with the inactive voter list. What he is doing, again, based on
    our research, is he is removing individuals from the voter
    rolls as inactive, and then if and when they actually reach out
    to the State to correct that information, he then adds them to
    the list as if they are new registrants, which, in fact, they
    should have never been removed in the first place, and then is
    claiming that his voter registration numbers are higher.
        We are showing that since 2015 he has removed over 780,000
    voters from the voter rolls. We are asking Congress to
    investigate what is going on with those numbers.
        I will also just quickly close, in that, even though they
    are a minority right now, there are progressive-minded people
    in the State legislature. There have been a number of bills
    that have been presented to address some of the issues that you
    all are focused on today.
        House Bill 174 would allow, for example, those with
    disabilities to be permanent absentee voters. You have two
    other bills that would streamline the rights restoration
    process. You have two bills that would help to at least present
    some kind of modest early-voting proposal in Alabama.
        So, again, it is not that the State is lacking in ideas. We
    are lacking in political will to make these things a reality.
        Thank you so much.
        [The statement of Mr. Abudu follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Fudge. Ms. Rubio, you are recognized for five
    minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF ISABEL RUBIO

        Ms. Rubio. Good afternoon. It is a real honor to be here
    with you. Thank you so much for your interest in Alabama and
    coming here to hear our stories. As you heard, I work with the
    immigrant and Latino community here in Alabama. I have been
    doing that for the past 20 years. I can't really talk about
    voter suppression without talking about the relationship it has
    to immigration. And although immigration is a Federal issue,
    you might know that Alabama, in 2011, passed the harshest
    immigration bill in the country, called H.B. 56, which was
    basically to make life for immigrants in Alabama so awful that
    they would self-deport. That was the explicit--from the sponsor
    of the bill, that said that.
        In that bill, we have talked--you have heard today--about
    the architecture of white supremacy in the State of Alabama.
    That bill, H.B. 56, was one more step in making sure that that
    architecture stayed in place. As part of H.B. 56, there was a
    provision that said that you must now require proof of
    citizenship in order to vote. It hasn't been enacted, but we
    know that placing that burden on families, on naturalized
    citizens is just one more chilling effect that is taking place.
        We have--we also know that, you know, the physical
    attributes, our last names, the way that we speak, make it
    difficult--well, I am from Mississippi, but at any rate--make
    it very uncomfortable for people in this State who might be
    naturalized citizens to take that step. Additionally, Alabama
    does have a fairly small immigrant, or Hispanic population, at
    this moment. We are hopeful with our 2020 Census that we are
    doing a whole lot of work around to make sure that we count
    everybody. That we can show the country that we are really
    actually more than 4 percent. Some of us being natural born
    citizens of the U.S., others of us eligible to naturalize.
        A big piece of the work that we do at the Hispanic Interest
    Coalition of Alabama is help teach people about their rights
    and responsibilities. One of their responsibilities being if
    they are eligible to become a citizen, that is something we
    need to help them along the pathway, and then clearly, help
    them understand how important it is for them to register to
    vote and to get out there and actually do it.
        It is not lost on me. A woman born in Pike County,
    Mississippi, in 1965, three weeks before Bloody Sunday, the
    importance of going out there and casting your vote, because
    you are right, we are all equal on that day.
        We do know, however, anecdotal stories that we have heard
    that people are jeered at, made fun of when they go to the
    polling place because they look Hispanic, or they have an
    Hispanic last name. So that real environment that we live in in
    our State here, and in our country, doesn't help the efforts
    that community-based organizations like ours do in order to
    help people make sure that they take seriously the
    responsibility they have to get out there and cast their vote.
        So at this point, I just, again, want to say thank you.
    This is a very serious issue in Alabama as it relates to
    immigrants, because the legislation that we have seen, the
    attitudes and the environment here, is explicitly geared at
    continuing to oppress, marginalize, and further alienate people
    who want to be included in our community, and to make very
    important contributions every day. Thank you.
        [Applause.]
        [The statement of Ms. Rubio follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you. Mr. Simelton, you are
    recognized for five minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF BENARD SIMELTON, SR.

        Mr. Simelton. Good afternoon. My name is Benard Simelton. I
    am the president of the Alabama State Conference of the
    National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. To
    the Honorable Chairwoman Fudge, G.K. Butterfield, and our own
    Terri Sewell, it is an honor for me to be here today to share
    with you some of the experiences the NAACP has when it comes to
    registering people to vote and getting people out to the polls
    to vote.
        I was at the NAACP National Convention in 2006 when
    NAACP'ers from that convention marched to the Hill to convince
    our legislators that they need to extend a portion of the
    Voting Rights Act of 1965 for another 25 years. And I must say
    that we were successful in getting our legislature to vote in
    favor of that.
        President Obama--well, then he was Senator Obama, said,
    ``Despite the progress these States have made in upholding the
    right to vote, it is clear the problem still exists,'' and I
    would carry that forward to today. And if we fast-forward 13
    years to 2018, and 54 years after the Voting Rights Act was
    signed, we see and ask ourselves: Is voting rights equal for
    everyone? Is there equality in voting here in the United States
    and in the State of Alabama? And I think the answer is an
    absolute no. But we have made some progress, but the playing
    field is still not level.
        In 2013, I was at the Supreme Court of the United States
    when--and heard the argument for and against the
    constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And I heard
    then-Justice Antonin Scalia say something to the effect that,
    those arguing in favor of the Voting Rights Act must think that
    it is some kind of racial entitlement. And that was gut-
    wrenching. It disrespected the members and pain of those who
    marched from Selma to Montgomery to demand the right to vote.
        We have experienced various forms of voter suppression here
    in the State of Alabama, especially since the Supreme Court's
    decision in 2013. When the the Supreme Court, handed down the
    decision in the Shelby v. Holder case, Alabama legislators
    worked extremely hard to ensure that it is more difficult to
    vote and register to vote.
        First and foremost, Alabama implemented the photo ID law.
    That ID law prohibited lots of individuals from being able to
    vote. It is estimated that at that particular time, there was
    approximately 118,000 people who were immediately
    disenfranchised because they didn't have the photo ID required.
        In October 2015, Alabama closed numerous DMV, mostly in the
    Black Belt area. They closed those saying that there was a
    budget crisis, and that they were going to save money by
    closing these DMV offices. However, if we look at the offices,
    where they were located, most of those were in places that was
    donated to them, so there was no rent costs to them, and the
    officers who were managing these places, they were still on
    payroll. So there were no loss in income--I mean, no loss to
    the State budget because of them closing these DMVs. And I
    don't mean to say no loss, but there were no budget cuts.
        We also received a complaint from an individual who showed
    up for the polls to vote. When he presented his ID, they told
    him that he could not vote because he was on the felony--a
    felon. He said, I am not a felon. Lo and behold, he went to the
    office because he was not getting anywhere with the poll
    workers, and so he went to the voter--I mean, to the
    registrar's office, and when he went there, after going around
    and around with the registrar, he eventually convinced them
    that they were looking for another person, and not him, that
    was not eligible to vote because of a felony. Even though he
    presented his ID and the person they had had a different date
    of birth. And by the time he was able to get it all cleared up,
    the polls had closed and he was not able to vote during that
    timeframe.
        We are currently engaged in a Federal lawsuit on the Voting
    Rights Act against the Secretary of State in Alabama for
    implementing the photo ID law, and the lawsuit is currently
    pending before the Federal Court of Appeals. In addition, the
    NAACP became aware in 2012 that Alabama was not in compliance
    with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, it is also
    known as the Motor Voter Law, that requires agencies such as
    the Department of Human Resource, Medicaid, Department of Motor
    Vehicles, to offer individuals the opportunity to register to
    vote when you come before them.
        Our own Secretary of State has said that he knew that
    Alabama was not in compliance with this law, but had taken no
    action to put us into compliance until we brought this to their
    attention, and they offered to register people--offer
    registration to people who visited their office. And they
    presented the data on a quarterly basis of how many people they
    registered, and how many people visited their office, so we
    could see how many people they were actually registering.
        The NAACP and others entered into agreement with various
    Alabama State agencies for them to take active measures to
    offer their customers the opportunity to vote by putting up
    signs and things like that, making sure that people knew that
    they could vote, they are registered to vote at these places.
        Just a couple more I want to share with you. Escambia
    County voters experienced a significant number of voters whose
    names were mysteriously discovered absent from the roster
    during the midterm election in 2018, as well as the
    Presidential election in 2016. And during the midterm election
    in 2018, at least four students from Alabama A&M University
    were somehow--were not registered to vote after turning in
    their registration forms. And one of these students had
    registered online, and the others had registered through a
    voter--on-campus voter registration effort.
        Finally, I would like to say on behalf of the Alabama State
    Conference of the NAACP, I appreciate you all listening to us
    and other participants this afternoon, and I hope our
    testimonies will provide you with the ammunition you need to
    convince Congress to act to putting voting at the top of the
    agenda.
        We are ready, here in the State of Alabama, to take our
    turn--turn this around, but we look to our esteemed legislators
    in leading us through this effort. Thank you very much.
        [Applause.]
        [The statement of Mr. Simelton follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you. I will make sure I tell Mr.
    Johnson how well you did today. Mr. Douglas, you are recognized
    for five minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF SCOTT DOUGLAS

        Mr. Douglas. Well, thank you, and welcome. And thank you
    for holding hearings in the State whose struggles and
    sacrifices gave the Nation the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
    Greater Birmingham Ministries is a 50-year-old interfaith
    organization where Jews, Christians, Muslims, black, white, and
    brown, unite and provide emergency assistance to low-income
    families and working together to improve those systems of
    private and corporate practices, and public policies that
    affect the poor unjustly.
        Our work addresses housing systems, healthcare systems,
    transportation systems, the criminal justice system, and, most
    importantly, the voting system that impacts them all.
        For decades, we have conducted voter registration among the
    families we serve each year in terms of needs of coming for
    assistance for utilities, food, clothing, housing, disaster
    assistance, and other emergency assistance.
        And since 2017, we have expended our voter registration
    drives by going into low income neighborhoods, hospital waiting
    rooms, the central bus station, Jefferson County Jail, and even
    the Magic City Classic. For GBM, our fundamental principle is
    that no one should be denied access to housing, education,
    healthcare, transportation, or justice. This principle is
    embedded in the Holy text, not the least important verse of
    which is Proverbs 31 of Verse 9, which proclaims, Yes, speak up
    for the poor and helpless, and see that they get justice,
    because access to these in affordable housing, quality
    healthcare, reliable transportation, and increases in the
    minimum wage are determined by public policies made by elected
    officials. GBM believes that access to the vote for poor people
    is fundamental in deciding who gets to make public policies and
    how those public policies take shape.
        When the voices of the poor are diminished, public policies
    reflect the absence of those voices--of the voices of the poor,
    there are often dire consequences for their quality of life and
    the quality of life of us all. Without the protection of the
    guts of the Voting Rights Act, the preclearance provision, the
    changes in Alabama's voter ID laws place a tremendous burden on
    already economically and socially burdened black and Latino and
    other poor families.
        The poll tax was established to suppress voting. So money
    is a burden. In Alabama, even obtaining the so-called free
    State-issued photo ID requires people to draw on scarce funds
    to compile the underlying documents. The list of accepted
    documents required to obtain a voter ID card is limited and
    includes, for example, a birth certificate, hospital record,
    Census record, military record, Medicare or Medicaid document,
    Social Security document, certificate of citizenship, or
    official school record or transcript. Many of these must be
    requested from a government agency and may include a fee.
        Transportation is a burden for low-income people that is
    not so obvious to any of us who have reliable transportation.
    If you are poor and live in urban areas, you can't rely upon
    public transportation to get you to the polling place before
    work or home after work. But the added burden of first having
    to get to the nearest driver's license office in urban areas to
    procure the proper ID to vote.
        In many Black Belt counties, if there is a car in the
    family, it is being used by the breadwinner who has to use the
    car to get back and forth to work, often in the neighboring
    county. GBM has direct experience with low income people
    burdened by Alabama's photo ID laws.
        Through litigation, we became aware of Elizabeth Ware. She
    is an African American woman who regularly voted before the
    photo ID law was passed. However, her nondriver photo ID was
    lost, and she did not have any of the other forms required to
    vote. And due to her fixed income, lack of reliable
    transportation, and limited mobility, the law prevented her
    from voting.
        Ms. Ware's income was solely Social Security disability as
    a result of serious maladies. She does not drive and has
    limited transportation options. The bus stop is five blocks
    away from her house, and walking that distance takes over an
    hour and causes pain, and rides by car are unreliable. The
    nearest license commission where she could have gone to get an
    ID was not in walking distance, and a ride cost 20 bucks, a
    significant amount for somebody on her income.
        She was finally able to get a ride to the Board of
    Registrars, where she attempted to get a free voter ID card.
    However, she was wrongly denied the ID by a staff member who
    had been improperly trained and told her that she had had an ID
    in the past. That because she had an ID in the past, she was
    ineligible for the voter ID card, despite her current
    circumstances.
        Finally, after becoming a plaintiff in the case challenging
    the photo ID law, Ms. Ware's attorneys arranged for the
    Secretary of State's office mobile unit to visit her home
    during her deposition. She had never heard of the existence of
    a mobile unit prior to litigation. And about those mobile
    units, they would take them sometimes in rural areas and park
    them in front of a library or the county courthouse where you
    could also get your voter ID. We thought it would be like a
    bookmobile circulating; no, they parked where you were already.
        Anyway, finally, the unit's process--the mobile unit's
    process was deeply flawed and faced many technical issues.
    Ultimately, it took over an hour to issue Ms. Ware a temporary
    ID, and she had to wait for a permanent ID to be mailed to her.
    This process clearly cannot be replicated for thousands of
    people in Alabama who do not have ID, or reliable
    transportation to get to a Board of Registrars.
        Had Mrs. Ware not been a plaintiff in a lawsuit, it is
    unlikely that she would have ever been able to obtain the
    required ID. Alabama's photo ID law is the new poll tax, but
    the reason for its existence is the same as the original one.
    Thank you.
        [Applause.]
        [The statement of Mr. Douglas follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you. Mr. Butterfield, you are
    recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, again, Madam
    Chairwoman. Again, I thank the four of you for your testimonies
    today, they will be very helpful in our work. Let's talk about
    2021, and I will go to the deputy legal director, since I can't
    pronounce your last name, I will do it that way.
        You are going to have a Census in 2020, and the legislature
    is going to take that data, and in 2021 they are going to draw
    a congressional map, they are going to draw some legislative
    maps in the State of Alabama. Am I correct?
        Ms. Abudu. That is correct.
        Mr. Butterfield. When they did that 10 years ago after the
    map was prepared, wasn't the map submitted to the Justice
    Department for preclearance?
        Ms. Abudu. That is correct.
        Mr. Butterfield. Now, in 2021, they will not be required to
    submit the map for preclearance?
        Ms. Abudu. That is correct.
        Mr. Butterfield. Which suggests to me, and you correct me
    if I am wrong, it suggests to me that the legislature counter
    has unfettered ability now to manipulate the maps, unlike they
    have been able to do in the past?
        Ms. Abudu. Absolutely. You are correct.
        Mr. Butterfield. Now, with seven congressional districts,
    it appears to me that, perhaps, Alabama may be entitled to pick
    up an extra majority minority district, if the lines are drawn
    appropriately and fairly.
        Ms. Abudu. That is very possible.
        Mr. Butterfield. Because, Ms. Sewell, I believe, has about
    65 percent African American percentage in her district. And I
    believe that--if I remember correctly, when Mr. Hilliard was
    first elected some years ago, just like my State of North
    Carolina, the way we got these majority minority districts was
    through section 5. Once the State prepared the map, they sent
    it to DOJ and DOJ said, We don't like the maps, do it again.
    And the States had to redo the maps. And that is how Mr.
    Hilliard was elected. That is how Eva Clayton in North Carolina
    was elected. But now the State of Alabama won't have to do
    that. So Alabama can just implement some maps. They can pack
    black voters into the 7th District or they can crack the black
    communities. We call it cracking. That is not an obscene word,
    that is a legal word. They can crack African American
    communities and spread them in different directions so that
    minority communities won't have any influence anywhere. And if
    you don't like that, you cannot resort to Section 5, you have
    to resort to Section 2, which is a multi-million dollar
    exercise.
        In terms of redistricting, you can believe it will be many
    millions of dollars to litigate such a claim. Have I said
    anything that is incorrect thus far?
        Ms. Abudu. No. Everything you said is unfortunate, very
    sad, but absolutely correct.
        Mr. Butterfield. And if private citizens, these good people
    in the audience today, wanted to bring a Section 2 lawsuit
    challenging 2021 redistricting, wouldn't it cost millions of
    dollars to do that?
        Ms. Abudu. It would absolutely cost millions of dollars to
    bring today. It forces us into not only spending that much
    money, but also into a venue through the Federal courts,
    unfortunately, that are becoming more and more hostile. As this
    panel knows, the U.S. Supreme Court recently heard two
    redistricting-related cases, one involving partisan
    gerrymandering, and one dealing directly with the Census, and
    the counting or the requirement that people state their
    citizenship. And this falls right in line with what Ms. Rubio
    does.
        Mr. Butterfield. Let me go to Mr. Simelton. Thank you very
    much for all the work that you do. Simelton--here in Alabama.
    Reverend Barber is my son, not really my son, but he is my son,
    he is my constituent and friend, and I have mentored him since
    he was a very young man. And I am sure you know him very well.
        Mr. Simelton. Yes.
        Mr. Butterfield. In Alabama----
        Mr. Simelton. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Butterfield [continuing]. Across the State, are there
    municipalities and counties that still have at-large election
    systems?
        Mr. Simelton. Yes. And I am glad you brought that up
    because we are currently involved in a situation over in
    Pleasant Grove where they have some--it is probably about 45-
    plus percent African American, and they have no black on the
    City Council, and so we are involved in a situation there to
    try to get them to got to districts----
        Mr. Butterfield. You just opened the door to my question.
    Okay. You have got a 45 percent African American city, no
    African Americans on the City Council. Okay. That tells me
    there is racially polarized voting in that municipality, which
    means whites don't vote for African Americans, at election
    time.
        Mr. Simelton. Right.
        Mr. Butterfield. Now, in any time there are annexations--
    you still have annexations in Alabama, I suppose. Any time you
    annex areas that are high rent, high cost, into a municipality,
    that suggests that more white families will be moving into the
    city, which dilutes further the African American--the effect of
    the African American vote. That is how we used to use Section
    5.
        If a city wanted to annex areas into a city, they would
    simply send the annexation up, get it approved or disapproved.
    And once in a while, DOJ would say, Well, no, we are not going
    to approve it unless you go from at-large elections to district
    elections, and then you can have your annexations approved.
        In the city of Rocky Mount, North Carolina, which is in my
    district, years ago, same thing. We had a 45 percent African
    American city, no African Americans on the City Council. The
    city wanted to annex 19 areas in the city that were going to be
    white. Section 5 came in, and said, you can't do it. If you go
    to districts, you can do it. The city went to district, and now
    we have four African Americans on City Council and three whites
    on the City Council. That was the power of Section 5 then, and
    it can be the power of Section 5 now.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Fudge. Ms. Sewell.
        Ms. Sewell. Madam chair, in my five minutes I want to make
    three appeals: First, I want to appeal to my colleagues. I want
    to thank you for coming to the State of Alabama, and I want to
    remind you of our job. Our job was stated very clearly by Chief
    Justice Roberts in this Shelby v. Holder opinion. He said: A
    statute for Congress to establish a new coverage test, a
    statute's current burden must be justified by current need. And
    any disparate geographical coverage must be sufficiently
    tailored to meet the problem at hand. To my colleagues, we need
    Federal oversight here in the State of Alabama.
        [Applause.]
        Ms. Sewell. I understand that we have States' rights, and I
    fight vehemently for our State's right, but when our State is
    not exercising that right on behalf of all of its citizens, we
    need Federal oversight.
        [Applause.]
        Ms. Sewell. So my appeal to you is to remember the five
    things that you've learned today. You have learned today that
    the State of Alabama has more restrictive voter ID laws now
    than it did before the Shelby v. Holder decision. You learned
    today that the problem disproportionately affects minorities,
    rural communities, the elderly, and the disabled. That there is
    a cost associated with these photo IDs. The price of freedom,
    we know, is never free. It is paid by those who have fought--
    fought for this right that we have and fought for us to sit
    where we sit in Congress to do the right thing.
        The third thing we learn is that we have limited access in
    Alabama. Closing DMVs in majority black counties limits the
    ability of black voters to get the most common use of an ID,
    which is the driver's license.
        Thirdly, you have heard from our Hispanic population, our
    Latinos, that the attempts to require proof of citizenship for
    voter registration is just a modern-day form of intimidation.
    It is not right. It is not fair.
        The fourth thing you learned is that we have, in Alabama,
    aggressive voter purging laws. A nationwide study by the
    Brennan Center found that between 2014 and 2016, States removed
    almost 16 million voters, and the State--and they found out in
    the State of Alabama, our Secretary of State says 658,000
    voters have been purged from the rolls since 2015, in a State
    that only has 3.3 million registered voters. That is 658,000,
    he personally said, in a State that has 3.3 million voters.
        And lastly, you have heard about closing polling locations
    and moving polling locations without notice. All of those are
    modern day facts of things that are going on in the State of
    Alabama that show a burden. And I am here to tell you that
    there is a need for Federal oversight, and we must do our job.
    I believe our job is to pass a new law that will require and
    put the guts back into the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by giving
    these modern-day formulas.
        Okay. My second plea is to our witnesses. To our witnesses,
    continue to do the good fight in your organizations, but we
    must document, document, document. We must make sure that we
    have evidence, factual evidence of voter suppression. We know
    it happens. We hear about the anecdotal evidence, but we must
    have factual evidence, and we must submit that to Congress.
    Please do that.
        And lastly, my plea is to the audience. We are the people.
    If you see something, say something. And most importantly, do
    something. Everyone should go to the poll with another person.
    No one exercises our rights but us. We have got to do our part
    and go to the polls and vote. Because what Republicans will
    continue to say is that as long as we have voter registration
    drives, as long as we have voter turnout, then there is no need
    for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
        What they fail to realize, and it is disingenuous on their
    part, is that just because you can go and register to vote,
    just because you can turn out to vote, doesn't mean that their
    laws don't cause voter suppression. They are not mutually
    exclusive. And so what we have to do in this audience, my plea
    is to the people. We need to go out and vote in numbers that we
    have never seen before, in every election, Federal, State, and
    local elections, because that is the only way that we are going
    to turn it around.
        And I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the foot
    soldiers that are in the audience. I saw some foot soldiers in
    the audience. Stand up.
        [Applause.]
        Ms. Sewell. We stand on their shoulders, but it is time to
    get off their shoulders and do our own work. We have to do our
    own work.
        I invite all of you to come to a reception to meet my
    colleagues after this hearing. But I want to say to my
    colleagues, thank you for coming to Alabama. We need help. We
    need Federal oversight in the State of Alabama.
        [Applause.]
        Chairwoman Fudge. All right. We hear you.
        Ms. Sewell. All right.
        Chairwoman Fudge. I am only going to disagree with one
    thing you said. I don't fight for States' rights because
    whenever I hear States' rights, I think slavery. That is what
    kept us in slavery. That is what is trying to enslave us again
    today is States' rights. That is the only thing you said that I
    disagree with.
        Now, I think it was Langston Hughes who penned the words: I
    too sing America. This is my country and I am a patriot. I have
    been sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and
    I do that every day. But I need everybody else to uphold the
    Constitution of the United States as well. The Constitution
    says that every single citizen has the right to vote, an
    unfettered, unabridged, right to vote, which means that I
    believe it is unconstitutional to take away rights for those
    who have been incarcerated. We don't take their citizenship.
    They are still citizens of this country.
        People who are naturalized citizens are still citizens of
    this country. The Constitution says to us that you have a right
    to vote. It doesn't say if you don't vote in one election or
    two that you are purged from the rolls. It is unconstitutional.
    It doesn't say that because it is not a use it or lose it, it
    says you have the right to vote, the unfettered, unabridged
    right to vote. And we have to start to talk in those kinds of
    terms because they would make us think that we don't know the
    law. That we don't know what the Constitution says. I know my
    rights. And we have to start to exercise our rights.
        You know, people think that as we listen to rhetoric today
    about making America great, let me say a couple things about
    greatness. One is that America is great because Americans are
    good. That is what makes this Nation great. And what makes this
    Nation great in the words of Alexis de Tocqueville, is that we
    have the ability as a country to repair our faults.
        What has happened to us over the last 13 years is a huge
    stain on this Nation. And so, what we are doing here as a body
    is trying to repair our faults. We are going to fix this. We
    are going to give them the data. Whether they choose to accept
    it or not, we are going to say to them, be careful what you ask
    for.
        There is as much voter discrimination and suppression today
    as there was in 1965. Schools are more segregated today than
    they were in 1968. Neighborhoods are more segregated today than
    they were in 1968. The more things change, the more they stay
    the same. We are going to tell the truth. We are going to give
    Terri the formula to put into her bill so that we can create a
    new formula, so that we can fully reinstate the Voting Rights
    Act, Section 4, as well as some changes that probably need to
    be made to Section 5.
        I want to thank you for being here to give us the
    ammunition that we need to go back to Washington and to
    continue to do our jobs. I thank you all so very much. I want
    to thank the witnesses for their testimony, the Members for
    their questions. I want to thank the staff and all of those who
    made this happen, the people here at City Hall. Again, to
    witnesses, we may have some other questions, we would ask that
    you respond in writing. All my colleagues, all the people of
    Alabama, thank you so very, very much, and this Subcommittee,
    without objection, stands adjourned without objection.
        [Whereupon, at 3:33 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]