[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
VOTING IN AMERICA: ENSURING FREE AND FAIR ACCESS TO THE BALLOT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
APRIL 1, 2021
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
BOOK 1 OF 2
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
http://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-administration
VOTING IN AMERICA: ENSURING FREE AND FAIR ACCESS TO THE BALLOT
BOOK 1 OF 2
VOTING IN AMERICA: ENSURING FREE AND FAIR ACCESS TO THE BALLOT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 1, 2021
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
BOOK 1 OF 2
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
http://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-administration
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-155 WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairperson
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois,
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina Ranking Member
PETE AGUILAR, California BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin
TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
C O N T E N T S
----------
APRIL 1, 2021
BOOK 1
Page
Voting in America: Ensuring Free and Fair Access to the Ballot... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairman G. K. Butterfield....................................... 1
Prepared statement of Chairman Butterfield................... 4
Chairperson Zoe Lofgren.......................................... 6
Prepared statement of Chairperson Lofgren.................... 7
Hon. Bryan Steil, Ranking Member................................. 8
Prepared statement of Ranking Member Steil................... 10
WITNESSES
Allison Riggs, Interim Executive Director/Chief Counsel, Voting
Rights, Southern Coalition for Social Justice.................. 14
Prepared statement of Ms. Riggs.............................. 17
Sonja Diaz, Founding Director, Latino Policy & Politics
Initiative, UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs............... 29
Prepared statement of Ms. Diaz............................... 31
Marcia Johnson-Blanco, Co-Director, Voting Rights Project,
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.................. 114
Prepared statement of Ms. Johnson-Blanco..................... 116
Debo Adegbile, Partner, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr,
LLP............................................................ 151
Prepared statement of Mr. Adegbile........................... 153
Hon. Kim Wyman, Secretary of State, State of Washington.......... 179
Prepared statement of Hon. Wyman............................. 181
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Allison Riggs, Interim Executive Director/Chief Counsel, Voting
Rights, Southern Coalition for Social Justice, answers to
submitted questions............................................ 196
Sonja Diaz, Founding Director, Latino Policy & Politics
Initiative, UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, answers to
submitted questions............................................ 209
Marcia Johnson-Blanco, Co-Director, Voting Rights Project,
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, answers to
submitted questions............................................ 229
Debo Adegbile, Partner, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr,
LLP, answers to submitted questions............................ 238
Hon. Kim Wyman, Secretary of State, State of Washington, answers
to submitted questions......................................... 256
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Use of Same-Day Registration in North Carolina, General Election
2016, Southern Coalition for Social Justice.................... 260
2021 Voting by Mail and Absentee Voting Report, MIT Election Data
and Science Lab................................................ 268
An Assessment of Minority Voting Rights Access in the United
States, 2018 Statutory Report, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. 279
Kansas Secure and Fair Elections Act, A Briefing Report of the
Kansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, March 2017............................................. 683
Alaska Native Voting Rights, Advisory Memorandum of Alaska
Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,
March 2018..................................................... 758
Access to Voting in Alabama, A Summary of Testimony received by
Alabama Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, June 2018.............................................. 775
Voting Rights in Arizona, An Advisory Memorandum of the Arizona
Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, July
2018........................................................... 803
Civil Rights and Voting in Illinois, A Briefing Report of the
Illinois Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, February 2018.......................................... 821
Voting Rights in Indiana, Advisory Memorandum of the Indiana
Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, May
2018........................................................... 1031
BOOK 2
Barriers to Voting in Louisiana, Briefing Paper by the Louisiana
Advisory Committee for the United States Commission on Civil
Rights, June 2018.............................................. 1653
Voting Rights in Maine, Report of the Maine Advisory Committee to
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, April 2018................ 1692
Voting Rights in New Hampshire, A Report of the New Hampshire
Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,
March 2018..................................................... 1725
Voting Rights in Ohio, Advisory Memorandum of the Ohio Advisory
Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, May 2018..... 1783
Advisory Memorandum on Voting Rights Briefing, Rhode Island
Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,
October 2018................................................... 2228
Voting Rights in Texas, An Advisory Memorandum of the Texas
Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, July
2018........................................................... 2234
Alaska Native Voting Rights, A Report of the Alaska Advisory
Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, June 2019.... 2257
Voting Rights and Access in Michigan, A Report of the Michigan
Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,
April 202327...................................................
Alaska Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Urges Safe and Secure Election Administration During the COVID-
19 Pandemic, September 2020.................................... 2376
Barriers to Voting in Alabama, A Report by the Alabama Advisory
Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, February 2020 2379
Voting Rights and Voter Disenfranchisement in Florida, An
Advisory Memorandum of the Florida Advisory Committee to the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, October 2020.................. 2797
Indiana Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Urges Adoption of No-Excuse Absentee Voting in Upcoming
Election, 2020................................................. 2825
Voting Rights in Missouri, The Impact of COVID-19, A Modified
Summary of Testimony from Missouri Advisory Committee to the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, October 2020.................. 2827
Nevada Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,
Statement on Voting Access During the COVID-19 Pandemic,
September 2020................................................. 2858
Voting Rights and Felony Convictions, Advisory Memorandum of the
Washington Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, June 2020.............................................. 2860
Carter Center Statement on Voting by Mail for 2020 U.S. Elections 2873
VOTING IN AMERICA: ENSURING FREE AND FAIR ACCESS TO THE BALLOT
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Elections,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:02 p.m., via
Webex, Hon. G. K. Butterfield [Chair of the Subcommittee]
presiding.
Present: Representatives Butterfield, Aguilar, Leger
Fernandez, and Steil.
Also Present: Representatives Lofgren, Scanlon, Sewell, and
Rodney Davis of Illinois.
Staff Present: Jamie Fleet, Majority Staff Director; David
Tucker, Parliamentarian; Brandon Jacobs, Legislative Clerk;
Sean Wright, Senior Elections Counsel; Sarah Nasta, Elections
Counsel; Peter Whippy, Communications Director; Natalie Young,
Press Secretary; Tim Monahan, Minority Deputy Staff Director;
Caleb Hays, Minority General Counsel; Gineen Bresso, Minority
Special Counsel; Nick Crocker, Minority Member Services
Director; and Will Neitzel, Committee Liaison for Subcommittee
Ranking Member Bryan Steil.
Chairman Butterfield. The Subcommittee on Elections of the
Committee on House Administration will now come to order.
Now, before getting started this morning, I need to
acknowledge each one of the Subcommittee members who are
present today to ensure that we have a quorum and that the
quorum is recorded.
I am informed that we have with us Mr. Aguilar from
California; Mr. Steil from Wisconsin; Ms. Leger Fernandez from
New Mexico; the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr.
Rodney Davis from Illinois; and Ms. Scanlon from Pennsylvania,
a Member of the full Committee.
Joining us will be a visiting Member who is no stranger to
this Committee, from the State of Alabama, Congresswoman
Sewell. And in just a moment, I am going to ask unanimous
consent that she be allowed to participate in today's hearing.
And, of course, I should be recorded, likewise, for the quorum.
Good afternoon, everyone. Good morning if you are on the
West Coast. As we begin today, I want to note that we are
holding this hearing in compliance with the regulations for
remote committee proceedings pursuant to House Resolution 8.
Generally, we ask Members and witnesses to keep their
microphones muted when not speaking to limit background noise.
Members will need to unmute themselves when seeking recognition
or when recognized for their five-minute presentations.
Witnesses will also need to unmute themselves when recognized
for their five minutes or when answering a question.
Members and witnesses, please keep your cameras on at all
times. Even if you need to step away from the computer for just
a moment, please keep your cameras on at all times. Please do
not leave the meeting or turn your camera off.
I would also like to remind members that the regulations
governing remote proceedings require us to not participate in
more than one committee proceeding at the same time.
And so, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that all
members have five legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks and have any written statements be made
part of the record.
Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
At this time I will ask unanimous consent that
Representative Terri Sewell of the Seventh District of Alabama
be invited to join us today for this Subcommittee hearing.
Congresswoman Sewell is no stranger to our Committee. She works
very hard in this space, and we are delighted to have her with
us today.
Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
My friends, today we are examining voting in America, the
barriers voters have historically faced and continue to face,
as well as ways in which we can ensure every American enjoys
free and fair access to the ballot box.
One of our most sacred rights in this country is the right
to vote. Indeed, as the U.S. Supreme Court observed in Wesberry
v. Sanders, ``other rights, even the most basic, are illusory
if the right to vote is undermined.''
As a Congress, as a Nation, we cannot tolerate any voter
suppression or any voter discrimination whatsoever. However,
all too often, access to the ballot in this country has been
neither free nor fair. Time and time again, in courtrooms all
across the country, it has been proven that racially polarized
voting has existed at the ballot box since 1870, since the 15th
Amendment was ratified, and, sadly, it persists today.
During the last Congress, this Subcommittee traveled all
across the country--yes, we did. I remember it so well. I
remember going to North Dakota when it was zero degrees, and I
remember going to the southern border. We traveled this
country. We collected evidence that ultimately proved the
persistence of voter suppression and discrimination.
Nearly eight years after the Supreme Court decided the
Shelby case, our work continues. It continues because voter
suppression and discrimination still exist. At the time Shelby
was decided, Chief Justice Roberts himself said voting
discrimination still exists. That was the Chief Justice of the
United States Supreme Court. He acknowledged that voting
discrimination still exists, and so no one should deny that.
It is our duty as elected Members of Congress to uphold and
defend the Constitution and to protect the rights of every
single voter in this country. In a country that holds itself
out as the greatest democracy in the world, every citizen
deserves equal and unfettered access to the ballot box.
The elections of last year showed us--showed us that, when
barriers are removed and voters are given options for when and
how to cast their ballot, participation in our democratic
process increases. And that increased participation does not
compromise the integrity of our elections; in fact, it actually
bolsters integrity.
However, even in an election with such high participation
such as last year, access to the franchise is still not equal
for all Americans. We can and we must do better. Congress
cannot allow the access voters have to be rolled back yet
again.
In the years since the Shelby was decided, States all
across the country have passed numerous voter-suppression laws,
requiring long and costly battles to be waged in courtrooms to
protect and defend the right to vote.
This year, despite no credible evidence of any
irregularities in the 2020 election, States are responding to
Americans' participation in democracy by moving to curtail
access, introducing suppressive voting legislation at an
alarming rate, bills that, if they were to become law, would
almost certainly disenfranchise our voters.
According to an updated report published just today, this
morning, by the Brennan Center for Justice, State legislators
have introduced 361 bills with restrictive voting provisions in
47 States--47 States--since the beginning of this year. This is
a more-than-40-percent increase in little more than a month
since their February tally. Across the country, from Iowa to
Georgia, bills are being advanced and signed into law that
restrict voters' access to the ballot.
The Voting Rights Act--the Voting Rights Act of 1965 wasn't
written here in Congress. It was written between Shelby and
Montgomery. I say that all the time. The Voting Rights Act
wasn't written here in Washington. It was written between
Shelby and Montgomery. It was by our fellow Americans who
fought for equal access to what was supposed to be a democracy.
And so, today, we continue the work of ensuring each and
every American has an equal voice and an equal vote. This will
be the first of several hearings on this very important topic.
The testimony provided today will help guide us as this
Subcommittee seeks to understand what needs to be done to
safeguard our elections and guarantee access to the ballot box.
It is time, colleagues. It is time we encourage people to
vote, rather than continuing to erect barriers that seek to
suppress the votes and voices of communities.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses. I thank
them for their participation. I look forward to working with my
colleagues on this important issue.
Now, before I recognize my friend, the Ranking Member, let
me just take a moment to recognize the chair of our full
Committee, who has graciously joined us today from northern
California. I will now yield to the gentlelady from California,
Chairperson Zoe Lofgren.
[The statement of Chairman Butterfield follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.
I wanted to congratulate the Subcommittee for this, its first
hearing in this Congress.
You know, I remember, I was just a schoolgirl when the
Voting Rights Act was signed into law in 1965, and the change
that that made in our country, where all Americans had a better
chance to exercise their franchise.
The law was renewed periodically on a bipartisan basis, the
last time led by then-Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner on the
Judiciary Committee, who had a substantial record that
unfortunately the court discarded in the Shelby decision.
So now it is our task to compile the record to make sure
that this essential law continues to protect the rights of
Americans to vote.
I could not be more thrilled than having the opportunity to
appoint this Chairman of this Subcommittee. As we know, the
Chairman spent many, many years as a distinguished jurist in
North Carolina before running for Congress. He has a keen
intellect, a great depth of knowledge in the law, a wonderful
temperament, and he is tenacious.
So I know this is the beginning of a very large number of
hearings, and the work will be intensive, but I want to thank
the Subcommittee and especially the Chairman for taking this
on, because it will make a tremendous difference for our
country.
And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of
allowing me to say these few words, and I happily yield back.
[The statement of the Chairperson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Butterfield. We thank you, Chairperson Lofgren,
and best wishes to you.
I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Steil of the
great State of Wisconsin, for his opening statement.
Mr. Steil, you are recognized.
Mr. Steil. Thank you very much, Chairman. I appreciate you
having today's hearing.
It is focused on, today, about ensuring free and fair
access to the ballot. And I am glad we are talking about this,
because Republicans want to ensure that every eligible person
who wants to vote is able to cast a vote and that we make sure
that every lawful ballot is counted according to State law.
I would be remiss not to point out a bit of irony, as we
are sitting here today holding an important investigative
hearing after the House passed H.R. 1, a partisan vote in favor
of bipartisan votes--in opposition to H.R. 1. And as many on
this Subcommittee will recall, no opportunity to mark up or
make amendments, to learn from hearings like we could have had
today, prior to that bill being passed. But, alas, here we are
during Holy Week on a district work period, joining together to
review the importance of making sure that we have it easy to
vote and hard to cheat.
And, as we look back, more Americans are voting than ever
before. And I think you noted that in your opening comments.
That is great for our Republic. In 2020, 158.4 million
Americans voted in the Presidential election, the highest ever.
Wisconsin had record voter turnout in the 2020 election, like
many States did. Wisconsin was in the top five for voter
turnout.
And I think it is remiss to not ask the question of
ourselves: Was this because of a Federal mandate, or was it
because States were deciding what works best for them as it
relates to voting?
Those numbers, I think, will shock some people listening to
this, because the narrative being pushed, I think, is counter
to the idea that we had 158 million Americans vote in the last
election. And I think some of the narrative that we are hearing
is, because we are seeing fewer people voting, while we are
seeing a higher number of people voting, we have no choice but
to federalize our election.
The crisis, you will hear, is so dire that H.R. 1 needed to
be rushed through the House, again, with only one hearing in
this Committee, no hearings in others; no amendments allowed to
be offered--in particular, no amendments following a major
global pandemic that we are more or less still in; no ability
to learn our lessons of what happened in the 2020 election to
be implemented into this major piece of legislation. So now we
are stuck with more of a messaging bill than a real viable
piece of legislation that had true bipartisan input.
What are some of the problems with H.R. 1? It guts voter ID
protections. For example, in Wisconsin, a State with a strong
voter ID law, this bill would allow an individual to vote
simply by signing a sworn statement. That is it. It legalizes
ballot harvesting at the national level. It will allow Federal
funding of congressional campaigns, give government money to
fund politicians' reelection efforts, fund negative TV ads.
And, as we recall, the 800-page bill was rushed through
Congress with no consideration of how it would be implemented
at the State and local level. As we know here, each State has
different election laws because each State is different.
Wisconsin has a unique election system. In my home State
here in Wisconsin, while voter rolls are centralized, elections
are managed by clerks. We have 1,852 local governments
overseeing 2,800 polling places and 30,000 poll workers--very
different than some of our other States around the country.
And so laws that govern your right to vote should be made
at the level of government closest to the people, not by
politicians in Washington, D.C., more focused on appeasing
special interest groups, trying to get government money into
their reelection efforts. We should be focused on what works
for voters.
So, if there are issues with State laws, we need to work
with State legislatures, local officials, as to how to change
them. That is what I am doing here in the State of Wisconsin.
I am concerned that the Democrat proposal that was put
forward in H.R. 1 is going to create more distrust in our
election process at a time when we need to secure our elections
and restore trust in our election system. In a time of real
record voting turnout, I don't think it is the time to be
mandating a one-size-fits-all to our voting system.
I look forward to today's discussion and conversation. I do
think it is a little bit disappointing we are doing this after
we rushed through H.R. 1, but, alas, here we are. And I do look
forward to today's discussion.
And, with that, I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Steil follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Butterfield. The gentleman yields back.
Let me thank you, Mr. Ranking Member, for your comments.
And I look forward to working with you, Mr. Steil. We have not
had an opportunity to really bond since you have been appointed
to the Committee, but--because of COVID, we have had to keep
our distances. But I promise you that we will develop a
relationship and try as best we can to work together on this
Subcommittee.
We have a longstanding history on this Subcommittee and
this Committee of good bipartisanship, and I look forward to
having that relationship with you. Your predecessor in office,
Mr. Ryan, the former Speaker of the House, was a dear friend,
and we had a very strong relationship. And I look forward to
that with you as well.
Mr. Steil. I look forward to that as well.
Chairman Butterfield. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Before proceeding to our witnesses, I would like to extend
to the Ranking Member of the full Committee, my friend, Mr.
Rodney Davis of Illinois, Congressman Davis, an opportunity to
make an opening statement as well.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. And you have some
big shoes to fill. I guess I have one question for you, sir.
What Cabinet position do you want after your time as the Chair
of this Subcommittee?
Chairman Butterfield. Well, Rodney, I am so happy to be in
the seat that I am in, representing the 750,000 people of North
Carolina's First District, I think I will just stay right here
for another decade.
Mr. Davis. Well, I don't want that office next to me
vacant, buddy. I want you there. It is great to----
Chairman Butterfield. Thank you.
Mr. Davis [continuing]. Be next to you there. Great to have
you here.
And I do miss our former Chair, Marcia Fudge, who has gone
on to brighter pastures as our new Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development. I couldn't think of a better person to take
over for her on this Subcommittee.
You know, one thing that you will find and the witnesses
will find is, this Subcommittee is going to be made up of
people who genuinely like each other, Republicans and Democrats
that actually genuinely get along. Unfortunately, the media
doesn't talk about those issues.
We will have our policy disagreements, and you will see
that here today. But, in the end, hopefully we can come
together to make sure we do what we all want, which is for
every person who is legally able to cast a vote to be able to
do so.
And, G.K., I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chair.
I am very proud of our new Ranking Member of this
Subcommittee, Mr. Steil. He is a very good member of our
conference and one who is very interested in making not just
the House work better but our elections work better nationwide.
So welcome aboard, Bryan.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity. And I
will yield back without even making fun of Mr. Aguilar.
Chairman Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis. Thank
you for your very kind words.
In just a moment, I will introduce today's panel, but
before I do that, as a reminder to our witnesses, each of you
will be recognized for five minutes. I think most of you have
testified previously, and so you know kind of how this thing
works. But you will be recognized for five minutes, and there
is a timer on your screen, so please be sure you can see the
timer and are mindful of the five-minute time limit.
Your entire written statements will be made a part of the
record. And the record will remain open for at least five days
for additional materials that may be submitted.
And so welcome to each of our witnesses.
Joining us today are Allison Riggs, who is with the
Southern Coalition for Social Justice.
We have Sonja Diaz, UCLA--the University of California, Los
Angeles--UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Initiative.
We have Marcia Johnson-Blanco from the Lawyers' Committee
for Civil Rights Under Law.
And Debo Adegbile--I have always had problems pronouncing
your name, sir, but welcome. Welcome to our committee. And I
know of your great work, and I am glad to have you back before
the Committee.
Debo Adegbile is with the firm of WilmerHale.
Also, Secretary of State Kim Wyman is with us from the
State of Washington.
Allison Riggs is the interim Executive Director and Chief
Counsel for voting rights at the Southern Coalition for Social
Justice, based in North Carolina, which is where I am at this
moment.
Ms. Riggs's voting rights work over the last 10 or more
years at SCSJ has been focused on fighting for fair
redistricting plans, fighting against voter suppression, and
advocating for electoral reforms that would expand access to
voting.
She has litigated redistricting cases on behalf of the
State NAACP Conference in Texas and Florida and Virginia and
right here in North Carolina. In 2018, she argued the Texas
redistricting case in the U.S. Supreme Court, and, in 2019, she
argued the North Carolina partisan gerrymandering case in the
Supreme Court.
Sonja Diaz is a practicing civil rights attorney and policy
advisor. As founding director of UCLA Latino Policy and
Politics Initiative, Ms. Diaz co-founded the first multi-issue
policy think tank focused on Latinos in the University of
California. She is responsible for overseeing all aspects of
LPPI, including strategy, research, mobilization, and
leadership. With a deep background in policy and advocacy, she
is a regular contributor to the organization's research
portfolio.
Prior to this assignment, Ms. Diaz served as policy counsel
to Vice President Kamala Harris during her first and second
terms as California's Attorney General.
Next is Marcia Johnson-Blanco. Marcia is the Co-Director of
the Lawyers' Committee's Voting Rights Project. She manages the
project's programmatic and advocacy portfolios, which includes
leading Election Protection, the Nation's largest nonpartisan
voter protection program; overseeing the work of the National
Commission on Voting Rights; promoting election reform;
ensuring minority participation in redistricting; and ensuring
that those with felony convictions regain their right to vote.
Ms. Johnson-Blanco started at the Lawyers' Committee as a
staff attorney back in 2004, working on the first Election
Protection program during a Presidential election. The
following year, in 2005, she served as the deputy director of
the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, which was
organized to review the record of discrimination in voting from
1982 to 2005.
Debo Adegbile is a partner at the WilmerHale firm, where he
is a member of the Government and Regulatory Litigation Group
as well as the co-chair of the firm's antidiscrimination
practice.
Among his prior experience, he spent more than a decade
working for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. In
2013, he argued his second Supreme Court case, Shelby County v.
Holder. Previously, he argued the Northwest Austin v. Holder
case in the Supreme Court.
In addition to his practice at the firm, our witness
currently serves as a Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights, appointed by President Barack Obama in 2016.
Our witness is here testifying today in his personal
capacity. We need to make sure that is in the record.
Finally, Secretary of State Kim Wyman of the great State of
Washington is that State's 15th Secretary of State. First
elected in 2012, she is only the second female Secretary of
State in Washington's history.
Prior to being elected, Secretary Wyman served as Thurston
County elections director for nearly a decade, served three
terms as elected Thurston County auditor. Secretary Wyman is
responsible for overseeing State and local elections,
corporation and charity filings, the Washington State Library,
the Washington Talking Book and Braille Library, and the
Washington State Archives.
That completes the introductions. We are now going to
recognize each witness for five minutes.
Ms. Riggs, you should go first. You are now recognized for
five minutes.
STATEMENTS OF ALLISON RIGGS, INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CHIEF
COUNSEL, VOTING RIGHTS, SOUTHERN COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE;
SONJA DIAZ, FOUNDING DIRECTOR, LATINO POLICY AND POLITICS
INITIATIVE, UCLA LUSKIN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS; MARCIA
JOHNSON-BLANCO, CO-DIRECTOR, VOTING RIGHTS PROJECT, LAWYERS'
COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW; DEBO ADEGBILE, PARTNER,
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR, LLP; THE HONORABLE KIM
WYMAN, SECRETARY OF STATE, STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATEMENT OF ALLISON RIGGS
Ms. Riggs. Good afternoon, Chairman Butterfield, Ranking
Member Steil, Members of the Subcommittee, and Representative
Sewell. My name is Allison Riggs, and I am the co-executive
director of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. I also
serve as chief counsel for voting rights. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
My colleagues will, I am sure, speak to you about what is
happening in Georgia and Texas right now, but I want to tell
you about the unjustified efforts here in North Carolina
underway to make it harder to vote.
North Carolina remains the most active battlefield in this
unending war for access to the ballot box, where the ``Southern
strategy'' remains ever visible and effective, where politics
are used as a proxy for race and embolden acts taken to
restrict access to voting, and where electoral success by
voters of color is met with voter suppression.
For our most vulnerable voters, who lack access to
transportation, who work multiple jobs just to make ends meet,
who suffer health conditions that restrict their mobility,
practices that make it harder to vote absolutely make the
difference between voting or not. And because of the ugly
history of official racial discrimination in our country, those
voters, vulnerable voters, are disproportionately voters of
color.
We have rightfully celebrated the numerous successes in
administering the 2020 election--record turnout in many States,
voters largely voting safely in a pandemic--but we can't stop
the story there.
In predominantly Black and Latinx communities across the
area in which SCSJ works, voters waited for hours to vote. The
five States that did not allow unfettered access to vote-by-
mail in 2020--Tennessee, Texas, Mississippi, Indiana, and
Louisiana--were in the bottom 10 in turnout countrywide. Voters
of color had their absentee ballots rejected at
disproportionately high rates.
There are laws and policies that contribute to this
problem, and State legislatures are not acting to fix them; in
fact, the opposite.
In North Carolina, legislative efforts are now underway to
restrict absentee voting. A proposed law would require absentee
ballots to be received by 5:00 p.m. on election day to be
counted.
Not only would this make North Carolina an extreme outlier
nationally, but, in the data we provided to you, on some of the
days right after the election, when a timely postmarked ballot
was received by election officials, Black voters would
disproportionately have their ballots thrown out.
That same bill would move the deadline for requesting
absentee ballots an entire week earlier than in 2020.
By the analysis performed by our partners at Democracy
North Carolina, nearly 50 percent of the thousands of ballots
that would have been discounted had these proposed rules been
in effect in 2020 would have been from voters of color.
And even when, in 2016, the Fourth Circuit found the North
Carolina legislature guilty of intentional racial
discrimination when it, among other things, cut early voting--a
mechanism of access on which Black voters disproportionately
rely--the legislature responded in 2018 by passing a law that
reduced the number of early-voting sites offered in 2018
compared to 2014. And now, in 2021, they are trying to restrict
executive officials' ability to act in emergency situations to
protect access to early voting.
Lastly, I would be remiss if I didn't address the important
redistricting processes that will be happening across the
country later this year.
For as long as we have been redrawing electoral district
lines after decennial censuses, redistricting has been a tool
used to dilute and silence the voices of voters of color. And
this is the first redistricting cycle in decades where those
voters won't have the protections of section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act.
As I detailed in my written comments, last redistricting
cycle, the North Carolina General Assembly passed numerous
State and local redistricting plans that violated the
Constitution or were inconsistent with section 2 remedies
already in place.
In North Carolina and other States, particularly where
there are significant populations of voters of color,
redistricting is one of the several known practices that should
invoke heightened review by Congress and Federal agencies.
Congress needs to intervene to protect Black, Latinx, AAPI, and
indigenous voters.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Riggs follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Butterfield. Thank you. You hit it right on the
mark, Ms. Riggs.
At this time, we will recognize the next witness. Ms. Diaz
is next to speak.
Ms. Diaz, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF SONJA DIAZ
Ms. Diaz. Chairperson Butterfield, Ranking Member Steil,
and members of the Subcommittee on Elections of the Committee
on House Administration, my name is Sonja Diaz. I am a licensed
attorney and the founding director of the UCLA Latino Policy
and Politics Initiative.
Much of my research is on the intersections of law and
policy as it relates to the Nation's diverse Latino
communities. Thank you for affording me the privilege of
testifying on how we can strengthen American democracy.
I think it is important to start with my story. I grew up
in northeast Los Angeles. My father, born and raised in east
Los Angeles, and my mother, a farmworker from the Central
Valley, gave me a community education grounded in civil rights.
My siblings and I marched through the streets of Los
Angeles, bellowing our support for workers and immigrants,
holding up signs at protests to advocate against discriminatory
ballot initiatives. Our tiny feet walked precincts to advocate
for candidates that spoke to the issues that mattered most. It
was from this perspective that my understanding of our
democracy and our individual power to strengthen it was formed.
Oftentimes, when we talk about voter suppression, we focus
on a set of jurisdictions that have long been held as bad
actors in our law textbooks, places like Texas, Georgia, North
Carolina, and Florida. But this frame too often leaves out an
important fact: The attack on Americans' fundamental right to
free and fair access to the ballot happens everywhere, for all
Americans.
This is true of my story. As a young girl, I was able to
see myself represented in government in ways that neither of my
parents could fathom. Because of a Federal court's decision in
Gardner v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in 1990, the
county was forced to create the first Latino-majority seat. As
a result, Gloria Molina was the first Latino ever elected to
that body. She was not the last. Ms. Molina's First
Supervisorial District seat is currently occupied by Hilda
Solis, who was the first Latina to be appointed to a
Presidential Cabinet.
Thirty years later, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors
still has only one Latino-majority district. Yet, in the last
20 years, the Latino citizen voting-age population increased by
77 percent. Unless Congress acts to remedy this pernicious vote
dilution in L.A., redistricting cycles will continue to fail
the Nation's largest Latino community.
Another example is the State of Washington, which, like
California, has championed innovation to expand access to the
ballot box and improve election administration. Both States
have their own voting rights acts. Yet Latinos remain targets
of efforts to deny them meaningful participation in elections.
Over the years, the UCLA Voting Rights Project has been
involved in legal advocacy in Washington.
The example of Yakima City is another compelling modern-day
challenge to voters that threatens American democracy. In 2014,
a Federal court ordered Yakima to create new single-member city
council districts to remedy an at-large districting scheme that
routinely suffocated the voting preferences of Latinos.
Yakima functions as a tale of two worlds, White and Brown,
and it is split by a single street, 16th Avenue. Throughout
history, there was a gross lack of Latino representation across
all facets of civic life and routine underinvestment in the
Brown side of town.
In the first election with the new districts, there was a
moment of hope and opportunity, where doors opened in a way
Latinos had never seen before. That 2015 election resulted in
political history. Three Latinas were elected to the city
council.
In response, the city clerk, along with some ousted White
city council members, resigned an entire month early--to leave
before the Mexicans arrived.
The retaliation didn't stop. White council members sought
to leverage an at-large ballot referendum to reduce the
electoral voice of Latinos by creating a strong mayor system.
UCLA immediately intervened to combat a system that, if
adopted, would retrogress Latino political power by de facto
returning to an at-large election system.
Vote dilution remains a persistent issue for Latino voters,
even in seemingly progressive States with their own voting
rights laws.
The contemporary attacks on access to free and fair
elections are inextricably tied to the growth of an electorate
that remains key to American recovery and critical to a
thriving, vibrant democracy.
UCLA research estimates that 16.6 million Latino voters
cast a ballot in 2020. This is the single largest four-year
increase for Latinos ever. These historic gains have been met
with troubling backlash. Many of the new voter-suppression laws
are happening in the very States where Latinos played a
significant role.
Let me be clear: The threats to democracy are direct
responses to the perceived and real prospect of an inclusive,
multiracial democracy. Congress has the power to change that.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Diaz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Butterfield. Thank you, Ms. Diaz, for your
testimony.
At this time, I will recognize the next witness, Ms.
Johnson-Blanco.
Ms. Blanco, you are with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights. And I don't know if you know this fact, but your
organization, back in the early 1980s, filed a lawsuit against
the city where I reside, where I am at this moment, because of
the unequal application of municipal services--to wit, the fact
that there were 23 miles of unpaved streets in this community.
And it was your organization that litigated and got 23 miles of
streets paved.
And so I don't know if you even know that, but I just want
you to take that back to your organization. I again say thank
you to the Lawyers' Committee.
At this time, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARCIA JOHNSON-BLANCO
Ms. Johnson-Blanco. Thank you, Chairman Butterfield. I
didn't know that, and I am glad to hear that we played that
role.
Chairman Butterfield, Ranking Member Steil, members of the
Subcommittee on Elections, and Representative Scanlon, thank
you for the opportunity to testify today on the challenges that
face far too many voters when voting in America.
I am Marcia Johnson-Blanco, and, for the past 17 years, I
have worked to provide assistance and resources to voters
through Election Protection, the Nation's largest nonpartisan
voter-protection coalition, convened by the Lawyers' Committee
for Civil Rights Under Law, where I am the co-director for the
Voting Rights Project.
Election Protection's partners and volunteers provide
voters throughout the country with comprehensive information
and assistance at all stages of voting through a suite of
voter-protection hotlines, field programs, and engagement with
election officials.
In 2020, we saw a sizable increase in voter turnout, but
turnout varied by State. The States with the largest increase
in voter turnout were those States that adopted reforms to
expand access to the ballot. For example, the three States with
the highest-percentage-point increase in turnout between
November 2016 and November 2020 were Hawaii, California, and
Utah, which mailed ballots to every registered voter in the
State in 2020 but did not do so in 2016. By contrast, those
States with the most restrictive laws tend to be the States
with the lowest turnout.
The high overall turnout in 2020 was the product of robust
engagement by voting advocates to address barriers to the vote,
including unprecedented litigation to break down barriers.
During 2020, the Election Protection coalition organized 46,000
hotline shifts, 43 field programs, and received 246,000 calls
from voters across the country.
The Lawyers' Committee also participated in an
unprecedented number of lawsuits to rid State election system
of unnecessary and arbitrary restrictions. In Alaska, the
Lawyers' Committee and our partners successfully overturned the
witness requirement for absentee ballots after showing that the
witness requirement would disenfranchise Native voters. In
Missouri, the Lawyers' Committee and co-counsel challenged the
State's arbitrary restrictions on no-excuse voting by mail.
And, in Ohio, Lawyers' Committee and co-counsel successfully
fought to overturn a directive by the secretary of State that
would limit drop-box locations to one per county.
Litigation made a difference, although victories at the
trial court level were repeatedly overturned by hostile
appellate courts.
After the election, the Lawyers' Committee participated in
the defense of an extraordinary number of lawsuits brought by
the losing Presidential candidate and his allies aimed at
throwing out legitimately cast votes. And this often had an
impact on voters of color in States such as Arizona, Georgia,
Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Overall, in 2020, the Lawyers' Committee participated in 50
lawsuits.
Despite our efforts, far too many voters confronted
barriers to the vote, including restrictive voter ID laws,
cutbacks to early voting, consolidation or elimination of
polling places, and restrictions on community-based voter-
registration groups, and also rejection of absentee ballots
through the misuse of signature-matching procedures.
In 2021, we are witnessing a backlash across States,
including requiring photo ID for absentee-ballot applications
and ballots, restricting flexibility of county officials to
provide opportunities when needed. And many of these bills
continue to disproportionately impact voters of color.
Bills such as the law passed in Georgia and similar laws
across the country make clear the need for Federal legislation
to establish national standards. The For the People Act passed
by the House on March 3, 2021, would create a new national
baseline for election administration.
Without congressional action, the 2020 elections and its
aftermath may become an inflection point in our Nation's
history, with the future being one of States providing two
different voting systems: one that provides access and one that
provides stringent restrictions. We must act to prevent this
dismal future, and we must act now.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Johnson-Blanco follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Butterfield. Thank you for your testimony.
At this time, Mr. Adegbile you are now recognized for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF DEBO ADEGBILE
Mr. Adegbile. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member, Members of the Committee--the Subcommittee and the
Committee. It is good to be with you today.
As Representative Butterfield said, I am here today in my
individual capacity.
I would like to focus my testimony today on four broad
points. First, I want to talk a bit about, as my predecessors
have, the current threats to our democracy and the vital
importance of the minority-inclusion principle in Federal law.
I also want to put some of this in context. We have heard a
bit about history; I want to speak a little bit more about it
and reinforce the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling in
Shelby County v. Holder, which invalidated core provisions--the
preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
Next, I will touch briefly on the historical pattern of
mobilization, voter mobilization, and how increased momentum in
minority inclusion and electoral success can result in
backlash, as Ms. Johnson-Blanco just said, and then speak to
the congressional authority.
Our beloved departed Member of this body, Congressman John
Lewis, wrote in his final essay that democracy is not a state,
it is an act, and each generation must do its part to help
build what we call the beloved community.
Implicit in this important idea is the recognition that
democracies are fragile and require constant care. We know
this, and seemingly every day we are reminded why.
Democracy presents candidates for elected office with two
paths for electoral success, both with deep historical roots.
Candidates can choose the path of mobilization, doing the hard
work of building support for their offer of service and
leadership through active engagement and advancement of popular
policies, while also working to enhance mobilization. In
contrast, others can take a different approach and try to
demobilize. They can try to impose barriers. I think of these
two alternate paths as democracy's high road and democracy's
low road.
We have heard about the extraordinary turnout in the last
election. Forty-three States and legislatures have also
introduced over 250 bills. As we know, because the meter keeps
running every day, these stats change every day. I think
Representative Butterfield had a different number based on a
report released today. That is a sign of trouble. We have heard
about Georgia's bill SB 202 that is now being challenged in
courts, and we hear about the coming law in Arizona. All of
these are causes for concern.
But Congress has played an important role in pushing back
on this. It elevated the Voting Rights Act as an answer to
persistent and adaptive voting discrimination that had
persisted and was entrenched over a long period of time, and it
made the Voting Rights Act a Federal statement of a minority-
inclusion principle.
So what do we know about Shelby County and the
congressional role in responding to it?
Chief Justice Roberts relied on the gains that we had
because of the Voting Rights Act and declared that the South
had changed. The Court recognized that Congress had developed
an ample record of ongoing discrimination, but it determined
that, contrary to the congressional judgment, the coverage
mechanism was outdated and no longer reflected current
conditions.
Justice Ginsburg called that approach, ``Throwing out
preclearance, when it has worked and is continuing to work to
stop discriminatory changes, is like throwing away your
umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.''
We knew what would happen if Shelby County was decided as
it was, and we have seen it. We are living it. We are living it
this week.
Though section 2 remains in place, it is not a pre-
implementation remedy, and it takes years to win section 2
victories that are costly, and, very often, you have the
benefits of incumbency vesting in people that may not be
entitled to those offices if the system were being conducted
fairly.
So why is history important in all of this? Well, let me
share an idea with you. We have heard about turnout and all the
positive things that come from it. What I know as a voting
rights litigator is that turnout and participation and
mobilization is sometimes the very thing that is a precursor
for retrenchment and discrimination. This is the historical
pattern.
I point you to examples. I point you to Kilmichael,
Mississippi. Certainly we had tons of examples during
Reconstruction. The Supreme Court's case in Hunter v.
Underwood. We can think about the LULAC decision, the Texas
redistricting decision, where the Supreme Court recognized
that, just as Latinos were on the verge of exercising their
political power, they were cut off at the pass by the
legislature. The majority said that the acts of the Texas
legislature in the post-2000 round of redistricting bore the
mark of intentional discrimination.
Why does this matter? It matters for this reason: History
tells us that the clock can go backwards; that, if we are not
vigilant, the success of participation can be a precursor to
discrimination. That is the pattern we have seen consistently
since Shelby County.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Adegbile follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Butterfield. Thank you very much for your remarks.
At this time, the chair will recognize Secretary Wyman for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KIM WYMAN
Ms. Wyman. Thank you, Chairperson Butterfield, Ranking
Member Steil, and members of the Committee and Subcommittee,
for inviting me to appear as a witness today.
For the record, I am Washington's Secretary of State, Kim
Wyman. And I am proud to serve as the chief elections officer
in a State that has already implemented nearly every election
requirement proposed in H.R. 1.
In the 2020 Presidential election, 90 percent of
Washington's voting-eligible population was registered to vote,
and we had the fifth-highest turnout in the country.
Washington's accessible registration and voting system employs
robust safeguards that ensure only one ballot can be counted
for each eligible voter in an election. Maintaining a balance
between voter accessibility and election security is
foundational to inspiring public confidence in election
outcomes.
Though Washington State serves as a model for successfully
implementing same-day and automatic voter registrations,
equitable voter list maintenance, expanded mail-in voting, and
many other progressive policies, I can tell you, building an
election system that balances access and security took time,
money, bipartisan collaboration, and the active engagement of
State and local election administrators working closely with
legislators to constantly improve our processes.
Innovation in election administration isn't unique to
Washington. It happens in States across the country every day
and needs to happen with H.R. 1. The overly prescriptive and
one-size-fits-all approach contained in the election sections
of H.R. 1 discounts the voices of State and local election
officials who share valid concerns about their ability to
implement these sweeping changes within the defined timeframes
and leaves little margin for States' innovation in election
administration.
In 2000, following the politically charged and razor-thin
Presidential election, Congress took on comprehensive national
election reform with the passage of the Help America Vote Act
of 2000. This process provides a reliable pathway for creating
impactful election reform legislation today. Congressional
Members worked across the aisle to draft bipartisan policies
while actively seeking input from election administration
experts and the public to perfect them.
Last year's election was the most litigated Presidential
election in our history, with hundreds of lawsuits being filed
before and after election day. States adopted policies and
procedures to provide safe voting options in the midst of the
pandemic. Election officials conducted high-turnout elections
through hurricanes, wildfires, social unrest, and active
cybersecurity threats. Throughout these unprecedented
circumstances, our country's election system remained
resilient.
One portion of the electorate is concerned that laws passed
by State legislatures will disenfranchise voters who struggled
to participate last year. Rampant misinformation and
disinformation in 2020 tore at the fabric of our democracy and
shattered confidence in our elections with another portion of
the electorate.
Despite numerous audits and recounts demonstrating the
accuracy of election results and multiple Federal agencies
proclaiming unequivocally this was the most secure election in
our Nation's history, some voters still lack confidence in the
integrity of mail-in balloting.
We must move forward and begin rebuilding the confidence
lost in both election security and voting accessibility. Fast-
tracking an 800-page bill written without meaningful input from
State and local election experts is not the answer.
If the goal is to provide national consistency in
registering and voting for U.S. citizens, I recommend
establishing baseline expectations for States to meet. This is
preferable to implementing highly rigid and prescriptive
policies that may be unworkable within the timeline specified
and will stifle innovation in States now and for decades to
come.
Our Constitution gives States the important role of
administering our country's elections. Election officials in
every State work to inspire the public's confidence in election
returns and provide Members of Congress the same confidence in
the certified results of Federal elections.
Examples would be setting timelines for registration and
residency or standards for the minimum number of voting
machines, ballots, and voting opportunities.
As you move forward, I encourage you not to constrain
States' authority to conduct elections in a narrow, limiting
manner; rather, empower them to improve election
administration.
My colleagues and I in State and local election offices
across the country stand ready to work with you and ask you to
include us in your work to create bipartisan solutions that
improve elections for all Americans.
Thank you.
And since I have a minute or two, I have to give a shout-
out to Gonzaga. And, you know, UCLA, we are going to take you
on.
Thank you so much.
[The statement of Ms. Wyman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Butterfield. Now, Madam Secretary, you are causing
trouble here today. I know there are differences of opinion
among this Subcommittee and among those who are watching this
broadcast in terms of the NCAA Basketball Tournament. But thank
you so very much for your service, and thank you for your
testimony today.
Well, the time has arrived for member questions. Members
are going to be recognized each for five minutes. I am going to
first recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Aguilar,
from Redlands, California, I believe it is.
Mr. Aguilar, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
it. And it is an honor to be back on this Subcommittee. You and
I worked with this Subcommittee and then-Chairwoman Fudge in
the last Congress, and I look forward to your leadership as
well.
And I am honored to be joined by my new colleagues on the
full Committee and Ms. Leger Fernandez on this Subcommittee.
And, thankfully, we also traded up on the Ranking Member side
as well. So an honor to be with all of you.
Ms. Diaz, I was struck by your testimony when you stated
that, since Shelby County--since the Shelby decision, there
have been nearly 1,700 poll closures across the United States.
The majority of those occurred in three jurisdictions
previously covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and
all of which have growing Latino communities. For example, in
Texas, the number was 750 sites; 32 in Arizona; 214 in Georgia.
Can you explain why these polls were closed over the past
seven years and how they impact voters, especially Latino
voters?
Ms. Diaz. Absolutely. Thank you, Representative Aguilar.
I think it is important to note that there was no longer a
preclearance requirement for many of these jurisdictions,
including Arizona, Texas, and Georgia, where they had to go to
the Federal Government to seek permission and authorization for
any changes to their electoral process.
What is important here is that the number of Latino voters
has been rapidly increasing. Among the competitive battleground
States--Arizona, Florida, Texas, and even Nevada--the percent
growth in Latino citizen voting-age population outpaced that of
non-Hispanic Whites.
When we think about percentage-point differentials from
2008 to 2019, it is stark: plus 84 percentage points in Nevada,
plus 65 in Florida, 52 in Arizona, 40 in Texas.
And so, at the same time that Latino citizen voting-age
population is growing, we are seeing these poll closures. And
this is, frankly, is making it difficult for people to access a
ballot, even in States like Texas during a COVID-19 pandemic
that did not want to expand universal vote-by-mail, so they
have fewer places to go vote, fewer polling locations, and
fewer means to cast a ballot to protect their lives.
Mr. Aguilar. You also mentioned that researchers have long
agreed that regressive electoral reforms and restrictive voting
bills discourage eligible voters from casting ballots and don't
provide any real benefit toward election security.
As Secretary of State Wyman just mentioned, our elections
are secure, and States like California and Washington, who have
been doing robust vote-by-mail systems for years and early-
voting options, are absolutely secure.
Why do you think States continue to implement, Ms. Diaz,
regressive voting laws that provide no benefit to keeping our
elections secure?
Ms. Diaz. It is hard to think about an answer to that that
is generous. And so, if I am generous, I will say that there
maybe is a perceived threat of voter fraud, but we have been
through this time and time again, and it has been nullified,
even under Donald Trump's presidency.
And, so, if I am not being generous and I am being
rational, I can't help but think that the growth of a youthful
and diverse electorate is happening and occurring at the same
time that we have seen an avalanche of suppression bills,
whether it is poll closures, it is voter ID, or other means.
And so to me, there is a correlation there, and it has to do
with stifling Americans' access to the ballot box.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you so much.
Secretary Wyman, I don't want to get into the Gonzaga
versus UCLA issue, but would you agree that same-day
registration and universal vote-by-mail works in the State of
Washington and makes it easier for citizens to vote?
Ms. Wyman. It does because we have really engaged our
electorate, and we have built in the security measures that
really counter claims of voter fraud, so our citizens can have
confidence that our results are valid.
Mr. Aguilar. And you would agree that it could be
replicated in other States if you build on that confidence, if
you take the security measures seriously, and if you work to
educate the public?
Ms. Wyman. Absolutely. And, you know, I think the big
caveat is, it takes time and money. And that is part of why we
had success in 2020 as a country is because Congress, thank you
very much, did give us about $1.2 billion in HAVA 2 and 3 and
CARES Act, but yes, with time and money, it can be done.
Mr. Aguilar. I don't have much time. Why don't your peers
in other States believe that it will be easier to vote by
having vote-by-mail and mail-in ballot and same-day
registration? I am just struck by that, that some of your peers
don't believe that. And I don't have much time left, so maybe
we will have to get that answer down the line. But that is why
we are here. That is why we are exercising oversight, that is
why we are asking these questions, because so many people
across this country do not have the opportunities that people
in California and Washington have to exercise that right to
vote.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Butterfield. Thank you, Mr. Aguilar.
At this time, the chair will recognize the Ranking Member
of the Subcommittee for five minutes.
Mr. Steil. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the recognition. I would like to dive in--I was reading a New
York Times article the other day on H.R. 1, and it stated that
election administers have started to raise questions and
complaints about the bill. It said, quote, they weren't
consulted on a major Federal rewrite of the system. They
believe they have been--that it has been overseen effectively.
One Democratic State elections director said the early voting
mandates in the bill would require a county of 2,000 residents
to keep polls open for 15 days, 10 hours a day. Even for an
off-year, congressional primary that draws only a handful of
voters and they said such an inflexible requirement, according
to this director, who spoke on condition of anonymity for a
fear of repercussions, would create problems, not solve them.
Secretary Wyman, you oversee the State of Washington. Were
you consulted as we--as Congress passed H.R. 1 this year?
Ms. Wyman. No, I haven't been.
Mr. Steil. I think that is too bad. But do you agree with
the assessment, I guess, of this anonymous source, but it is
The New York Times, that there would be real challenges in
implementing some of the reforms that were in place in H.R. 1?
Ms. Wyman. Oh, absolutely. And I think that goes to what I
mentioned in my testimony, that it is of a prescriptive nature,
and very specific elements of H.R. 1 that make it problematic
for election officials to be able to implement in the timelines
prescribed. For example, I am trying to find my best one here.
I think the VVSG, the voting standards that were set out for
the EAC haven't even been--they have just been passed. We don't
even have a testing facility that can test to those standards
and the timeline that is presented for the 2022 election is
going to be problematic. Our State wouldn't have a certified
system, because if you don't meet the standards and have your
systems tested, they are decertified. That is a huge problem
nationally.
Mr. Steil. I thank you and I share a lot of concerns that
if H.R. 1 kind of gets rammed through, not getting the input of
States and election officials like yourself, there can be some
real-world complications. I really share that concern.
Let's dive in a little bit in the State of Washington that
you oversee. Can you walk us through, again, a couple of these
election integrity measures that you put in place in your State
and, in particular, how you utilize voter ID in the State of
Washington, to make sure that it is both easy to vote but also
hard to cheat?
Ms. Wyman. Absolutely. Washington State has had voter ID
since 2006 and we require it at that time of voter
registration. They have to provide a Washington State ID card
or Washington State driver's license, or the last four digits
of their Social Security number. These are verified and the
vast majority of our applicants provide one of those three. We
also have alternate ID. This is one of the key elements of
vote-by-mail elections which we conduct in Washington State,
because we can have a high confidence level that the people
that are registered are actual people that have walked into a
government agency and proven who they are. And it is separate
from voter registration. We also have a Statewide voter
registration system and election management system that
connects our 39 counties in real time.
So, on Election Day, they have real-time, up-to-the-minute
information for anyone who walks into a voting center. They can
issue a ballot, and if one has already been issued, they can
cancel that first one and issue a new one or register a person
for the first time. And this is really how we have confidence
that we are only counting one ballot no matter how many we have
issued to a voter.
And finally, we are part of the ERIC project. The
nationwide, 31 States, I believe, are members right now, and we
are able to keep our rolls maintained, and also identify
potential voters when they move into our respective States and
reach out to them and show them how to register and vote.
Mr. Steil. As you are aware, every State is very different.
So in my home State of Wisconsin, we have a little over 1,800
clerks managing the elections that are at a local level in our
State. My understanding, if my memory serves me correctly,
Washington, under you, is 39 counties and your elections are
held at the county level.
Could you just comment briefly some of the challenges of
rushing through a major piece of legislation, like H.R. 1,
without really reaching out to all of these election officials
like yourself that are actually the boots on the ground, that
would be forced to technically implement some of these Federal
mandates if they came through?
Ms. Wyman. The biggest challenge is just the diversity
across the country. And, again, it goes back to time and money.
So even in my State, I have a jurisdiction that has over a
million registered voters, and I have some that have a few
thousand. So to make just one-size-fits-all mandates is very
much an issue for each of those counties and we are going to
need the resources, and it can't just be one-time money, like
HAVA was, and then over time, you have the disparity of
counties because some have money and some don't.
Mr. Steil. Thank you very much.
Seeing the time, I yield back.
Chairman Butterfield. The gentleman yields back.
This time the chair recognizes the gentlelady from Santa
Fe, New Mexico, Congresswoman Leger Fernandez.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Chairman.
And Santa Fe, New Mexico is beautiful right now, and we
don't have any team in the tournament, so I am staying out of
all of that, but I am thankful to you for bringing to this
Subcommittee the voting rights experts today to talk about the
impact of both those 361 bills and existing barriers.
I think that increasing voter participation should be the
goal of every lawmaker, whether they be Republican or Democrat,
because it is the core of our democracy. And I was pleased to
know that 4 million more Latino voters cast a ballot in 2020
than in 2016. Native Americans defied the devastation of COVID
here in New Mexico and throughout the southwest to vote in
higher numbers.
Ms. Diaz, you noted that Latino voters are younger than the
average and the 30.9 percent increase represents many first-
time voters. What happens when a first-time voter faces voting
barriers like long wait times? Does it impact that voter's
likelihood of becoming a lifelong voter?
Ms. Diaz. Absolutely. Voter suppression is a feedback loop,
especially for youthful and growing diverse electorates who are
already left out of the franchise, because there is not a lot
of data on them on the voter file. So they are not going to get
all the information that likely voters already expect.
So, if a first-time voter is trying to cast a ballot and
faces barriers, whether those are long lines; or trying to
figure out where to vote, because the polling location has
closed; trying to produce an ID because the State they live in
doesn't take their student ID; then they are not going to cast
a ballot. And they are going to remain in this spectrum and
universe of voters who have not casted ballots and are not
going to get that information.
It is not until they cast that first ballot that they will
be in the universe that receives all of the messaging and
mobilization that makes our democracy great. So this is really
a clear and present danger, as we think about Asian American
voters, and Latino voters who are very young.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. And you listed some of the
different barriers that apply. Why can't we accept these
barriers, or these measures, as simply good-governance measures
that would apply equally to all?
Ms. Diaz. Let me bring up the case of Ms. Brenda Lee Garcia
who is a 44-year-old resident of Bexar County, Texas, and a
long-time voter. Under Texas' vote-by-mail law, she had to be
over the age of 65. Yet, Ms. Lee Garcia was a registered
working nurse during a global pandemic helping us save American
lives, and Texas law made it so that Ms. Garcia was not
eligible for a mail ballot.
So, I don't know what legitimate governmental interest
would be to really force somebody who is there in our hospitals
during a global pandemic when people are dying unnecessarily
that they, in fact, have to really balance saving lives,
staying healthy, and their fundamental right to vote.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. Ms. Riggs or Mr. Adegbile,
I have also litigated Section 2 redistricting cases, and as you
know, they are intensive and they are time-consuming. You noted
that Section 2 alone won't protect the vote, partially because
of the long-time frame it takes to conclude a case. Can either
of you speak to what you believe must be done to restore the
efficacy of the Voting Rights Act?
Ms. Riggs. Thank you, Representative, and I will be brief,
so Mr. Adegbile has time to respond as well. We need a dynamic
Voting Rights Act, Section 5, that addresses the current issues
that we have. In places where there are recent instances, and
examples of discriminatory acts, those are the actors that a
renewed Voting Rights Act needs to be addressed at.
There are also practices that we know disproportionately
harm voters of color, and without a pre-clearance mechanism, we
can bring as many Section 2 cases as we want, but the wheels of
justice turn slowly, and elections will proceed under illegal,
unconstitutional plans before we can get relief, even
preliminary injunction relief.
So those known practices include adding at-large seats in
heavily minority areas, certain voter purges, redistricting
where there are significant voters of color. We need the Voting
Rights Act to be able to do our work to use Section 2
appropriately and obtain relief timely.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Mr. Adegbile, we are sort of out of
time, but if you can do a really quick summary.
Mr. Adegbile. Sure. The new legislation should focus on the
current needs. That was one of the concerns that the Supreme
Court had. History can inform those needs, that is to say,
where you have continuing patterns, and there have been lots of
patterns of persistent and adaptive discrimination. History is
relevant, but it has to be a geographic remedy you would have
for a pre-implementation, pre-clearance-type regime that has
the advantage of blocking and deterring discrimination before
it can be visited on the victims is really important.
The other things I would say is that the burden shift was a
very important tool as well, and that is important to have.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Butterfield. The gentlelady yields back, and I
thank you for your questions.
At this time, the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member of
the full Committee, Mr. Davis, from Taylorville, Illinois.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my first questions
are going to go to Secretary Wyman, in spite of her inability
to choose the right teams to root for in football, baseball,
and now college basketball. In spite of Mr. Aguilar being from
the L.A. area, I am for the underdog. Go UCLA.
Secretary, during the 2020 election, we sent numerous
election observers and committee staff throughout the country
to observe various congressional races before, on, and after
Election Day. We identified similar issues in several States.
No, or very minor, safeguards for mail balloting, lack of
proper enforcement of signature verification, lack of voter
list maintenance, and slow ballot counting.
I am sure you would agree with me that everyone's goal in
any election is to ensure every eligible voter is able to cast
a ballot, right?
Ms. Wyman. Correct.
Mr. Davis. I mean, most people are voting--they are voting
for good democracy. And you are not in the business as the
Secretary of State of preventing lawful voters from voting, are
you?
Ms. Wyman. No.
Mr. Davis. How about your county auditors, are they?
Ms. Wyman. No.
Mr. Davis. Thanks. And in Washington State, you and your
team have really worked hard to implement this vote-by-mail
system and you have been able to do that because Washington
State gets to decide what works best for Washingtonians, right?
Ms. Wyman. Correct.
Mr. Davis. Now you are an all mail-in State. You have been
here before. Thank you for coming back. Always great to see
you, again. Proud to call you a friend. Walk us through how you
move to an all-mail system? How long did that take and what did
it entail?
Ms. Wyman. It took many years and it really began in the
early 1990s when we started allowing any voter to choose to be
an absentee voter for all elections. By 2004, about 40 to 60
percent, depending on our counties, each county had permanent
absentee voting status and we had the closest governor's race
in the country's history.
Out of that, some of the election reforms allowed our
counties to choose to be vote-by-mail permanently, and that was
about the time we were implementing the Help America Vote Act.
So many counties moved in 2005, and it took another five years
for the rest of the State to be mandated, actually, to move to
vote-by-mail, because we do have some people in the State that
do not like vote-by-mail elections.
So we have been vote-by-mail since 2011, and in all of that
time, we have been, like I said, working with our legislature
and the 39 county auditors to really build in the security
measures and the accessibility that our voters need.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you. I am very proud of your
testimony following the 2020 election that said voters need to
know there is a logical beginning, middle, and clear and final
end in any election. I appreciate you being here again, Kim.
My next question, Ms. Diaz. In your testimony, you
highlight 10 States that have significant increases in the
number of Latino voters since 2008. My home State of Illinois
being one with a 41.88 percentage increase. Given this change
in Latino citizen voting age population, should Illinois use
this data when drawing its new congressional districts?
Ms. Diaz. Well, absolutely. When we think about
redistricting, we really need to look at total population, and
we also need to look at citizen voting age population. I think
that Illinois needs to go beyond that recognizing that there
were various issues with the 2020 decennial Census. And so we
need to make sure that the households, particularly those that
were in hard-to-reach communities, those that are low income
with veterans, with children are adequately counted, and I will
tell you why.
As you know, this has a lot to do with political
representation, but it also has to do with the allocation of
resources. And I recognize that a lot of the comments right now
from the Secretary of State are about local control. And I
think that if resources are permitted from you and your
Committee members, and the Members of Congress, to ensure that
we have free and safe access to American democracy, then I
think we can all get on board.
So yes, I do think that data matters. I think that the
growth of the Latino community----
Mr. Davis. Reclaiming my time. I apologize. I don't have
much left, and although I really respect the Chair, I know he
is not going to give me any more. Do you think Illinois should
draw another Hispanic congressional district with the large
increase in Hispanic voters in Illinois, and only one Hispanic
majority-elected Member of Congress out of 18 districts right
now?
Ms. Diaz. I think that Illinois should follow the law and
recognize that data in Section 2 really clarifies how one
should integrate that data. I need to look at it. Again, the
data will not be here. The latest data from the census will not
arrive until September.
Mr. Davis. Ms. Diaz, here in Illinois, our elected
officials are going to be using estimated American Community
Survey data to draw congressional maps and State legislative
maps, and I would love to sit down with you and your
organization to look ahead.
I mean, I certainly hope that if this increase in Latin
American population and voting age population in the State of
Illinois is not part of the congressional redistricting
process, I certainly hope your organization will be looking at
filing lawsuits in the future.
So with that, I am out of time. I yield back. And thank
you, all of you, for being here.
Chairman Butterfield. Thank you. Thank you so much for your
questions. At this time, the Chair will recognize--let's see
who is next on the list, Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon from
Swarthmore, Pennsylvania. You are recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Chairman Butterfield. Our 2020
elections saw an unprecedented number of voters cast their
ballots on or before Election Day, often using mail-in ballots.
And in Pennsylvania where I live, we were grateful that in 2019
a bipartisan effort between our Republican legislature and our
Democratic Governor had expanded access to the ballot by
allowing no excuse mail-in voting for the first time.
That law was passed as part of a bipartisan effort to
modernize Pennsylvania's election infrastructure long before
the coronavirus pandemic had added public health reasons to use
mail-in ballots. So, as in elsewhere in the country, mail-in
voting increased exponentially. It also increased
participation. Over three-quarters of our Pennsylvania
electorate turned out for the presidential election, with
almost 40 percent of the ballots being cast by mail.
Unfortunately, as the first election in which universal
vote-by-mail was available in Pennsylvania, that was the 2020
primary election, and efforts to educate the public about the
new mail-in ballot process and the multiple levels of security
to ensure ballot integrity, those efforts were undermined as
former President Trump and his allies began to allege, without
any proof, that mail-in voting was subject to fraud.
And, in fact, despite unsuccessful ballot challenges and
lawsuits on behalf of the former President, and even a
completely baseless objection to Pennsylvania's electoral
ballots on January 6, no one ever produced any evidence that
Pennsylvania's electoral results were impacted by any
misconduct.
But, as Secretary Wyman has noted, vote-my-mail can require
some fine-tuning and one of the issues that Pennsylvania
encountered was that the new law did not allow county boards of
election to process ballots before Election Day. And with
millions casting mail-in ballots, the counting process took
some time, as we all saw. However, rather than fine-tune
Pennsylvania's mail-in ballot process, what has resulted from
those false allegations is that Republican lawmakers in
Pennsylvania have introduced more bills to restrict the right
to vote in Pennsylvania than any other State government in the
country. And those changes are trying to make mail-in voting
more difficult by limiting who is eligible and restricting
options for returning the ballot.
So, as someone who believes that we should strive to
increase voter participation for all eligible voters, and pass
policies to expand, not limit, the use of mail-in balloting, I
am obviously concerned.
Ms. Johnson-Blanco, I wanted to start by thanking you for
the work that you have done with the Lawyers' Committee and the
Voting Rights Project, and had the privilege, over time, of
participating in some of those efforts. Can you discuss the
success of mail-in voting in Pennsylvania and across the
country in the 2020 election?
Ms. Johnson-Blanco. Yes. What we saw in 2020 is that mail-
in voting offered additional access to the ballot, and the fact
that so many voters took advantage of this opportunity showed
that it is a needed reform for voters. And, unfortunately, what
we are seeing now is backlash to the use of mail-in voting and
that increased access. And rather than States ensuring that
voters have increased opportunities to vote by mail, they are
doing the opposite.
So we really, as I noted are at an inflection point, where,
rather than build on the access and opportunities we saw with
mail-in voting, there are far too many States that are going in
the opposite direction, and this has a disproportionate impact
on voters of color and all voters overall.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. Can you dispel some of the
misinformation about the security of ballot drop boxes?
Ms. Johnson-Blanco. Yes. There have been studies done after
the election, looking at the allegations related to mail-in
voting, and have found that those allegations of fraud or
mischief were unfounded. I think that the jurisdictions that
have used drop boxes have actually allowed opportunities for
voters to submit their ballots in a timely manner. And there
hasn't been any evidence that there were any security flaws in
being able to do so.
Ms. Scanlon. Ms. Wyman, you have talked about Washington's
long-standing use of mail-in voting. Like Washington,
Pennsylvania requires proof of citizenship when people register
to vote, and the mail-in ballots have multiple layers of
security. What do you say to individuals who are concerned that
mail-in voting leads to widespread voter fraud?
Ms. Wyman. That hasn't been our experience in Washington
State. And because we have a long rich history of that
practice, we have a lot of data and a lot of documentation to
be able to show and disprove the allegations of voter fraud,
and it certainly was top of mind following the 2020 election,
and that is why the security measures are important.
Ms. Scanlon. In Washington State, can you pre-canvass your
ballots? Can you start processing mail-in ballots before
Election Day?
Ms. Wyman. Yes. We have an 18-day voting window before
Election Day, and they can begin processing those as soon as
they return. And this is why you need to talk to election
officials.
Ms. Scanlon. Yes. And we are hoping that our State
legislature in Pennsylvania will listen to the election
officials who are universally saying they need some fine tuning
of the Pennsylvania laws not because of fraud, but because they
just need the logistics to work in terms of timing to get the
votes in and get the results out as quickly as possible.
Thank you to all of our witnesses here. I really appreciate
it.
And I yield back.
Chairman Butterfield. The gentlelady yields back. Thank
you, Congresswoman Scanlon.
At this time, the Chair will recognize himself for five
minutes. And let me address my first question to you, Ms.
Riggs. Again, thank you so very much for your testimony today,
and thank you for your incredible work, not just in North
Carolina, but throughout the country.
Ms. Riggs, prior to the Shelby County case, 40 counties in
North Carolina were covered by the pre-clearance provisions of
the Voting Rights Act. There were 60 counties that were not
included. In other southern States--Mississippi, Alabama,
Georgia, and the like, the entire State was included, but for
North Carolina, it was 40 counties because of demonstrated
discrimination in those 40 counties in prior years.
According to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights from 1980
to 2013, the Department of Justice had issued over 50 objection
letters, and I was part of some of those as a practicing
attorney, over 50 objection letters under Section 5 regarding
proposed election law changes in North Carolina, including
quite a few since the year 2000.
My question is, has the loss of pre-clearance made it more
difficult to track changes at the local level that could have a
discriminatory effect on voters?
Ms. Riggs. It absolutely has. One of the things that we
were able to monitor through pre-clearance submissions on the
U.S. Department of Justice website was precinct closures,
polling place closures. There are 100 counties in North
Carolina. For us to be able to monitor that effectively and
efficiently, particularly in order to intervene in time, we
have to go county by county, essentially, or submit public
records request to the State Board of Elections. It is onerous,
and we are missing opportunities to protect voters in the
meantime.
Chairman Butterfield. Without pre-clearance, the time and
expense of protecting the right to vote has exponentially
increased litigation. Litigation can be costly and time
consuming. The costs can mount into the millions of dollars. It
is burdensome. Election Day does not change, even if court
deadlines do. Sometimes lawsuits aren't decided until after an
election, when the winner becomes an incumbent.
Can you please describe the sorts of resources that are
necessary to litigate these types of cases?
Ms. Riggs. I will point you to our redistricting litigation
last cycle in North Carolina. It was not until the 2020
election that we had constitutional elections for the State
legislature and the congressional delegation. 2012 through
2018, there was some constitutional defect in each of those
elections. That affects the policies that get passed as they
relate to voters of color. We see the legislature interfering
in counties that weren't covered under Section 5.
So, there should be more coverage, not less coverage. The
legislature messed around with elections in Mecklenburg, in
Wake County, in Buncombe County. Those were not previously
covered elections, but the legislature is the problem actor
here, and many of those elections went through. We elected
illegitimately elected representatives when the plans beneath
were problematic. This is why we need a new Section 5.
Chairman Butterfield. Thank you. Let me ask, Mr. Adegbile.
Sir, some States, such as the State of Washington have
implemented policies that arguably expand voters' access to the
ballot, while other States have not, or have actively worked to
restrict access. My question is, why? Why is it important for
Congress to act on voting rights? How has the lack of a full
Voting Rights Act weakened access to the franchise?
Mr. Adegbile. Thank you for that question. The history and
the experience is that States do have some freedom to prescribe
their own voting laws, but we also have an experience of States
engaging in very serious discrimination against voters. There
is a long history of it, and it persists to the current day. I
contend that it persists to enactments of last week that are
now being challenged.
So, the pattern is very clear that there is a Federal role.
There are multiple Supreme Court precedents acknowledging the
Federal power to pass laws that regulate elections and the
Voting Rights Act is regarded as the most important enactment
of Congress in the 20th century. I think Roll Call had it on
that list.
And so, the Federal role is one that is recognized in
constitutional amendments. Congress has the power to enact
legislation, to enforce those amendments, and to bring a degree
of uniformity to Federal elections that is not something that
can be left to the States. In my view, it would be an
abdication of the Federal responsibility to not take account of
the ongoing patterns of discrimination.
Chairman Butterfield. Thank you very much. My time has
expired, but thank you to the witnesses for your testimony
today.
I am going to mute for just a moment and consult with
staff.
All right. I am told that it is protocol to recognize the
Ranking Member for any concluding remarks if you happen to have
any.
Mr. Steil. I will keep it brief. We have had a good
conversation today. I look forward to continuing this dialogue
as we move forward.
And I will yield directly back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Butterfield. I thank the gentleman. And the
Ranking Member of the full Committee, sir, do you have any
concluding remarks?
Mr. Davis. I just want to thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank
Ranking Member Steil. He passed with flying colors his first
hearing, and, also, my colleagues and the witnesses today. I
appreciate that. There is a lot of talk about voter turnout,
and we need to continue the historic turnout model. There is a
lot of discussion here about coverage jurisdictions. I would
like to remind the Committee and remind the witnesses and those
watching that in the initial Civil Rights Act of 1964, voter
turnout did matter. The way that jurisdictions were considered
covered jurisdictions was based upon voter turnout in a
previous presidential election.
So, I want to make sure that we continue to work toward
commonsense solutions, that we can find common ground, and that
we make sure that every person who is legally able to cast a
vote gets a chance to do so in this great country.
With that, sir, I yield back and thank you, again, for your
friendship and your leadership.
Chairman Butterfield. And thank you, Ranking Member Davis,
thank you, Ranking Member Steil, and thank you to all of my
colleagues for your participation in this very important
hearing today. I don't know if my colleagues picked up on it,
but witness Debo Adegbile was one of the counsels in the Shelby
County case who actually presented the case to the United
States Supreme Court, and, so, we thank you, sir, for your
testimony today.
And I went back and reviewed that case, again, last night.
I have read it at least a dozen times over the years, but I
went back last night for a refresher. And one sentence stood
out for me, and I highlighted it on my paper. It says,
``Congress may draft another formula based on current
conditions.''
And, so, the point is, Chief Justice Roberts decided for
the Court that Section 5 is a constitutional grant of power.
Section 5 has not been struck down. It continues to be the law
of the land. What was struck down as unconstitutional was
Section 4, which is the formula that determines which States
are in, which States are not in for the purposes of Section 5.
And then, the Chief Justice says that Congress may draft
another formula, it is not an engraved invitation, but it is
also a very subtle message to Congress that we should come up
with another formula. And that is what we are doing today. And
we will be doing in the next few weeks as we conduct these
upcoming hearings.
We cannot draft a formula without having valuable testimony
from people who are knowledgeable. And, so, thank you to the
witnesses for your testimony. It will become a part of this
congressional record, which may be used one day to update the
formula to Section 4.
Is there anything further from any of the Subcommittee
members?
All right. I am very thankful for staff. I want to thank
the staff also for traveling from Washington, D.C. to Wilson,
North Carolina, this morning to participate in this hearing. I
wish you could see the set up that we have here in the Wilson
Operations Center. It is a very elaborate set-up, the camera
and the laptop and a big screen monitor and staff all around.
And thank all of them for all of the work that they do in
support of our work. So thank you, and, without objection, the
Subcommittee on elections of the Committee on House
Administration stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:34 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]