[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEMOCRACY IN DANGER: THE ASSAULT
ON VOTING RIGHTS IN TEXAS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 29, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-39
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available at: govinfo.gov
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-425 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking
Columbia Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Ro Khanna, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Katie Porter, California Pete Sessions, Texas
Cori Bush, Missouri Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Andy Biggs, Arizona
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Peter Welch, Vermont Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Scott Franklin, Florida
Georgia Jake LaTurner, Kansas
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Pat Fallon, Texas
Jackie Speier, California Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Byron Donalds, Florida
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Mike Quigley, Illinois
Russ Anello, Staff Director
Candyce Phoenix, Subcommittee Staff Director
Amy Stratton, Deputy Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Chairman
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Pete Sessions, Texas, Ranking
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Minority Member
Robin Kelly, Illinois Jim Jordan, Ohio
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts Andy Biggs, Arizona
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Columbia Scott Franklin, Florida
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Byron Donalds, Florida
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Danny K. Davis, Illinois
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 29, 2021.................................... 1
Witnesses
The Honorable Senfronia Thompson, Texas State Representative,
Member, Select Committee on Constitutional Rights and Remedies
Oral Statement................................................... 10
The Honorable Nicole Collier, Texas State Representative, Chair,
Texas Legislative Black Caucus
Oral Statement................................................... 11
The Honorable Tracy Clardy, Texas State Representative
Oral Statement................................................... 14
Ms. Nina Perales, Vice President of Litigation, Mexican American
Legal Defense and Education Fund
Oral Statement................................................... 15
The Honorable Diego Bernal, Texas State Representative, Member,
Mexican American Legislative Conference
Oral Statement................................................... 17
Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are
available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document
Repository at: docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
* Governor's Proclamation - Texas Governor Abbott's Order on
the Texas Special Session; submitted by Rep. Sessions.
* Record of Voter Fraud Cases Under Investigation in Texas;
submitted by Rep. Sessions.
* Memo - To the Republican Texas Delegation: The Realities of
Voter Fraud in Texas and Other States; submitted by Rep. Roy.
* Article - ``Texas Had an Outsized Presence at the Capital
Insurrection''; submitted by Rep. Tlaib.
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
DEMOCRACY IN DANGER: THE ASSAULT
ON VOTING RIGHTS IN TEXAS
----------
Thursday, July 29, 2021
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Reform
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jamie Raskin
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Raskin, Maloney, Mfume, Wasserman
Schultz, Kelly, Pressley, Norton, Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Davis,
Sessions, Comer, Jordan, Biggs, Mace, Franklin, and Donalds.
Also present: Representatives Sarbanes, Fletcher, Veasey,
Roy, Fallon, and Cloud.
Mr. Raskin. All right. The committee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
And without objection, pursuant to the motion by Mr.
Sessions, Representatives Fallon, Cloud, and Roy shall be
permitted to join the hearing and be recognized for the purpose
of questioning witnesses. Welcome, Mr. Roy.
We are here today to talk about the voting bills that are
currently pending in the Texas legislature and how those bills
are related to other voter suppression proposals in states
across the country, specifically targeting voters of color and
other vulnerable communities. While we are lucky to have Texas
legislators joining us today who are on the front lines of the
fight to defend voting rights in their state, I also want to
make sure that we had the opportunity to hear from Texas voters
who are affected by this potential legislation. Let's take a
moment to listen to some public testimony given by a few of
those voters during hearings on these bills earlier this year.
[Audio played.]
Mr. Raskin. So, that is a representative sample of hundreds
of voters who have spoken up against the legislation in Texas.
It is up to us now in Congress to listen to the cries for help
that are coming from Texas and from other states and to take
action on comprehensive voting rights legislation in the House
and in the Senate.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement, then
go to my friend, Mr. Sessions, for his opening statement.
Good morning, and I want to thank our witnesses for being
with us today on the occasion of this truly historic hearing.
And we know it has taken a lot for you to get here, and we
appreciate very much your being here and helping to educate
Congress and the country about what is going on in Texas.
Before we get into that, though, I want to take a moment, and I
think it is not inappropriate, to mark the passing of a great
voting rights hero and a great hero of mine, Bob Moses, who
died on Sunday.
And Bob Moses was a graduate student in mathematics and
philosophy at Harvard in 1960 when he opened up the newspaper
and he saw pictures of students sitting in from North Carolina
A&T at lunch counters in the South. And he said, ``Those
students look the way that I feel,'' and he knew that he had to
go down South to participate in the Civil Rights Movement, the
struggle for people to be on a plane of equality as citizens.
And when he got down to Mississippi, he thought he was going to
be involved in a movement to try to desegregate the lunch
counters and the restaurants. And he talked to a man down there
named Amzie Moore, who was the head of the local NAACP, and he
said, you know, we don't really need people sitting in in the
restaurants and lunch counters. And Bob Moses said, well, what
do you need, and he said, well, when you look around, what do
you see, and he said, I see beautiful terrain, and trees, and
people. And he said, this is a congressional district that is
two-thirds African American, and less than one percent of the
Black people down here are registered to vote because of the
grandfather clauses, and the literacy tests, and the poll
taxes. And the local Democratic party, a racist party
structure, has excluded African Americans from voting.
And that is what launched Bob Moses on his crusade with the
Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee to desegregate
Mississippi, and Alabama, and the rest of the South, and the
country. And it was that struggle that gave us the phrase ``one
person, one vote.'' Each person has a right to vote. And, of
course, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee organized
people to register at great personal risk. Bob Moses was nearly
killed several times by Klansmen, by sheriffs, by people who
came to attack him. Of course, Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman
were killed during the Freedom Summer that SNCC organized. But
Bob Moses never gave up the struggle for people's voting rights
and went on also to create the Algebra Project, saying that the
right to know mathematics is also a fundamental civil right in
our country.
So, I wanted to note that and observe that, and I wanted to
start on a bipartisan note that the struggle for the right to
vote has been a struggle against all political parties in our
history, and nobody has clean hands here when you look at it
historically. The question is whether we are willing to commit
ourselves to a struggle that extends the right to vote for
everyone. It is not a partisan question. It is a question about
small ``d'' democracy for everybody.
So, earlier this year, legislators in Texas unveiled
perhaps the most aggressive set of proposals for voting
restrictions anywhere in the country, 65 different anti-voter
bills: dramatic restrictions on mail-in voting, vastly
increased criminal liability for people who help their family
or their friends to vote or bring their ballots to the mailbox,
increasingly stringent voter ID requirements, and more and more
criminalization of what goes on in the polling place, enhanced
protections for partisan poll workers who set out to intimidate
voters, and additional limits on how election officials
encourage voters to participate. At one point, and somebody is
going to have to explain this to me, it is made a crime to
encourage people to vote. I think, if I am reading this
proposal correctly, they make it a crime to encourage people to
vote. I don't see how that possibly can square with the First
Amendment of the United States. I openly encourage people to
vote all over the country and in Texas right now. Can that
actually be a crime to do it either on TV or in the social
media or in person, talking to people, encouraging them to
vote? There was even, I think in the first draft of this
legislation, an effort to restrict early voting hours on
Sunday, a clear attempt, at least as it was read in Texas, to
undercut and hamstring Black churches, which ran Souls to the
Polls turnout operations.
All of this is taking place despite zero evidence of
massive voter fraud in Texas. None of it. Lots of invocations
of integrity of the ballot, purity of the ballot. Well, those
are code words that go back centuries now. I mean, some people
see impurity of the ballot when they see people they don't like
voting, so we want to get to the bottom of that. Is there a
widespread voter fraud in Texas that this is responding to or
is something else going on?
One thing I read about was that a Texas legislator
introduced just this month a bill calling for a forensic audit
of the state's 2020 results, but only in large counties won by
President Biden. And when asked why he had not included all the
counties in Texas, he said, ``What is the point? I mean, all
the small counties are red.'' You know, how can that be
consistent with our bipartisan--I will go beyond that--
nonpartisan, let us not even say bipartisan, because a lot of
people are sick of both of the parties, how about just a
nonpartisan commitment for everybody to have the right to vote
unimpeded without jumping through all of these hoops?
Democratic state representatives in Texas, including our
witnesses today, organized a walkout in May to deny Republicans
a quorum at the end of their session, preventing passage of the
voting bill that would strip their constituents of access to
the ballot. In response, Governor Abbott convened a special
session on July 8 to pass this sweeping draconian new election
overhaul. Democrats once again denied the legislature a quorum,
this time by coming here, petitioning the U.S. Congress for a
redress of grievances, demanding the attention of a country
that is committed to fairness in voting, to come to urge us to
protect their voting rights. And they have done this at great
personal cost, at great personal risk, by leaving their
families behind, and I, for one, salute them for their courage
in being here today. But blocking a quorum is not a permanent
solution to the problem of efforts to disenfranchise people and
suppress the vote in America. They are here to ask us to act,
and we must pass the For the People Act and the John Lewis
Voting Rights Act.
The cost of inaction will be devastating for our democracy.
The voting restrictions in Texas will strike at the heart of
democracy in that great state. Restrictions on voter assistance
will potentially criminalize normal interactions between
friends and family members who may require assistance to cast a
ballot because they are not proficient in English, because they
need a ride to the polls. It could have devastating
consequences, especially in the Latino community. You cannot
out-organize a law that criminalizes you for trying to help
your grandmother vote. Limits on what local election officials
can do to prevent intimidation by partisan poll workers will
also leave minority voters vulnerable.
Just last year, leaked video showed GOP Texas officials'
aim to organize election integrity brigades of 10,000 largely
white poll watchers to monitor communities of color in Houston.
Imagine how many brigades there will be once poll workers have,
as the ACLU of Texas puts it, a one-time get-out-of-jail free
card for voter intimidation, because there is a remarkable
provision--I have never seen anything like it--in this
legislation which says that a partisan poll worker cannot be
removed from the polls until they have already been warned once
for violating the law. So, they get one free bite at the apple
to violate the law, and I do want to ask the witnesses about
that.
Finally, this bill prohibits reforms that were successfully
implemented last year by Harris County, such as drive-through
voting and 24-hour voting, that were mainly utilized by
African-American and Latino voters. The Texas Civil Rights
Project estimates that over a half of all ballots cast using
those methods were cast by voters of color. So, this zealous
pursuit of a massive draconian crackdown on voting is now a
national crisis.
According to the Brennan Center, 18 states have enacted 30
laws restricting voting rights so far this year. More are on
the way. Congress has to act. We have a responsibility to
guarantee the people of the United States a republican form of
government. And I am sorry, my dear friends, that is not a
capital ``R'' Republican. It is a small ``r.'' It is a
republican form of government, a representative form of
government where everyone can vote and participate, and they
can choose Republicans, or Democrats, or Libertarians, or
Independents, whatever else.
But the point is the people get to decide. We don't get to
micromanage and gerrymander the electorate. We have to fight
back against this new campaign for voter suppression sparked by
the Big Lie, the same big lie which brought chaos and violence
down on this institution and this Capitol just six months ago.
And for anyone who has not watched our valiant police officers
describe what took place on that day, I beseech you to do so.
Regardless of what you think your views are now, I beg you to
go and watch what they went through as they were assaulted with
baseball bats, steel pipes, flagpoles, bear spray, and mace for
four or five hours defending our democracy. And all of that
took place to, so-called, Stop the Steal in the name of the Big
Lie, which is that President Biden did not actually defeat
Donald Trump by more than 7 million votes, which he did. This
wave of legislation, I think, grows out of that same poisonous
soil of the Big Lie. The future of democracy is in our hands.
So, with that, I offer my friend, Mr. Sessions, the time
that he needs to make his opening statement, and then we will
go to our witnesses. Mr. Sessions?
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr.
Chairman, because this is a hearing specifically about Texas, I
would like to ask unanimous consent to have Governor Greg
Abbott's order about that special session entered into the
record.
Mr. Raskin. Without any objection at all.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, the work of the state of Texas is very important, and
the people of the state of Texas have duly qualified and
elected individuals who would represent them. It has become a
common cited effort that people, when they know they do not
have the votes, to leave, to walk out, to not participate, and
I don't know where all this came about. But I know that here in
Washington, DC, we do not have the votes to win any single
vote, so to speak. None. But Republicans don't walk out. We
don't go and accuse people of things just because we are
losing. And I would suggest to you that what is happening today
in Texas is the rights of all Texans are being withheld because
members of the Democratic Party, who are members of the State
House, choose not to be a part of it.
So, the question is, what is some of this that is being
withheld? Well, one of them is the election integrity bill. We
are going to talk about that election integrity bill in detail,
and I think that anyone listening to this will recognize that
the strength of any majority or member of that body to bring
forth a bill that they believe would be important, is
important. Whether it is complete or not, that process would
involve each of the members who would be here to offer
amendments to that to change it, but members are still allowed
to represent their particular constituents with what they do.
Second, border security. As a result of President Biden's
decision on January 20 to literally tell Federal law
enforcement officers that they will not enforce the laws, the
border laws, the immigration laws, and the commonsense laws of
this country, has placed a tremendous burden, and it is an
emergency in Texas. Over 1 million illegal immigrants have
entered the United States. Record numbers of drugs are coming
in the United States. And essentially, these Federal officers
that were there to protect the United States of America, not
just our sovereignty, but protect people who might live in my
hometown of Waco, Texas from drug cartels, that are sending
record levels of fentanyl, cocaine, and meth to our American
cities and homes.
Third, family violence education is now not moving forward
in Texas. This is based upon their ability to provide
appropriate and more education to middle and high school
students about dating violence, domestic violence, and child
abuse to recognize that what is happening in this country is we
have a crisis in our homes, one could say because of COVID. I
say because of the changing times, and we need to use our
schools to educate our students about these circumstances.
No. 3, youth sports. There is going to be a bill that is
presented that disallows a student from competing in university
interscholastic league athletic competitions designed for
students of the opposite sex. We believe, I believe, it is fair
to have the debate and a vote, and to see the different ideas
that come forth about that opportunity where people of one sex
would compete against another person of another sex that, I
believe, is unfair to women. I think it is an anti-women
circumstance that we are involved in. I had children. I
competed when I was in high school, and it is unfair to have a
17-year-old boy compete against a 17-year-old girl in most
sports.
Thirteenth check. This is legislation that the House has
before it to give teachers a 13th check during the year,
allowing teachers a chance to have not only more supplemental
payments and benefits at a time when more money is available in
the teacher retirement system, but it requires the legislature
to act. Next, property tax relief. The proposal is to allow the
legislature to provide appropriations from the General Fund to
give property tax relief all Texans.
These are important issues that need to be done, the
business of the people of the state of Texas, and today, in
essence, we are allowing and coddling people who should be at
work in the state of Texas, their constitutional duties, and
yet we are treating them as hometown heroes in Washington, DC.
I believe that they need to have their constitutional duties
performed and be back home.
Now, Mr. Chairman, Texas has been a pioneer in passing
early voting laws that began in 1988 in Texas, but I would say
to you that Texas has used them every two years for the
legislature to be able to strengthen these laws, and to provide
feedback, and to allow Texans the opportunity to vote. I would
note that Texas allows 17 days more of early voting then
Delaware, which is where our President is from. Texas allows
each Texan 17 days more than the state of Delaware. These bills
that will be talked about today keep the ability for disabled
or elderly persons to vote curbside. That is important to me. I
have a disabled son. Perhaps my son may or may not want to go
inside. He can stay outside. It allows that.
We need to also remember that these discussions are
discussions open to amendment. These bills would make sure that
voters have a right to cure their absentee ballots of mistakes,
and they are given in these bills up to 6 days after the
election to be able to cure a mistake if you had one. This is a
far cry from Democrats' claim that the vote is being
suppressed. It actually allows them an opportunity to figure
out if they had done something wrong. That is common in both
the Senate and the House bills. Transparency is necessary in
elections, and this bill guarantees election observers free
from any public political persuasion. We heard our chairman
today lament that partisan poll workers would be discouraged.
Let me repeat. He believes evidently that partisan poll workers
should be involved in that process. We disagree in Texas. We
think anyone that comes to vote should be free of partisan poll
workers engaged in an electionsite.
We believe that Texas Democrats understand these bills
because many of the people, and several of people that are here
today, sought amendments to those amendments and they were
accepted in the bills and the processes that have gone on. One
member has been a member of the legislature for a number of
years and no doubt knows that the laws of Texas that are
updated every two years are done in the best interest of all
Texans. But rather than continuing the debate, they broke
quorum and they are trying to paralyze this progress that would
be made on behalf of all Texans. Mr. Chairman, I hope today
that the testimony that we are going to offer today from State
Representative Clardy, in particular, will allow those elected
representatives, who are Republicans in Texas, a chance to set
the record straight about not only what is in these bills, but
the need to make sure that Texas works together and passes
these laws for the benefit of all Texas. I yield back my time.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Sessions, thank you so much. We have two
other opening statements. We have the chair of the Committee on
Oversight and Reform, Mrs. Maloney, and she is now recognized
for her opening statement.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Chairman Raskin, for convening
today's urgent and vital hearing. I want to thank you for your
leadership on this issue and your enduring commitment to the
legacy of our late chairman, Elijah Cummings, and our late
colleague, Representative John Lewis, who both fought
tirelessly to protect Americans' right to vote. This is a
historic hearing, not just because of our distinguished
witnesses, but because of the brave actions they took to defend
the rights of Texans against one of the most aggressive
attempts at voter suppression we have seen anywhere in the
country. Now, more than ever, we must follow their example to
ensure that these shameful attacks on the right to vote do not
succeed. We must fight to fulfill the American promise that
voters choose their elected representatives rather than
politicians picking their own voters.
When it comes to restricting the right to vote, our Nation
has an ugly past. Historical voter suppression measures
included threats of lynching, poll taxes, and literacy tests.
Today, Texas remains the hardest state in the entire country
for Americans to vote. Texas has repeatedly refused to
implement reforms that would support greater voter engagement.
In 2013, the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v.
Holder blocked the Department of Justice from overseeing
elections in places that historically discouraged and
suppressed the votes of Black, Latino, and other communities of
color. Since that decision, Texas has renewed its voter
suppression with a vengeance. It has closed 750 polling sites,
including 452 polling sites in counties with the largest
increases in Black and Latino voters, and more than any other
State in the Union. Now Texas Republicans are trying to add new
restrictions to voting. Let's be clear about these bills, what
they are and what are not. These bills are not an effort to
make voting in Texas more secure. These bills are part of a
racist campaign to decide who gets the right to vote. These
bills take power and choice away from the people of Texas and
let the politicians decide who their voters are. Simply put,
these bills are an attack on voters and on the rights
guaranteed by the Constitution.
But there is a solution. Congress must act. Congress must
pass the For the People Act, which would end institutional
barriers to voting and ensure all eligible voters can register
and cast their ballot. Congress also must pass the John Lewis
Voting Rights Act to restore and strengthen the landmark Voting
Rights Act. We must seize this moment to restore the vision of
America as a Nation of rights, where government derives its
power from the people, not the other way around.
Representative Thompson, Representative Collier,
Representative Bernal, thank you for your bravery and fearless
commitment to protecting voting rights. To our other witnesses,
thank you for being here today. I thank my colleagues, and I
yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you so much, Chairman Maloney. Before I
recognize Mr. Comer, I am going to ask unanimous consent to
waive on, for the purposes of questioning only, Mr. Veasey and
Mr. Sarbanes. And without objection, we will waive them on.
And I now get to recognize the ranking member of the full
Oversight and Reform Committee, Mr. Comer.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Chairman. The hearing title today
claims there is an assault on voting rights in Texas, which
would be very troubling if it were true, but it isn't. Your
hearing title implies a big lie. Today, Democrats are holding
the hearing to convince us of the necessity of their bill, H.R.
1, that would Federalize elections across this country, funnel
taxpayer money to politicians, and prevent commonsense and
popular integrity measures, such as voter ID. Once again,
Democrats are engaging in spectacle over substance while
conducting no real oversight.
There are multiple ongoing crises in our country that need
to be addressed. Americans are suffering as a result of
President Biden's inflation, border, and crime crises. We have
asked repeatedly for a hearing on President Biden's border
crisis, including the welfare of migrant children who have been
held past the legal timeframe in crowded facilities in the
middle of a pandemic. Yet Democrats have held no hearings, nor
have called on Biden Administration officials to answer
pressing questions about the gross mismanagement at the
southern border.
We have also called for hearings on other areas of waste,
fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in the Federal Government, our
committee's core mission, but Democrats have ignored these
requests. Because Federal bureaucrats have not returned to the
workplace, veterans have waited for almost a year--a year--for
their records from the National Archives and Records
Administration. This massive backlog is delaying the benefits
to which they are entitled, yet no hearings from this
committee. Hundreds of billions in pandemic unemployment relief
have been stolen by international crime organizations.
Again, there has been no hearing to understand how U.S.
taxpayer dollars were so badly managed or the damage it caused
to our national security. No wonder the Democrats on this
committee received an ``F''--an ``F''--in congressional
oversight by the Lugar Center. Americans deserve better.
Instead of conducting real oversight, Democrats are holding
a hearing to celebrate their theatrical exit of over 50 Texas
Democrat legislators from their state to prevent debate on
legislation they simply don't like. These Democrats fled Texas
and paralyzed the Texas House, which cannot proceed with debate
or voting legislation important to Texans, including voting
integrity measures. During their super spreader stunt,
Democrats flew to D.C. in two private charter jets, stayed in
downtown hotels, and met with the Vice President, the Speaker,
and other congressional leaders. They spread COVID-19 all over
D.C. and made sure to share their vacation experience all over
social media to fundraise for their campaign and expenses.
Unfortunately, this stunt likely pushed D.C. into the
substantial spread zone, and we know what that will mean for
our children: no in-person school as Democrats continue their
quest to command and control our lives.
If these Democrats actually cared about voting rights, they
would care about the right of Texans to have their voice heard
through their duly elected Representatives. Their childish
theatrics prevented the entire state legislature from debating
and voting on important matters during the special session.
Their actions have disenfranchised all voters throughout the
state of Texas. The Texas bills being debated provide
commonsense voting integrity measures, such as extending a
simple voter ID requirement to absentee ballots and
standardizing and expanding early voting access. Unfortunately,
because Texas Democrats fled their state for Washington, that
process cannot proceed as designed.
I hope our committee will see the light in this partisan
charade and start conducting real oversight. The American
people are counting on us to safeguard their government from
waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. That is the reason this
committee exists. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Comer, for your
opening statement. And I do want to remind the committee
members, we are operating under the rules and guidance of the
Capitol physician which is, please have your masks on when you
are not speaking. Thank you, Mr. Comer, for demonstrating good
public health manners there. And members will not be recognized
if they are not wearing their masks when they are not speaking.
It is now my great privilege and honor to introduce our
witnesses today. Our first witness is the Honorable Senfronia
Thompson, Texas State Representative and member of the Select
Committee on Constitutional Rights and Remedies of the Texas
legislature. Then we will hear from Nina Perales, who is vice
president of litigation at the Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund. Next, we will hear from the Honorable
Nicole Collier, Texas state representative and chair of the
Texas Legislative Black Caucus. Next, we will hear from the
Honorable Travis Clardy, who is a representative in the Texas
State legislature. And finally, we will hear from the Honorable
Diego Bernal, Texas state representative and member of the
Mexican American Legislative Conference.
The witnesses will please rise or be unmuted so we can
swear them all in. Wherever you are, please raise your right
hands.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to
give us is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
[A chorus of ayes.]
Mr. Raskin. Let the record demonstrate that the witnesses
all answered in the affirmative. Thank you very much.
Without objection, your written statements will be made
part of the record.
With that, Representative Thompson, you are now recognized
for your testimony. Before you begin, I want to recognize also
the presence of our distinguished colleague from Texas, Ms.
Lizzie Fletcher, from Houston.
Representative Thompson, you are recognized for your five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SENFRONIA THOMPSON, TEXAS STATE
REPRESENTATIVE; AND MEMBER, SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS AND REMEDIES
Ms. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman Raskin and Ranking Member
Sessions. We were honored to see our colleagues from Texas.
Pete Sessions, it is always good to see you. Chip Roy came over
early, and we had an opportunity to chat with him for a moment.
And, of course, we are happy to see the new freshman colleague
up here in Pat Fallon. We miss him in Texas, but we know he is
doing a good job up here.
Mr. Chairman, I was sitting there listening to the
comments, opening statements that were made, and I had to take
a step back and kind of look at the history that I have been
able to perceive in Texas. But it is very difficult for me to
look at the history of the progress that maybe African
Americans may have made in this country without looking back at
the struggles that we have gone through and the struggles that
we keep going through. I can understand the position of some of
the persons who spoke earlier because they have been a part of
the privileged society that I have never been a part of. What I
have been concerned about, listening to them, is their
inability to be able to stand in other people's shoes and
recognize that the rights that they take for granted to vote in
this country, even though we are all Americans, we don't all
share those same rights. I just want to just digress a minute,
if I can.
I am in my 25th session of the legislature, and I have been
privileged to represent persons in my district. And one of the
members said, well, you shouldn't be here, you should be back
in Texas doing this and doing that, those sort of things, and I
listened carefully. I am here because this is the seat of
democracy, and my people who I represent has a right to be able
to vote unabridged just like all of you. You may not want to
recognize it, but we are supposed to have those rights. That is
why I am here. I am here fighting for them, and I have the
right to fight for them. And someday, I am hoping that I don't
have to keep fighting this fight, that my grandchildren and my
grandchildren's children would not have to keep repeating these
struggles.
I was born in Texas, and I can tell you just from my
testimony, as a child, my grandmother used to work and earn $2
a week working for the privileged, and out of those $2 a week,
she used to save pennies and nickels to be able to buy a poll
tax. The poll tax, as you know, was created to give people
opportunity to invest in public education support, but if you
were white, the grandfather clause took care of you. You didn't
have to pay the poll taxes, but my grandmother was African
American and she had to pay those poll taxes and to pay $1.25.
It was difficult to save money. My grandfather couldn't afford
to buy poll taxes because they both couldn't afford to have
poll taxes. It was too costly. She had to ride a bus to get to
the poll tax, a place for colored people to go and vote, and it
wasn't a short distance and transportation was certainly not
accessible as it is today.
I can tell you when I first voted 60-some years ago, I had
to buy a poll tax, and they did not exempt me as they did
others. And Texas has had a poll tax, and we did not get rid of
our poll tax until 1966, even though the law had been passed. I
could not vote. My grandmother could not vote in the primary,
Chairman Raskin. And you are wondering why. Because she was
Black, and primaries was for white only, and it was not until
Smith v. Allwright, a case in Texas, tried and won by Thurgood
Marshall, that gave African Americans a right to have a say in
their primary democracy. We are not talking about just
something that you can go to store and use for a little while
and toss aside because you have gotten tired of it. We are
talking about something that makes and breaks this country when
we are talking about democracy to vote.
You damn right I left Texas, and I am glad I did. And you
know why, Pete, I left? I left Texas to give my people a right
to be able to vote without them being infringed upon. I had a
chance to vote during 2010 and 2012 when poll watchers came to
my precinct where I vote personally. Let me tell you the
chilling effect of that. They had people, Chairman Raskin, that
looked like they was from the Proud Boys walking, looking at
you like you were in the wrong place. In a minority area, that
has a chilling effect. That chilling affect is depression of
voting. I don't know what you call intimidation, but
intimidation by any other name is still intimidation. It is
intimidating, and the word gets out that these people are at
your polls looking at you like they want to arrest you, keep
you from voting, and people, as a result of that, do not go and
cast their vote. I am the voice of my constituents, and if I
had to walk to Washington, DC, to get you to hear what I had to
say, to fight for my constituents, I will use any means
necessary to get my point over. I will meet with anyone if they
allow me to talk to them about preserving and protecting the
rights of my constituents to be able to have a say in their
democracy.
The Governor's own secretary of state said this: ``2020
elections was the most transparent and secure elections.'' Now,
she's not there anymore, but that was his secretary of state.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much for your testimony,
Representative Thompson. I look forward to our questioning.
Before I go to Representative Collier----
Ms. Thompson. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. I just want to recognize the
arrival of Representative Marc Veasey from Texas, who is with
us, too, so welcome.
Representative Collier, you are now recognized for your
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NICOLE COLLIER, TEXAS STATE
REPRESENTATIVE; AND CHAIR, TEXAS LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS
Ms. Collier. Thank you, Chair Raskin and members of the
committee. It is an honor to be here before you to provide
information and to share our story about what brought us here
to Washington, DC. My name is Nicole Collier. I currently am
elected to serve House District 95 for the last five
legislative sessions. I currently am also elected to chair the
Texas Legislative Black Caucus, which was founded in 1973 with
eight members. Today we have 19 members. We are a bipartisan,
bicameral organization with the goal in mind of addressing the
issues affecting African Americans.
I want to go back to some of the things that were talked
about, and some of you may be asking, you know, why did we ring
the alarm. Why are we raising the concern about what is going
on in Texas? Well, it is not just happening in Texas. It is
happening across our country. We have seen in a concerted
effort in various states to pass legislation that would limit
access to the ballot. It would not expand access. It would
reduce access, and what is happening in Texas is no different.
You heard about the Republican-appointed secretary of state who
said that the 2020 elections were smooth and secure, and yet we
still found ourselves facing legislation to address the
elections.
I want to respond to some of the things that were
mentioned. Of course, there is some other legislation that was
put on the call from the Governor, one of them being critical
race theory, which would whitewash the historic systemic racism
that has happened in our country, also is limiting access to a
legal abortion. That is also on the call. And I would remind
everyone that the 13th check, our teachers, retired teachers,
have not had a cost-of-living raise in years, and the Democrats
have always advocated for additional funding for our teachers,
including the 13th check. In fact, that same bill passed
through the Democratic committee quickly and died in the
Republican-controlled Calendars Committee. So, we have stood
for our teachers all along.
Another thing that I want to remind you of is that there
was a mention of the walkout of the quorum. That is a
procedural method, just like the filibuster is in the Senate.
If they don't like a policy that is being presented in the
Senate, they filibuster. That is just part of the rules, and
that is what we have come to see. But what happened in Texas
was that we tried to work with our colleagues. We provided
amendments. Miss T, which is Representative Thompson, sat
through more than 23 hours of testimony. Four hundred people
came and spoke against this bill, and yet only 65 for it. All
the amendments that were presented by our Democratic colleagues
were declined on party lines. In fact, there was a vote
immediately following the hearing to pass this bill, so there
was no interest, there was no even attempt to work, and
compromise, and collaborate with our colleagues on this. Our
backs were against the wall. There was no more discussion. We
saw the writing on the wall just like it was during the regular
session.
I was on the Conference Committee for Senate Bill 7 during
the regular session, and it is no different than what we saw in
this special session. The bills that were filed would do more
harm than good. They would limit access to the polls. I have
heard people say that we are opposed to voter ID. Well, let me
tell you Texas has been found to violate the Voting Rights Act
of 1965 every decade since its passage. We cannot out-mobilize
racist gerrymandering, and when you talk about having somebody
represent the interests of the people, it only reflects the
racist gerrymandering that has been taking place in Texas, so
we don't have people that represent the communities that they
represent. We need to make sure that we have communities, they
have to have the ability to represent, to elect a candidate of
their choice, someone that represents their values, and we are
not doing that in Texas.
I just want to talk about one of the provisions in the
bill. Miss T, and forgive me, say, for instance, she registered
to vote 20 years ago. There is a provision in this bill that
would require someone who is eligible to vote by mail to insert
the last four digits of their driver's license or social
security number or say they don't have one now. Now, Miss T may
have registered 20 years ago. She may not remember which one
she provided when she originally registered to vote. Under the
provisions of this bill, if she put down the other number, even
though it is the correct one, her ballot would be rejected, and
there is no cure opportunity within this bill to cure her
ballot, and she would not even know that her ballot had been
rejected. So, that is just one instance.
And I welcome the opportunity to continue this conversation
to provide additional information about why we sounded the
alarm.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Representative Collier, for your
testimony.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Raskin. I am sorry?
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Raskin. Yes?
Mr. Sessions. I would ask that you remind each of our
witnesses that they have taken note to tell the truth. Subject
to that, Texas had a COLA in 2013 for teachers. The gentlewoman
had led us to believe there were no COLAs that were given, no
updates.
Mr. Raskin. OK. I----
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, that is a direct lie before
this committee.
Mr. Raskin. OK.
Mr. Sessions. That is not truthful.
Mr. Raskin. Without entering into the merits of that----
Mr. Sessions. Well, we need to because there is no reason
to give your opening oath.
Mr. Raskin. OK.
Mr. Tlaib. Chairman, may I--I am sorry. I don't know what
the procedure is--it is Congresswoman Tlaib--but that goes
directly to her character. She should be able to respond to
that.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Well, you know what I would like to do? I
want to continue with the witnesses. Obviously there some
factual difference in point of view about a teacher COLA raise.
I am not quite sure how apt it is to our hearing. So, let's
keep going, and we can come back and we will clarify that. I am
sure there was no ill intent on either part.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Raskin. Yes?
Mr. Sessions. It is part of her testimony, and it was meant
to mislead this committee.
Mr. Raskin. OK. And I am sure that there will be a
clarification if there was any misstatement there. Why don't we
go ahead and recognize Representative Clardy, who is now
recognized for five minutes for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TRAVIS CLARDY, TEXAS STATE
REPRESENTATIVE
Mr. Clardy. Thank you, Chairman Raskin, and Ranking Member
Sessions, and members of the committee for the opportunity to
speak about election integrity in Texas. For the record, my
name is Travis Clardy, and I am proud to represent House
District 11, serving the people of Cherokee, Nacogdoches, and
Russ Counties in the Texas House of Representatives.
The right to vote by a secure private ballot is a
fundamental right in this country that should be protected, and
the laws protecting our vote should be debated honestly and
vigorously, and that is exactly what we have endeavored to do
in Texas for the last eight months. While I am grateful for the
invitation to be here, I believe this conversation is best
suited for the Texas House floor and our state capital in
Austin rather than a Washington, DC, committee hearing room.
However, I must take some exception to the premise of why
we were invited to testify. To be sure, there is no assault on
voting rights in Texas, but there is, in fact, a real danger
posed to our democracy, not the well-intentioned and reasoned
provisions in H.B. 3 to better secure our election processes,
but, instead, the growing threat of practices too long
tolerated that deprive individuals of voting for the candidates
of their choice and diluting the essential democratic concept
of one person, one vote. Moreover, while I appreciate the hard
work and effort trying to pass a one-size-fits-all Federal
omnibus election bill, I am reminded of that familiar Texas
adage to be leery of those who pronounce they are with the
Federal Government and they are here to help.
Texas has on her books a strong and effective set of
election laws and a dedicated group of election professionals
that I believe can and should be the envy of every State in the
Union. This is most recently reflected in the outcome of this
Tuesday's runoff election for congressional District 6 and the
victory of our Texas House colleague, Jake Ellzey. Once again,
Texas enjoyed a safe, secure, timely, and well-run election in
which we can all take pride with trust and confidence.
But first, let me say this to my Democratic colleagues
there with you today. It is time to come home. Enough is
enough. You have had your fun. It is time to get back to work.
You know as well as I do this legislation has been negotiated
in good faith and deserves your attention. House Bill 3, the
reason we are here today, is a sound and tailored bill to
improve existing law, and like every bill, it can get better
through debate and deliberation. But unfortunately, until our
colleagues decide to come home, that is not possible. In Texas,
we allow everyone to submit amendments to be argued during
floor debates. It is an inclusive process that has served us
well and is available to all those who want to participate.
Simply put, we should want to make it easier to vote and harder
to cheat.
House Bill 3 expands voting hours. It makes it possible for
voters to correct mistakes on their mail-in ballots. It
penalizes vote harvesting, and it extends identification
requirements for mail-in ballots. In fact, it is such a good
bill that the professional associations representing our
election administrators and our county clerks around Texas
testified favorably that, with a few technical process changes,
they would change their formal positions from neutral to
actually supporting the bill, which we all should want.
Now, I would like to address some of the misconceptions
that have made their way around the national media concerning
House Bill 3. First, House Bill 3 does not limit hours of
voting. Actually, House Bill 3 expands voting time from current
law of 7 to 7, to 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., an increase of four hours
per day. Further, employers are required to allow employees to
vote or face criminal sanctions. Second, House Bill 3 does not
eliminate curbside voting. In Texas, curbside voting is allowed
for disabled and other eligible voters, an accommodation that
allows these citizens to drive to the polls and participate in
person rather than mailing in their ballots, which remains an
option. Third, poll watchers cannot intimidate voters. This
bill does not permit voter intimidation and observers cannot
watch a voter actually cast his or her ballot, nor can they
film election activity. Election observers can be ejected from
the polling place if they interfere in the election process or
commit a breach of the peace or violation of law. Fourth, House
Bill 3 does not allow mail-in ballots to be thrown out
automatically. Rather, for the very first time, it allows the
voters to cure their mistakes so all valid votes can be
counted. Fifth and finally, House Bill 3 does not impose
unreasonable burdens on voter assistance. It simply expands
current law regarding the required information and the
assistance before aiding the voter.
But, folks, let's make no mistake about it. Illegal voting
does occur in the state of Texas, and it cannot be excused. We
must have zero tolerance when it comes to voter fraud.
Confidence in our elections, like faith in our judiciary and
trust in our law enforcement, is vital to the perpetuation of
the American experiment, and it is our best and utmost
assurance for the survival of our republic. This is the duty we
all have to our constituents and the oath that we all took our
Constitution, to our Nation, and to our state. I believe we are
all up to the task.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I look
forward to answering any questions. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much for your testimony,
Representative Clardy. We come now to Nina Perales, who is the
vice president of litigation at the Mexican American Legal
Defense and Education Fund. Ms. Perales, you are recognized for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF NINA PERALES, VICE PRESIDENT OF LITIGATION,
MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
Ms. Perales. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
Two bills currently pending in the Texas legislature, S.B.
1 and H.B. 3, seek to suppress minority voter participation and
thwart the emergence of a more racially diverse Texas
electorate. The Texas bills deprive Latino voters of lawful
voter assistance. A significant number of Latino, as well as
Asian-American voters, rely on language assistance in the
polling place from family members, friends, or neighbors.
Article 6 of H.B. 3 requires voter assistors to swear under
penalty of perjury that they will restrict their assistance to
reading and marking the ballot. Article 5 of the S.B. 1
requires the assistor to swear that the assistor did not
encourage the voter to choose them. H.B. 3 and S.B. 1 both
require the assistor to secure a statement of eligibility from
the voter.
These voter assistance restrictions violate the Federal
Voting Rights Act, which guarantees voters the right to
assistance beyond just reading and marking the ballot, and also
does not require a voter to explain his or her need for
assistance. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and
Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act guarantee individuals the
right to encourage a voter to rely on them for assistance and
guarantees voters the right to choose assistors who encouraged
them. In addition, these bills create new paperwork
requirements of assistors that will slow down the voting
process and increase wait times at polling places in
predominantly Latino neighborhoods. None of these provisions
are based on any evidence that voters who need assistance are
involved in fraud.
Second, the Texas bills invite voter intimidation by poll
watchers. Section 3 of S.B.1 and Section 4 of H.B. 3 strip
voters of the protections of privacy and security in the
polling place and invite vigilantism by poll watchers. The
bills empower poll watchers to roam around the polling place
and stand close to voters while they are voting. At the same
time, the bills punish polling place officials with up to a
year in jail and a $4,000 fine for refusing to accept a watcher
even when a poll worker is concerned that the watcher is
disruptive. Poll workers face the same penalties for
positioning themselves to protect a voter from a watcher who is
trying to intimidate that voter. Section 4 of H.B. 3 prohibits
election officers from removing disruptive or even violent poll
watchers unless the poll watchers commit a second infraction.
This means poll watchers can scream, yell, physically impede,
frighten, or drive off voters, and must still be allowed to
remain in the polling place unless they were previously warned
and commit a violation again. These provisions ensure that not
only will voters be intimidated by unrestrained poll watchers,
but election officials will also be intimidated by the threat
of severe penalties for stepping in and trying to protect
voters from poll watcher interference. Latino voters in Texas
have borne the brunt of more than a century of voter
intimidation at the polls. There is every reason to believe
that removing security measures inside polling places will
result in more intimidation of Latino voters.
Third, the Texas bills continue historic as well as recent
racial discrimination in voting. Section 1.04 of Senate Bill 1,
which was amended out of the bill after MALDEF's public
testimony, created a voter purge surgically aimed at
disenfranchising naturalized U.S. citizen voters. This was the
same voter purge launched by Texas against 98,000 voters in
2019 and blocked by a Federal court order. Texas settled that
case and agreed not to use this policy again, but S.B.1 brought
it back with the same predictable result of excluding
primarily, what is only the latest in a long history of
discrimination against Latino voters in Texas. The U.S. Supreme
Court in 2006 states, ``Texas has a long, well-documented
history of discrimination that has touched upon the rights of
African Americans and Hispanics to register to vote or to
participate otherwise in the electoral process.'' That case has
since been followed by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2018 that
Texas had again discriminated against Latino voters. S.B.1 and
H.B. 3 are part of this recent and older history of racial
discrimination and reflect a continued effort by Texas
officials to suppress minority political participation.
Thank you for your time, and I am happy to answer any
questions of the committee.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Ms. Perales, for your testimony. And
finally, we will hear from the Honorable Diego Bernal, who is,
again, a representative and member of the Mexican American
Legislative Conference.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DIEGO BERNAL, TEXAS STATE
REPRESENTATIVE; AND MEMBER, MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE
CONFERENCE
Mr. Bernal. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for having us.
The testimony of Representative Clardy and the testimony of Ms.
Perales can't occupy the same space. And so, what I thought I
would do is explain how a small section of the bill would
affect a voter in real time in their life, to get away from the
platitudes and more to the policy itself. And so, here, let's
say we have a voter who's sixty-two. She prefers Spanish and is
not super comfortable with her English. Let's call her Senora
Nicole, and she's always voted with an assistant. In this case
the assistant would be me, her neighbor. I notice on Election
Day that we haven't spoken, so I go next door. I knock on her
door. She answers.
``Hi, Senora, it's Diego, have you voted?''
She says she hasn't. ``OK, well, let's go vote. I'll help
you like I always do, grab your keys''--grab your [inaudible],
I always say--``I'll bring the car out front, come out, and
I'll take you to the polling place.''
And so we go. When we get to the front of the line, the
first thing I encounter that's new, as her assistant, is a new
form that I have to fill out, and that form asks for my name,
my address, my relationship to the voter, and it asks that I
attest that I haven't been paid by a candidate, a campaign, or
a PAC. I do not know what the form is for, I don't know who
gets it, I do not if it is private. It takes time to fill out,
in a neighborhood like ours--which is primarily Latino--it
might add to the line, the length of the line, but we power
through that.
The next thing we encounter is the oath of the assistant.
There are three new things in the oath that this bill would
require. The first, generally, is that it is under penalty of
perjury, which means that a violation of it, even without
intent, would result in a state jail felony. The next piece
asks me to affirm that she has represented to me that the only
reason why I'm her assistant is because she cannot see, read,
or write.
In the past, a voter assistant was able to help navigate
the polling place, interact with poll workers and answer
questions. That is gone. All I can do is simply translate, and
I have to say, under penalty of perjury, she has told me that
that is the only reason why I'm helping her. I've known her for
years. We've never had that conversation. I am not sure if I am
about to perjure myself. I don't know if I'm about to commit a
crime. And so, some people will stay beyond this point, but
some people will go.
Let's say we get past that part of the oath. There's a
third part of the oath that says that I must attest and affirm
that I did not coerce or persuade her, and in the Senate
version it says, ``encourage her,'' to choose me as her
assistant. And at that moment, I recall that moment the
conversation that we had on her front door:
``Senora have you voted? Let's go. I will take you. I will
be your assistant. Let's do it like we always do, grab your
stuff, meet me outside.''
Did I persuade her? Did I encourage her? Did I coerce her?
I'm not sure. At that point, as I'm filling that out, I'm
worried that I may have--and am about to--break the law. Again,
some people will stay, but some will go.
Let's say we get past that part, and we get to the actual
voting machine. There, let's say she is asking me a question,
which she cannot really do, but I'm just translating. All I can
do is translate, that's it, I can't do anything else--I'm
translating state board of education race and a school board
race. It is difficult, but we're not breaking the law.
There is a partisan poll watcher in the polling place, who
now has free range and free roam to get close enough to any
voter to see and hear election activity. That is the law. They
don't know what we're saying, but they might not like it. They
might not like the tone, they might not like the language, they
might not like the way that we look. They are allowed to
disrupt, harass, to physically move, to push us away, and the
only thing that the election judge there can do to them is give
them a warning, because the law says--Article 4, Section 4.01,
Article G, page 11, starting on line 11--it says that a
partisan poll watcher can break the election code or the penal
code and the only thing the election judge can do to them is
give them a warning. The election judge can only remove them if
they themselves saw a second infraction. It does not matter if
everyone in the polling place saw it themselves and reported
it. The election judge has to see it themselves to remove that
partisan poll watcher.
The manager at Target has more latitude to protect their
customers than an election judge in Texas would to protect
voters under this bill. Some of the opponents may say, well,
can't they call the police? Well, yes they can, they can call
the police. But that takes time. The police have to come and
assess the situation. Voting at that polling place would stop
or come to a halt. And just using my hometown of San Antonio as
an example, there are over 300 polling places. The largest
shift at any given time of SAPD is about 150 officers who have
other and arguably better things to do. What happens to us? Do
we finish her casting her ballot? If we do, does she want to
come back if that's the new environment? What's the word of
mouth when we get home as that experience spreads like
wildfire, bad [inaudible]? That can't possibly be who we are,
and this idea that this bill makes voting easier in this
instance, I don't see how.
There are no cases of voter fraud relating to voter
assistance. In fact, just to give you numbers, and I will wrap
up.
Mr. Raskin. Please, you are over, so you can make your
final point.
Mr. Bernal. There are 154 prosecutions of voter fraud in
the past 17 years in Texas out of 94 million votes cast. The
likelihood of voter fraud in Texas is less than any one of us
being struck by lightning.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Representative Bernal, for your
excellent testimony, and our members have been very patient, so
I am going to hold off on my questioning and allow Mr. Mfume to
go, and then we will go directly to the ranking member.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of
the committee. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, as I have
done privately repeatedly, for holding this hearing and
bringing us to this point, and your leadership on this is very,
very important. And there is no real redundancy in talking
about something so near and dear to the fabric of this society
as is voting. I want to also thank the state legislators who
have come here, those who are also on the Zoom with us
electronically, for your participation, and, if I might say
also, for your courage.
This whole issue, Mr. Chairman, is an issue that there has
been a lot of discussion about, but one of the things that is
clear, and that is that unless we have real integrity in our
system where everybody feels like their vote counts, we are
never going to get to where we need to be. In fact, we will
find ourselves repeating many of the problems and the issues of
the past.
Now, I don't want to be funny here, but this is almost like
the old Yankee manager, Yogi Berra, who once said: ``Deja vu
all over again.'' The issue of voter integrity, voter
intimidation, and the burdens that are put on voters is
something that has revisited itself in a mean and ugly way. Now
years ago, between the 1890's and the 1960's, there were real
efforts at voter intimidation and denial. It all started, as we
know, with the good old grandfather clause that said even
though you may be free, you cannot vote unless your grandfather
voted. Well, your grandfather was a slave, so he couldn't vote,
and, therefore, you couldn't vote. And when that became so
obviously ugly and intimidating, states changed up and created
things known as the literacy test, where, throughout that
period of time up until 1965, in many states, you had to tell
how many bubbles were in a bar of soap just to be deemed
intelligent enough to go out and cast a vote. And when that
came under further scrutiny, states changed it and said, OK,
well, now you have to be able to recite the Constitution from
beginning to end to be able to be qualified to vote.
I just think that it is ludicrous for us to think that
somehow now, the things that we are facing, particularly in
Texas and elsewhere, are not akin to the same laws that were
put in place then with the same objective and the end result:
to suppress turnout and to, in many instances, deny the ability
of all people to vote. Now, I know that these state legislators
who are here have come here because they honestly and dearly
believe in this concept of one person, one vote, so I was a
little shocked earlier to hear accusations by some of my
distinguished colleagues that the legislators from Texas ought
to go back home and do what they were elected to do, like they
were somehow abdicating their responsibilities by ``denying a
quorum.'' And yet, Mr. Chair, repeatedly in this committee and
even on the floor of the House, there are attempts to deny a
quorum because that is what you have the right to do, and you
have the right to use every tool available as a legislator,
whether you are in a city council, a state legislature, or in
the Congress, to further your point. We do that all the time.
So, I think it is a little disparaging to suggest that these
men and women are abdicating responsibilities when, in fact,
they are using constitutional abilities and guidelines to do
what they have to do.
Mr. Chairman, I believe more than anything else that when
we look at the disappearance of preclearance from the Voting
Rights Act, when we look at all the problems that have started
since then, we would not have been at this place had not the
former President been declared the winner of the election in
the state of Texas. That started an ugly ball rolling. And now
all of a sudden, there are these efforts to ``protect voters''
and ``protect their rights'' that did not exist, were not
talked about, and did not get voted into law previously. This
is a new phenomenon in an old ball game, and it is a phenomenon
that, quite frankly, cries out for us to pass the John Lewis
Voting Rights Act and to pass H.R. 1, the For the People Act,
so that we can put to rest once and for all these types of
attempts.
I have exhausted my time, Mr. Chair. I, again, want to
commend you. I want to commend the legislators. And I want to
remind my colleagues that as legislators, we have every right
to use what is in the Constitution that we are governed by to
advance our cause, even if it means that denying a quorum. And
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Raskin. Congressman Mfume, thank you for your excellent
remarks. And I turn it over now to my friend, the ranking
member, Mr. Sessions, for his time for questioning.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much, Chairman. I would like
to engage perhaps Mr. Bernal or Mrs. Perales, please. Are
ballots in Texas in the language that a person would need them
to have, in other words, in English, Spanish, Chinese? Are they
available?
Mr. Bernal. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sessions. So, they are available in the language of
people. That is not backward. That is pretty important. I would
like to ask you, Mrs. Perales, you said that Texas really had
been held in discrimination for a number of years, and implied
that Texas was discriminatory in their practices. But isn't it
true that preclearance was required in certainly the Clinton
and Obama Department of Justices, scrutiny of the bills, that
every time related to the laws and the redistricting of Texas,
would be reviewed by preclearance of Democrat and Republican
Department of Justices?
Ms. Perales. Well, Representative, I am not sure exactly
what you are asking, but I will say that it depended on which
President was in office at the time, but certainly doesn't
subtract from the fact that when we brought these claims in
Federal court, and both of the cases that I mentioned were
claims successfully brought by MALDEF, my organization, the
U.S. Supreme Court held. That is not administrative review by
an agency. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Texas had in its
laws discriminated against Latino voters. I would like to add
an answer to the one that was provided by the Representative--
--
Mr. Sessions. What year was that, ma'am?
Ms. Perales. Oh, well, the cases that I mentioned in my
testimony, 2006 in a case I argued before the U.S. Supreme
Court, and also in 2018 on a claim that MALDEF brought related
to racial gerrymandering, successfully, against Latino voters
in 2018. The answer that Representative Bernal provided earlier
needs to have something added to it, which is that although
Texas is forced by Federal law to provide bilingual ballots,
Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act requires a broader scope
of assistance. And the Fifth Circuit tells us that in the case,
Organization of Chinese Americans, a bilingual ballot is not
enough, Representative, and the courts have told us that.
Voters who are limited English proficient have the right to
take an assistor with them to help them navigate the polling
place, interact with poll workers, read another----
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much. Mr. Clardy, can you
please address that issue about the bills that would be before
us? I have a disabled son. I have been with him. He marked his
own ballot, but I helped him. Could you please talk to us about
what is before us with these bills related to what the
gentlewoman speaks of?
Mr. Clardy. Sure, and thanks. I think we had, and I will
use this word in its truest sense, I think very liberal laws as
it relates to disabled people would be able to vote. So, in the
instance of your son, we have curbside voting. It will be
available throughout the state, all of our 254 counties, where
they can drive up and an election official will come out and
help assist and provide that ballot and help those people who
are eligible for curbside voting to be able vote. That has been
our law for some time. Likewise, those individuals are
available--they have a right, unlike most other states, I
think, in the Union, to cast a mail-in ballot. They register.
They request the mail-in ballot, and it will come to them, and
they can vote and have that returned. And if they choose to,
they can actually bring it back in and have that ballot dropped
off.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much. Representative Clardy,
are you aware of the social worker at a state assisted living
center in Limestone County, Texas, where this person has been
charged with 134 felony counts of acting as an agent of
election fraud by putting in applications and forging
signatures? Are you aware of that, sir, and would this be
addressed in the new law? This happened in November 2020.
Mr. Clardy. Congressman Sessions, I am not familiar with
the specifics of that case, and, again, as you know, it is
really inappropriate for us to comment on pending matters. But
I can tell you that, in addition of that case, there are 50
cases pending right now, and that is just from the Office of
Attorney General, that have hundreds and hundreds of counts,
that exist. There is another approaching 400 cases that are
being investigated. Those 50 cases I mentioned, those have been
presented to a grand jury, and they have been true billed and
indictments issued. There is a case----
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much, sir. Mr. Chairman, I
would ask unanimous consent to engage in the record and place
in the record these 400-some cases that are being presently
handled in the state of Texas for voter fraud.
Mr. Raskin. Great. Without objection at all, under the----
Mr. Sessions. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. The current voting fraud statute.
Mr. Raskin. I now would invite Debbie Wasserman Schultz for
her five minutes of questioning.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr.
Chairman. Similar to what we see now in Texas, right after the
2020 elections, election supervisors and Florida Governor
DeSantis heaped praise on the election process. He said, ``The
way Florida did it inspires confidence, and I think that is how
elections should be run.'' Yet just a few months later,
DeSantis changed his tune because Donald Trump was emotionally
incapable of accepting the results of the 2020 election, and he
needed to whip the fringe of his party into a frenzy to further
his own aspirations. The result was a Florida voter suppression
bill that mirrors what we see proposed in Texas, making voter
registration harder, limiting voting by mail, and curbing
secure ballot drop boxes that 1-and-a-half million Floridians
used in 2020. These blatantly anti-democratic bills are a
solution in search of a problem, at the very least. During the
pandemic, our state and Nation experienced a rare expansion of
ballot access. We not only allowed people to stay safe, but
also gave flexibility to communities of color who too often
face voting obstacles.
Representative Thompson, it is so good to see you again.
Harris County, home of Houston, which you represent, led the
way in expanding opportunities to voting last year. So, my
question for you is, with all that Harris County did to make it
easier for folks to vote during the pandemic, were there any
resulting reports of voting irregularities that emerged later?
Mr. Raskin. It is for you, Ms. Thompson.
Ms. Thompson. I do not recall any, Debbie.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. I don't recall hearing any
either, and so it is helpful to have you underscore that. And,
Representative Collier, is it fair to say that these expansions
were particularly valuable to Black and Latino voters in Texas?
Ms. Collier. Yes, thank you. Absolutely. We found that
African Americans often have two jobs, and so being able to
vote during the 24-hour period is very helpful. Being able to
have drive-through voting is also helpful for those who have
children. So, these were mechanisms, and I am not aware of any
instances of voter fraud that have been prosecuted related to
those mechanisms.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. The Texas legislation
that we are discussing today, my friends, would create criminal
penalties for local election officials who send absentee ballot
applications to all registered voters. I mean, these are the
priorities of the Texas state government, which Harris County
attempted to do last year before the effort was blocked by the
Texas Supreme Court. In Florida, Senate Bill 90, also prohibits
state and local officials--they doubled down on what was
already prohibited in Florida by saying that mail ballots could
not be sent to voters unless one was requested. Ms. Perales,
can you explain how communities of color are particularly
affected by a restriction like this on mail-in voting?
Ms. Perales. Well, in Texas we have mail-in voting
available, just to be clear, for those who are disabled, can't
get to the polling place, and those who are over 65. So, we are
talking generally, among all communities, predominantly the
older population.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am sorry. Just to be clear, I am
asking you about a restriction for a local official to not be
able to proactively send out a ballot.
Ms. Perales. Yes, and my point is that when you are an
older individual, it can be particularly challenging to
navigate the request of a mail ballot. A lot of folks don't
have access online, and the process can be confusing. To have a
local election official who can determine who is eligible,
affirmatively send those applications, it is going to
particularly benefit Black, Latino, and low-income voters.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. Here is the icing on the
cake of this legislation. Political parties in Texas would
still be allowed to send out ballot applications, even as it is
outlawed for local officials. So, Ms. Perales, how do you
explain the discrepancy in treatment, and wouldn't the net
result make it harder to vote? And then, Representative
Collier, if you were designing a bill to combat voter fraud,
which should be all of our goal obviously if there really is
voter fraud, would you have started by targeting local election
officials?
Ms. Perales. With respect to making it more difficult to
vote, yes. If somebody receives an application for ballot by
mail and they want to fill it out and choose to fill it out,
that is going to make voting more accessible for them. There is
no reason on the face of the earth to prohibit a local election
clerk, who has all of the correct information, from sending out
ballot applications, and yet, at the same time, permit party,
partisan folks within their organizations to be able to do that
same mailing.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, can
Representative Collier answer before my time is turned over?
Mr. Raskin. Yes, and then your time is up.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much.
Mr. Raskin. Ms. Collier?
Ms. Collier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say, yes,
local control is absolutely important because those individuals
who are on the ground have a better grasp as to what is going
on in their community and can address the needs of their
community.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I appreciate it. I yield back the
balance of the time.
Mr. Raskin. I thank the gentlelady, and I now recognize
Representative Nancy Mace for her five minutes of questioning.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank Ms.
Thompson. I was a state lawmaker for three years before I came
to Congress. I represent the 1st congressional District of
South Carolina, and South Carolina has had its own history,
very bad history, with black South Carolinians, Black and brown
and African-Americans. I recently took a vote to move statues,
like Supreme Court Justice Taney, removing his bust out of the
Capitol Rotunda because he wrote the Dred Scott opinion, the
one that said that Black and brown and African Americans could
not become citizens of the United States of America. I voted to
move someone like Wade Hampton, who encouraged the murder of
over 150 Black South Carolinians during his run for Governor.
And so, I appreciate your comments about the `60's. I was not
around then, but I have watched and read a lot of the history
and seen the videos and seen the moments of violence against
black America. So, I applaud your work on that. My
understanding is you were elected in 1972 in Texas. Is that
correct?
Ms. Thompson. That is correct.
Ms. Mace. Right, and I applaud you for making history, I
imagine, in Texas, and being a strong voice for Black men and
Black women. Coming from South Carolina, we have got voter ID,
and I am assuming Texas is the same way. Do you all need IDs to
buy alcohol when you are purchasing at the store?
Ms. Thompson. Yes, to be sure that you are capable of doing
that.
Ms. Mace. Right. Do you need an ID in Texas to buy
cigarettes?
Ms. Thompson. You can't buy them unless you are at least
21.
Ms. Mace. But you have to show an ID to buy cigarettes.
Ms. Thompson. You do have to show an ID.
Ms. Mace. Do you need an ID when you are getting a job and
trying to get on payroll in Texas?
Ms. Thompson. Yes.
Ms. Mace. Do you need an ID to go to the pharmacy and get a
prescription in Texas?
Ms. Thompson. It depends on the prescription.
Ms. Mace. But do you need an ID for some prescriptions in
Texas?
Ms. Thompson. Yes, you do. Yes.
Ms. Mace. Do you need an ID to get social security services
in Texas?
Ms. Thompson. You do.
Ms. Mace. Do you need an ID to rent an apartment in Texas?
Ms. Thompson. Yes.
Ms. Mace. Do you need an ID for going to buy a house and
finance it via a mortgage in Texas?
Ms. Thompson. Yes.
Ms. Mace. Do you need an ID in Texas if you are going to
board an aircraft and fly commercial?
Ms. Thompson. Yes.
Ms. Mace. Did you fly commercial or fly a private jet on
the way to D.C.?
Ms. Thompson. A chartered plane.
Ms. Mace. Do you have to show an ID when you fly in a
private charter jet?
Ms. Thompson. Yes.
Ms. Mace. I wouldn't know. I have never flown on one. So,
did you need an ID to get in the building here today?
Ms. Thompson. Yes.
Ms. Mace. Do you need an ID in Texas to open a bank
account?
Ms. Thompson. Yes.
Ms. Mace. Yes, to cash your check if you are working. Do
you know, Representative Thompson, what percentage of Blacks in
Texas, Black and brown African Americans, are registered to
vote?
Ms. Thompson. Oh, a huge percentage.
Ms. Mace. Seventy percent.
Ms. Thompson. Yes.
Ms. Mace. Do you know what percentage of African Americans,
Black and brown Texans, voted on average or in the last
election?
Ms. Thompson. Like 64 percent.
Ms. Mace. Correct. Do you know how many whites are
registered to vote in Texas?
Ms. Thompson. Far more than African American.
Ms. Mace. Seventy-two percent. You have 70 percent of
Blacks in Texas who are registered to vote. You have 72 percent
of whites in Texas who are registered to vote. Do you know the
percentage of whites who turned out to vote in recent
elections?
Ms. Thompson. I want to say over 50-some percent.
Ms. Mace. Sixty-five percent.
Ms. Thompson. Yes.
Ms. Mace. Do you know what percentage of Hispanics are
registered to vote in Texas?
Ms. Thompson. No, I do not.
Ms. Mace. Sixty-three percent. Do you know what percentage
of Hispanics voted in the last election?
Ms. Thompson. I think it was over 40 percent.
Ms. Mace. Fifty-three percent. Hispanics are not voting in
as high numbers as Blacks and whites in Texas. Do you know the
percentage of Democrats who support voter ID?
Ms. Thompson. Would you repeat your question?
Ms. Mace. Do you know the number or percentage of Democrats
who support voter ID in this country?
Ms. Thompson. I do not, but I don't think it is a whole
lot.
Ms. Mace. Seventy-two percent. Do you know the number of
Black and brown and African Americans in this country who
support voter ID?
Ms. Thompson. No.
Ms. Mace. Seventy-five percent. Do you know the number of
Hispanics that support voter ID in this country?
Ms. Thompson. No.
Ms. Mace. Eighty-one percent. Do you know where the state
of Texas is ranked with Black voter turnout in this country?
Ms. Thompson. With Black voter turnout?
Ms. Mace. Mm-hmm. Do you know where Texas is ranked?
Ms. Thompson. Oh, about 44 percent.
Ms. Mace. The latest numbers that I read this morning was
that Texas is ranked 10th. So, in the top 10 in the country. Do
you know where Texas is ranked with women voters?
Ms. Thompson. Oh, way up in the 50's.
Ms. Mace. In the bottom third of this country. So, I would
argue that Texas has a more difficult problem with getting
women out to vote than Black and brown and African Americans.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. I would like to go to
Congresswoman Robin Kelly for her five minutes of questioning.
You are recognized.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is critical that we
recognize that these voter suppression measures are not simply
attempts to act on former Presidents Trump's big lie. For
years, Texas Republicans have tried desperately to blunt the
impact of demographic trends that threaten their stranglehold
on power. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Texas is a very
diverse state. Nearly early 40 percent of its population is
Hispanic or Latino, and almost 13 percent is Black or African
American, as you see in the slide.
[Slide.]
Ms. Kelly. Starting in 2018, we saw racially diverse
populations in major cities drift away from the Republican
Party. In 2020, non-white voters cast their ballots at a rate
of nine percent higher than they had in 2016, enabling
President Biden to perform better in the state than any other
Democrat in decades. This performance was fueled by those large
cities like Houston, which saw with its highest turnout in
nearly 30 years, due in large part to efforts to expand ballot
access. Ms. Perales, you fight for voting rights for Latino
communities. How do you think these demographic shifts in the
Texas electorate have influenced these restrictive voting
measures?
Ms. Perales. In our view, there is a direct connection
between the diversification of the Texas electorate and these
moves to restrict or tighten Texas election law. And the one
example I will give you is that from 2014 to 2018, Latino voter
turnout increased to such a degree, that Latinos cast almost 1
million more votes statewide in Texas in 2018 when compared to
2014. Those types of shifts in the electorate are very
challenging for those in power who think that Latinos will not
support them.
Ms. Kelly. And have you seen the same efforts in other
parts of the country that would necessitate the need for
Federal legislation?
Ms. Perales. Yes, there is a nationwide trend to tighten
election laws in response to increasing racial diversity in the
electorate in more than just Texas.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you. Rep. Bernal, what do you make of the
argument that these restrictions have less to do with voter
fraud and more to do with shifting political tides?
Mr. Bernal. I think the policy itself bears that out. I
think it is hard to argue that you are trying to combat voter
fraud when it is more likely that you get struck by lightning
or a meteor--we did the math--than there being voter fraud in
Texas. It just doesn't exist. I think that the zeitgeist, the
national fear that has been created by the Big Lie, fuels that.
But you would have a hard time drawing a direct line from any
part of this bill, any policy to a case or instance, of voter
fraud in the last 17 years, if not the last several decades.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you. Rep. Thompson, Rep. Collier, you also
represent rapidly growing cities. According to the Census,
Houston--which is going to overtake Chicago if we are not
careful--and Dallas metro areas had the largest population
gains of any metro region between 2010 and 2020. Rep. Collier,
have you seen voter suppression efforts in Austin intensify in
response to this population growth?
Ms. Collier. Thank you for the question. In fact, too often
we look for overt and obvious signs of suppression, but
suppression can be emulated in long lines. It could be creating
harsher penalties for making simple mistakes. So, it may not
look like the poll tax and the literacy test of old time, but
suppression can rear its ugly head in various subtle forms. And
so going back to the question about if we have ballots that
have multiple languages on them, the only reason we have that
is because of the protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
In 1975, the state of Texas was required to provide multiple
languages in the ballot only because we had the protections
under that Voting Rights Act, which only elevates and shows the
need for having this type of provision again. So, Texas was
made to do these multiple languages. It wasn't done on its own.
And so, unless we have Federal intervention, we will continue
to see the chipping away of our rights.
Ms. Kelly. You know, my colleague took the time to go
through step by step what you need voter identification for,
and there were a lot of things, but it is not just about voter
identification. It is voter identification mixed in with
everything else that you have to do. And I don't know if one of
the reps or, Ms. Perales, if you want to respond to that.
Mr. Raskin. And your time is up, but let's let Ms. Perales
respond. That is great.
Ms. Perales. I would just like to make two quick points.
One, voting is a fundamental right. Voting is not the same as
going to the store and buying a bottle of liquor, and it should
never be equated that way. That is demeaning to the right to
vote. Second of all, Texas had a voter ID law, and,
unfortunately, surgically made it tighter and more restrictive
in a way that a Federal court found was discriminatory against
minority voters. So, an ID can be certainly much more expansive
than what was provided in Texas when it was found to be
discriminatory. And you should know that because of that
Federal court ruling now, Texas had to broaden the opportunity
for voters to vote.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much.
Mr. Raskin. I thank the representative. Before I recognize
Mr. Franklin for his five minutes of questioning, one, I want
to recognize the presence of a Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee
from Houston, who has been with us observing the hearing. And I
also want to thank Congressman Veasey, who has cleared up this
urgent matter about COLAs for retired teachers in Texas. It
looks like both sides were right. TRS retirees have not
received a permanent annuity increase since 2013, and the COLA
applied only to retirees who retired on or before August 31,
2004. Anyone who has retired after this has never received a
COLA. I have got more details about that, but I think everybody
was acting in good faith. And I now recognize Mr. Franklin for
his five minutes of questioning.
Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When there are so
many topics and issues we could be digging into here as
Congress' Committee on Oversight and Reform, we are once again
squandering the opportunity on something that is not germane to
this body, but I am not surprised. After all, it was here on
this committee that I learned the person I had always
considered my mother isn't a mother at all. She is just a
birthing person. On multiple occasions when I thought we might
actually conduct oversight and discuss reform with respect to
the breakdown surrounding the events of January 6, my Democrat
colleagues refused to require leadership of the Capitol Police
to testify, so I am not surprised.
But I am truly puzzled why you all, our witnesses, have
chosen to be here. Instead of being back home in your state of
Texas and doing the work you were elected to do, you cut and
ran to D.C. and you brought COVID with you, and you infected
people while you were here at the Capitol, and while you are
at----
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, I object. Personal attacks.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has spoken the
facts of the case, and the gentleman is speaking off publicly
available information.
Mr. Raskin. All right. I appreciate that, Mr. Sessions. You
know what? In the spirit of Chairman Cummings, here is what we
are going to do. We are going to allow the gentleman to
continue with whatever he wants to say, whether it is true or
false or something else, and then there will be many
opportunities for people to respond.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, we are under an obligation to
tell the truth in this committee, and the gentleman is, in
fact, responding to what would be publicly available
information. And we did not interfere with your witnesses, of
course.
Mr. Raskin. No one is interfering. That is my whole point.
He can continue with whatever it is he wants to say. He has got
rights under the First Amendment and the Speech and Debate
clause. So, please proceed, Mr. Franklin.
Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe this hearing
is just an opportunity to give you all something to do while
you should be back in Texas. As a freshman Republican serving
in the minority here in Congress, I have been on my share of a
lot of losing votes. I don't enjoy it at all. I think the
Democratic Party, as the majority, has jammed through a lot of
policies that are terrible for our country, but here is the
deal: we cast our votes and we move ahead. And sure, on the
Republican side, we will message about how we think it is
wrong, and then when those bad policies bear rotten fruit, like
skyrocketing inflation, crippling national debt, a humanitarian
crisis on our border, or spikes in violent crime, we can say
``we told you so.'' But we still suck it up, do our job, and
take the votes, and we bide our time until we retake the
majority. We don't act like a bunch of spoiled coward running
away and refusing to vote when it is clear we don't have the
numbers to get our way.
Ms. Thompson, in your testimony, which we just received
about an hour before the hearing this morning, you stated that
you support H.R. 1, which the House of Representatives passed
earlier this year on straight party lines, no amendments, no
opportunities for Republicans to offer amendments to that,
straight party lines. H.R. 1 would essentially strip away
authority the Constitution grants the state legislators by
Federalizing elections. In your oath of office for the Texas
legislature, you swore, among other things, to preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United
States. The framers of our Constitution wanted the authority
for determining the manner of elections to rest with the state
legislatures, not Congress, not appointed officials, not other
elected officials. Specifically and only the state legislators.
I can't fathom why you would want to cede power granted to your
state back to the Federal Government.
And I hope the good people of Texas are watching this and
really understand what our witnesses are trying to do. They
think the Federal Government knows better than you Texans how
you should conduct your elections. The media and your liberal
buddies try their darndest to paint you as heroes, but you are
not. The truth is when, you know, when you sought office in the
state legislature, you persuaded people in your districts that
you are the ones who should represent their interests in the
arena. You signed up for it and Texans put their trust in you,
and now you are failing them. Instead of being here, you should
be getting on a plane at Reagan National and flying back to
Texas in coach like the rest of us. And unlike the private jet
you used to get here, they are going to make you wear a mask.
I don't have any questions, Mr. Chairman, but with the
balance my time, I would like to yield it to my colleague, Mr.
Fallon.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Representative Franklin. You know,
we are hearing so many things today that are either not true or
the assertions are accompanied with absolutely no proof
whatsoever. The chairman, not the subcommittee, but the
chairman of the whole committee said that Texas is the hardest
state in the union to vote. All right. Let's look at 2016 to
2020. Texas improved our turnout 8.8 percent. That was the 9th
best out of 50 states in the country, so you can say whatever
you want. It doesn't make it true, and certainly that assertion
wasn't true.
The historical struggle for our African American brothers
and sisters to vote is real. That happened, and it is horrific.
It is the largest and most horrible stain on our great country.
We need free, honest, and open elections, and I get physically
ill hearing the stories that Representative Thompson shared
with us. Those are awful, but let's address the matter at hand
today, which is the bill that you all broke quorum not to vote
for. I hear a lot of things that you could offer amendments to
make it better. That is the amendment process is all about.
This bill isn't voter suppression. This bill is voter
integrity. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Raskin. I am sorry. Where is that coming from?
Mr. Mfume. Right here.
Mr. Raskin. Oh yes, yes. Mr. Mfume, please.
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, I would ask, do the rules that
govern the committee permit Democrats or Republicans to defame
witnesses by calling them coward and being unable to
substantiate that? It just seems to me that that is outside of
the realm of free and open discussion, and it is an act of
defamation.
Mr. Raskin. Yes, it is the spirit, the tradition, and, I
believe, the rules of this committee to treat all witnesses
with civility and respect, and as chair, I will not tolerate
intimidation or abuse of witnesses. So, everyone, please take
note, and I thank you, Mr. Mfume, for that clarification.
I am going to recognize myself for my five minutes of
questions, and the first thing I want to do is I want to
contrast what you have done with what the violent
insurrectionists did to us on January 6. They had a complaint
about voting, too. They came here to ``stop the steal'' is what
they said. They had been goaded by Donald Trump to come and to
try to put pressure, coercive pressure, on Vice President Mike
Pence to reject electoral college votes from Arizona, Georgia,
and Pennsylvania, to proclaim a power no Vice President had
ever exercised before and doesn't exist in the Constitution,
and Pence, to his great credit, refused to do it. And you know
what? They trashed the place, and they injured and wounded 140
police officers.
Now we have representatives from a major political party in
Texas representing African Americans, Mexican Americans, white
people, Native Americans, who are coming forward to say that
their voting rights are being subjected to a gauntlet, an
obstacle course, that was so precisely elucidated by
Representative Bernal. They are saying this is just another
dressed up form of voter suppression, of disenfranchisement. I
was delighted to hear my friend, Mr. Fallon, say that it pained
him to hear about the history of disenfranchisement and voter
suppression that affected African Americans, but at some point,
apparently it all ended, and what you guys are here to complain
about, what you have come all the way to Washington to talk
about, is apparently just a figment of your imagination. So, we
can't trust the African American community or the Hispanic
community, or Native American community, or the voting rights
lawyers about this. We are supposed to, instead, trust one
political party. And I am sorry, I don't just trust one
political party, whether it is my party or somebody else's
political party, because what they want to do is win elections.
Now, Representative Bernal, we have heard some attack one-
size-fits-all elections. The claim is that by getting the
Federal Government involved, as the Civil Rights Movement did
with the Voting Rights Act, but by getting the Federal
Government involved, it is a cookie cutter, one-size-fits-all
approach. But when I look at this bill, it looks to me like
that is what that bill is because there are all kinds of things
that are working at the county level in Texas that are going to
be extinguished by this legislation. Isn't this really an
attempt to impose a one-size-fits-all straitjacket on the
counties and the municipalities in Texas?
Mr. Bernal. It is. It would force counties that are small--
5,000 people, 6,000 people--to operate in the same way as
counties of millions of people and to abide by the same. There
is nothing wrong with the same rules. In fact, that is what
Federal laws are for. They are the ground floor. Otherwise,
there is no reason to have them at all.
Mr. Raskin. Well, I am for uniform rules that help people
get the right to vote. I am against uniform rules that try to
crush the right to vote.
Mr. Bernal. Well, there should be baseline protections.
There should be a ground floor that holds the standards. But
otherwise, the idea that you would force, for example, Harris
County or Bexar County, where I am from, to operate in exactly
the same way as a smaller county. Sure, there should be rules
they all abide by, but that doesn't mean that they can't do
things within the law that benefit voters.
Mr. Raskin. Well, Representative Collier, for example, you
talked, I think, about the 24-hour voting. There are some
people who are out there working double shifts. They are
working the day shift and the night shift. The only time they
can vote is it at two or three in the morning. If that is a
decision of Harris County, why should the state dismantle that?
Ms. Collier. Because it is not good for their narrative.
Let me just tell you this. In Texas, in the 2020 general
elections, we had the largest turnout of voters since 1992, and
in response, we get restrictive legislation that would limit
the access to the ballot box. We saw that what they did in
Harris County worked: drive-through voting. Just like you get
the COVID shot, if you get the COVID, I am vaccinated. We are
all vaccinated here from Texas, Democratic legislature, and if
you get the vaccine, you can get it drive-through. And that is
all that they were offering in Harris County to address the
pandemic.
But under the bill, they would allow untrained partisan
poll watchers to observe, close enough in violation of any type
of CDC guidelines. And the Governor has prohibited local
officials from requiring masks, so that means that the Delta
variant that is going around would spread even easier under the
election, you know, coming up if we don't have precautions in
place.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you. Ms. Perales, Representative Bernal
and Representative Thompson talked us through this remarkable
obstacle course that would be imposed under the Texas
legislation, making it extremely difficult for people to
navigate all the twists and turns of the current law without
subjecting themselves to criminal liability or prosecution. Am
I reading this correctly? It looks to me like it is a
permission structure being put into place for bureaucratic
extremism in areas where you have got official authorities that
are resistant to people's right to vote, but then also
empowering partisan actors to overcome officials when the
officials are trying to protect people's right to vote. Ms.
Perales?
Ms. Perales. Representative?
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Ms. Perales. That is exactly right. It is coming at voters,
and, in this case, their assistors from both directions. They
are coming at poll workers from both directions, which is to
threaten with felonies and a year of jail time any poll worker
who tries to protect a voter, and at the same time, change
Texas election law so that, instead of being able to stay in
one place and observe, which is what poll watchers can do now,
allow them to roam freely and get close to voters to observe
their activities.
Mr. Raskin. It is just astounding to see this
criminalization of the work of the election judges. Finally,
Representative Thompson, it was just said by Mr. Franklin that
you cut and ran, and I think the word ``coward'' was invoked.
Are you guys demonstrating a lack of courage by coming to
Washington to demand Federal legislation to protect the right
of people to vote?
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Raskin. Yes?
Mr. Sessions. You are holding our side accountable to the
five-minute rule.
Mr. Raskin. I have given everybody on both sides some
discretion, so I am going to finish with this question, and if
you want an extra question, by all means, Mr. Sessions. So, I
just wanted to ask you this question. Did you guys cut and run?
Ms. Thompson. No, we took the same responsibility to
represent our constituents by leaving. And even though Mr.
Franklin may call himself a coward, you know, he don't have a
right to classify me as one.
Mr. Raskin. OK. I am going to go now to, let's see,
Representative Cloud is next. Mr. Donalds, you are called on
next, and you do understand that the rule that we have to be
wearing masks in committee when we are not speaking, according
to the Capitol physician? You are recognized for five minutes
of questioning.
Mr. Donalds. I will save the debate on the rule for another
day. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Witnesses, thanks for coming. I
really appreciate it. Representative Thompson, you have been on
the Texas legislature for, you know, a considerable amount of
time, and I thank you for your service. I understand what it is
to serve in a state legislature. I served in Florida's for the
last four years before I came to Congress. You mentioned in
your opening statement about how when you were at a polling
location, you felt intimidation. I believe it was from a Proud
Boy member, whoever it was. Did you file a complaint with the
election official, I am assuming in Texas, the election judge
that is in every polling location?
Ms. Thompson. It is nice to meet you. The person came
behind me, and I turned and asked what they wanted. And I am
known in my district, and I am known in that particular
precinct, and speaking with that person for a little bit, I
didn't have no trouble out of her. But most people would not
have stood their ground, and they would have----
Mr. Donalds. I am sorry. We are limited in time. I would
love to engage more, but my question is, understanding, you
know, your role as an elected leader in Texas, knowing the
situation you encountered as an election leader, did you take
it upon yourself to file a complaint with the election judge?
Ms. Thompson. I did not, and that person, I think, shortly
left after we finished talking.
Mr. Donalds. OK. My secondary question is, is there
anything in the Texas law, which I have in front of me. I have
been reading it during this this committee hearing. Is there
anything in this law that would stop anybody from being able to
file a complaint if they felt some form of intimidation from a
poll watcher?
Ms. Thompson. Congressman, you are Black like me. How many
Black people you know is going to be intimidated to go and file
against some white person in the South?
Mr. Donalds. I mean, I am just talking about you. I am not
going to be intimidated either. I am asking a question.
Ms. Thompson. And I am just talking about you, too.
Mr. Donalds. No, what I am saying is----
Ms. Thompson. I am responding to your questions.
Mr. Donalds. Is there anything in the law that prohibits
somebody from filing a complaint? We are talking about the law
now. That is what we are talking about.
Ms. Thompson. There is nothing prohibiting them from it,
but, you know, the mere fact of somebody of another ethnicity
looking like the Proud Boys in their particular precinct is
intimidating enough. Who is going to think about filing a
complaint? Some people may, but most people my age are not
going to be doing that. They are going to be intimidated, and
they are going to tell their friends, and their friends are not
going to want to go back. And that intimidation, by any means
that you want to announce it, is still intimidation, and that
is a suppression of the vote.
Mr. Donalds. I would like to make one point before we move
on, and it is that, it is not just a member of the Proud Boys
or anybody else who might be a poll watcher. And by the way, I
don't even know who those people are.
Ms. Thompson. Well, most of them who will come to my area
are white.
Mr. Donalds. Hold on. This is my time, so let me explain.
I'm getting to my point.
Ms. Thompson. OK.
Mr. Donalds. What I am saying is there is nothing in this
law that prevents any voter in the state of Texas from filing a
complaint which would actually take away or diminish their
voting rights. That is the fact of the law because I am sitting
here reading it. And even in your answer, you didn't tell me
that it is actually not clear in this bill that people are
allowed to actually file a complaint. But I got to move on
because, you know, we are almost out of time.
Representative Collier, I was listening to your comments
about the absentee ballot situation where people have to put in
either the last four of their driver's license, last four of
their social security number, or some form of identification,
or actually attesting to an oath that they don't have that
available to them. Your statement said that, basically, their
ballot will be kicked out if the number they put on the ballot
did not match what is actually at the supervisor of elections.
But in reading the bill, that is not clear, so can you further
expound? Is this actually in the law that would allow a ballot
to be kicked out of the process, or to be clear, is this a
technical change that you or any one of your colleagues could
file an amendment to make that technical change?
Ms. Collier. I am sorry. What section do you say it is not
there?
Mr. Donalds. Hold on. I have been thumbing through so many
sections of this bill. Give me one moment. Mr. Chair, that is
not fair. I am having to dig through a bill during my time. We
got dead air.
Mr. Raskin. We will be kind to you.
Mr. Donalds. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate that.
Voice. I think it is page 12.
Mr. Donalds. Page 12? All right. Hold on a second. No, that
is poll watchers. No, it is not that way. It is this way. I
should have dog-eared this thing. My apologies, Mr. Chairman.
OK. Page 17. This is Article 5, Section 5.02, starting with
Section (a), Subsection 1, line 26, starting on page 16, from
my pages, what I am reading on.
Ms. Collier. Are you on House Bill 3 or Senate Bill----
Mr. Donalds. I am on House Bill Number 3, ma'am.
Ms. Collier. OK.
Mr. Donalds. And so, reading this bill, I am looking at
this, and there is nothing in this language that would kick
your ballot out. So, please explain, you know, your rationale
to the committee on this.
Ms. Collier. OK. It says, ``An early voting ballot,'' on
page 16, ``must include,'' and it these requirements on page
17. If it does not include, then it has not met the standard in
the requirements under the law.
Mr. Donalds. But for clarification purposes, what is in
here is that you either have to have the last four of your
driver's license, the last four of your social security number,
or you can actually make a statement that you have not been
issued a number of anything in the first two sections. And if
you do one of those three, your ballot is actually allowed to
count under H.B. 3.
Ms. Collier. Absolutely. So, the concern, and we are not
even raising the issue of strict voter ID in Texas because that
has already been determined by the court. That has been
resolved. The concern with this one is if I registered to vote
20 years ago, I was required to put down one of those
identifications. I either put down my social security number or
my driver's license number. All right. On this particular
measure, it is saying that the person must put down the number
that corresponds with the one that is on file with the Election
Administration. Say, for instance, I put down my----
Mr. Donalds. Representative Collier. Representative
Collier, I am sorry to cut you off because this is actually
important information, but I know I am out of time. I am over
time.
Mr. Raskin. No, this is an important discussion. So, you
are saying that if you put down your social security number,
but you did it 15 or 20 years ago and you put your driver's
license number down, they will throw out your ballot without
even telling you that you chose the wrong number? Is that
right?
Ms. Collier. That is what this bill does because it is not
clear that there is any cure opportunity. There is a cure
opportunity for other provisions in the bill, but not for this
particular provision.
Mr. Donalds. The only thing I----
Ms. Collier. There is no way to cure even though I put down
the correct number, my driver's license number is correct, my
social security number is correct, or whatever one. If it is
not the same exact number that is on file, my ballot does not
meet the standards in the requirements through this bill.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman?
Ms. Collier. My ballot. Sorry.
Mr. Raskin. I am sorry, the time is Mr. Donald's, and I am
going to be generous. So, take another moment if you would.
Mr. Donalds. I am going to close real quick.
Mr. Raskin. OK.
Mr. Donalds. The only thing I would say, Representative
Collier, with all due respect, is, you know, I am sitting up
here. I am reading your bill. I have read election bills in
Florida where we made election changes, not the one that the
legislature did since I have been in Congress, but we did two
other election changes. I have read those bills. I am reading
the statutory language here, and what is here in the language
does not comport with what you are saying. My only advice would
be if you have a technical issue, then the job of you and your
colleagues is in the Texas legislature, not here, to make sure
that those technical changes can be made or work with the
majority party. And the last thing I will say is that I think
that in the Texas legislature, like in most state legislatures,
you guys have far more latitude to bring technical changes and
amendments. I know up here in D.C. being in the minority party,
we hardly have any ability to bring amendments on anything.
With that, I yield back.
Ms. Collier. Sir, if it was only a technical amendment.
This is a practical implication that is going to disenfranchise
hundreds and thousands of votes of Texans, and so that is why
we are here. We tried to work with our counterparts, but every
amendment that we presented was declined.
Mr. Raskin. Where was that, in committee?
Ms. Collier. Yes, sir, in committee. On the 23 hours, there
were amendments that were presented. Even during the regular
session when we presented amendments, they were not always
admitted, so we have tried. We have used every tool in our
toolbox to collaborate with our colleagues. The only thing left
is to come to Congress and ask for Federal intervention. The
answer is here.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you. Thank you very much, Representative
Collier, and I have got to come to my friend, Ayanna Pressley,
from Massachusetts, to recognize her for her five minutes of
questioning.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Chairman Raskin. In today's
hearing, I am reminded of the words of my mother, may she rest
in peace and power, Sandy Pressley. She was a super voter and
never missed an Election Day, and she reminded me every time
that I would go with her, and she would pull that curtain and
then pull that lever, she would turn to me and say, ``Never
forget that on this day, on Election Day, we are powerful,''
and I would stand up just a little bit taller. I believed her
then, and I still do now.
Republicans in the Texas state legislature are trying to
take away that power. The voter suppression tactics they
support are targeted and precise with the aim of stripping
power away from Black folks, Hispanic, and Latinx, and voters
with disabilities. This is the latest chapter in a long history
of systemic racist and ableist disenfranchisement. By creating
new and broad criminal penalties, Texas Republicans have
adopted a strategy of blatant intimidation to suppress the
vote. Ms. Perales, ``yes'' or ``no'' for the record, do you
believe expanding criminal penalties in this bill will deter
people from voting?
Ms. Perales. Yes.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you. So, we agree. Some of the new
criminal penalties are directed at family members and
volunteers who help voters complete and return their ballots.
People with disabilities are more likely to need this type of
ethical and well-established accommodation to vote. Rep.
Bernal, how does this bill's new requirements for voting by
mail or in-person voting impede voters with disabilities from
exercising their right to vote?
Mr. Bernal. That is an interesting question. One of the
most interesting answers is that it requires a pen ink
signature, something that many people with disabilities cannot
produce and they often use a stamp, and so there is no cure for
that.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you. And finally, I want to shed light
on provisions I found particularly alarming, given Texas's
history of voter intimidation. If a voter requires assistance
from a friend or a relative, this bill would allow an uninvited
and self-appointed poll watcher, like a member of Republicans'
2020 ``election integrity brigade,'' an intimidation group, to
watch over them while they cast their ballot. This means voters
with disabilities will be subject to greater scrutiny,
intimidation, and discriminatory treatment. Ms. Perales, do you
agree that this bill enables individuals to harass, intimidate,
or obstruct voters under the guise of poll watching?
Ms. Perales. Yes, it certainly does.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you. Well, I am convinced more than
ever that my colleagues in the Senate must stop forcing people
with disabilities and people of color to carry the burden of
finding ways to organize against these shameful, suppressive,
and anti-democratic state bills. Instead, senators, especially
those in my own party, need to remove these obstacles by
abolishing the filibuster and passing the For the People Act
and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. This is an intersectional
fight about disability justice, racial justice, and electoral
justice, and we must win because the future of our democracy
demands it. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Ms. Pressley. I would now recognize
Mr. Fallon. Is that----
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Raskin. Yes?
Mr. Sessions. I believe it is important that we not
continue speaking about things that are not truthful. In fact,
the gentlewoman made the assertion that one could simply walk
in and be a poll watcher. That is not true. The truth of the
matter is that you must go through a certification process by
your local party to be able to be there.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Mr. Sessions----
Mr. Sessions. You just cannot walk off the street.
Mr. Raskin. See, here is the problem. We keep raising as
kind of a procedural objection what is really a substantive
disagreement.
Mr. Sessions. Yes, sir.
Mr. Raskin. I'm going to make sure----
Mr. Sessions. But I believe if we are going to give
testimony, if we are going to make assertions----
Mr. Raskin. Well, she was using her time, but you will have
an opportunity to close. Please just take notes on the things
that you disagree with profoundly because, you know, we have
been keeping a number of members waiting, and I do want to go
to Mr. Fallon.
Mr. Sessions. Yes, sir, we did. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. Yes. So, Mr. Fallon, you are recognized for
your five minutes of questioning.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very gracious of you.
You know, we are hearing a lot of twists, and spins, and
propaganda, and statements that are simply not true. So many,
in fact, my five minutes would be exhausted trying to address
even just a fraction of them. We live today in a headline
culture. So, many people just read the headline and they don't
read the article. So, they hear a statement and they think, oh,
this is a learned person, it must be true. In fact, what is the
title of this very hearing? It is ``Democracy in Danger.'' That
gets your attention, and it goes further and says, ``The
Assault on Voting Rights in Texas.'' The assault, as if a crime
is being committed.
And in the second paragraph of the memorandum that we were
given about the hearing, it says, ``This Texas legislation
would dramatically restrict access for voters across the
state,'' and it goes on specifically to mention the proposal
about banning drive-through voting and 24-hour voting.
Dramatically restrict. Let's think about that. It fails to
mention that of the 254 counties in Texas, 253 of them had no,
none, zero drive-through or 24-hour voting in all of Texas, and
99 percent of us Texans did not utilize drive-through voting or
the 24-hour voting. And that is not to say that the folks that
did go use the 24-hour voting after 7 p.m. and before 7 a.m.,
it is not to say they wouldn't have voted. They could have just
like we all did. I am disheartened that 50 of my former
Democratic colleagues abandoned our home state and came here to
Washington, DC. It is unfortunate that some are, not the three
here today, but more like carnival barkers than serious
deliberative legislators. The phony arguments and baseless
claims are hyperbolic in the extreme, completely disingenuous,
and patently untrue.
In the aforementioned memorandum issued by the majority
about this hearing, in that same second paragraph, it says that
``Texas has a long history of attempting to suppress black and
Latino voters and has been judged the hardest state in which
cast a ballot,'' which we already addressed, but that is
inflammatory and it is accusatory. And where do they cite? So,
they cite The Guardian newspaper. Not an American newspaper. A
far-left newspaper in Great Britain. And instead of citing
foreigners on other continents for their opinions on Texas
voting, why don't we see what Texans themselves think?
There was a poll done last week by RMG Research, and in
Texas they asked Texans, is it easy to vote in Texas, is it
hard, or is it about right. Seventy-five percent said it is
easier, it is about right. Only 16 percent said it was hard. If
you break it down demographically, it was 79 percent to 14
amongst whites, 64 to 21 amongst African Americans, and 75 to
20 with Hispanics. So, the results are in, and it is a
landslide that the vast majority of Texans believe it is just
about right or easy to vote.
I would like to ask my three former colleagues very
quickly, and it is because of time, just ``yes'' or ``no.'' Do
you support or oppose voter ID? Ms. Thompson? Representative
Thompson?
Ms. Thompson. You know my vote was ``no.''
Mr. Fallon. You voted ``no'' in 2011. You all weren't able
to vote because we weren't in the legislature in 2011.
Representative Collier?
Ms. Collier. I support expanding voter ID to include
student IDs that are issued by state schools, yes.
Mr. Fallon. So, you support voter ID. You would have voted
``yes'' 2011 if you were in the legislature?
Ms. Collier. I don't know that bill, so I couldn't tell
you.
Mr. Fallon. OK. Representative Bernal?
Mr. Bernal. Like she does, I think expanded voter ID works.
Mr. Fallon. OK. So, you support voter ID.
Mr. Bernal. I support the concept of voter ID, not Texas'
version of voter ID.
Mr. Fallon. Well, I remember in 2011, I wasn't in the
legislature at the time, but Democrats voted en masse against
the voter ID bill at the time, and that is completely out of
step with Texans because Texans overwhelmingly support voter ID
that we have on the books, 82 percent to 11. Again, breaking it
down demographically, it is overwhelming: 84, 75, and 81
percent, respectively support voter ID. Representative
Thompson, do you believe the current legislation being proposed
in Texas has an adverse effect on turnout in Texas? Do you
think turnout is going to go down?
Ms. Thompson. I do.
Mr. Fallon. OK. Again, in voter ID in 2011, there were the
same concerns, and that is what I remember hearing, but they
were all ill placed or, at worse, fabricated because from 2008,
the last time we had an election, Presidential election in
Texas that didn't have voter ID, to 2020 in the last one where
we had it, turnout out went up 39.25 percent. And our
population did rise 19.7 percent, but it was still outpaced 2
to 1, and it is the same doom and gloom that we are hearing now
about this is going to affect voter turnout. So, it is fair to
say that the Democrats in our state were wrong then, and I
would argue that they are wrong now.
Mr. Chair, I am going to have to yield back because I am
out of time.
Mr. Raskin. All right. Well, thank you for your
reflections, and we go now to the chair of the full committee,
Chairman Maloney, for her questioning.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This
hearing is not the first time that the Oversight Committee has
investigated voter suppression efforts in Texas. In March 2019,
my predecessor, Chairman Elijah Cummings, along with Chairman
Raskin, launched an investigation into the state's failed
attempt to purge nearly 100,000 voters from the Texas voter
rolls. Texas threatened more than half of these voters with
criminal prosecution, but it turned out that many of them were
eligible voters. This purge effort was halted by a Federal
judge because the judge found, and I quote, ``Perfectly legal
naturalized Americans were burdened with what the Court finds
to be ham-handed and threatening correspondence from the
state.'' Mrs. Perales, your organization helped stop this
blatant attempt at voter suppression in Texas. How did the
attempted voter roll purge contribute to voter suppression in
Texas?
Ms. Perales. We did file suit on behalf of naturalized U.S.
voters who had received letters from their counties accusing
them of being non-U.S. citizens and telling them that they had
to prove up their U.S. citizenship, even though they were U.S.
citizens. I had one client tell me that she never wanted to
vote again. She was newly naturalized. She has proudly become a
U.S. citizen and proudly registered to vote, and she was so
afraid and so intimidated by that letter thinking she had made
some awful mistake, that she said she never wanted to vote
again, and that was repeated around the state.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, which communities, Ms. Perales, would
have been most impacted by this action in your state?
Ms. Perales. That Texas voter purge of 2019 was surgically
designed to kick Asian American and Latino newly naturalized
registered voters off the voter rolls because of the way they
put that list together, which had to do with people who
formerly held green cards and were registered to vote. Today,
that is disproportionately Latino and Asian Americans in Texas.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, last year, Chairman Raskin and I
released findings from this investigation, and the committee
found new evidence that many U.S. citizens had been incorrectly
told they were ineligible to vote, and that county officials in
Texas raised serious concerns about the purge. And,
Representative Thompson, you have been outspoken about the
history of voter suppression efforts in Texas. Ms. Thompson,
how did these attempts to purge vote rolls play into the
greater context of voter suppression in Texas?
Ms. Thompson. It had a chilling effect on persons who may
have wanted to vote because of what was happening.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, the Federal judge who halted the effort
said, and I quote, Mrs. Thompson, ``The evidence has shown that
in a hearing before this Court that there is no widespread
voter fraud.'' Yet today, we are seeing the same falsehoods
about voter fraud being pushed to support new voter suppression
bills in Texas. Mrs. Perales, has there been any evidence of
widespread voting by non-citizens in the Texas 2020 election?
Ms. Perales. Not in 2020 or at any other time.
Mrs. Maloney. So, the current Senate version of the Texas
voter bill would require a monthly review of voter rolls for
non-citizens. Mrs. Perales, how would a provision like this
affect people? How would this threaten voting rights? You
mentioned one of the people you talked to felt intimidated and
scared and didn't want to vote again. What has been the impact
of this?
Ms. Perales. Well, fortunately, we were able to get Senate
Bill 1 amended, as a result of our testimony, to make sure that
that same group of people targeted in 2019 would not be
targeted again. However, there is still a piece of this bill
that requires, as you mentioned, these monthly checks for
citizenship. The issue here is going to be if they employ loose
matching, what you will end up with is a U.S. citizen, perhaps
a young man who shares the same name as his father, and his
father is not a U.S. citizen, has been excused from jury duty
for non-citizenship. This type of matching system, unless it is
done perfectly, is going to vacuum up immediate relatives of
non-U.S. citizens in the Latino and Asian American community
and force them to jump through additional hoops.
Mrs. Maloney. Representative Bernal----
Mr. Raskin. Madam Chair, please take this last question,
and then your time is up.
Mrs. Maloney. OK.
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mrs. Maloney. Is there any legitimate justification for
this proposal?
Mr. Bernal. No.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, Mr. Chairman, let's not kid ourselves.
Texas' supposed efforts to stop non-existent voter fraud are no
more than a thinly veiled attempt to suppress Americans' right
to vote, a right guaranteed in our Constitution. I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I now go to Mr. Roy
from Texas for his five minutes of questioning.
Mr. Roy. I thank the chairman, and I also thank the
chairman for allowing me to waive on. Obviously, I was the
ranking member and served with you in this last Congress, so I
appreciate that very much.
Mr. Raskin. And it is good to see you back, and I should
tell you that my friend, Jennifer Lord, who is your constituent
and a conservative Republican, is watching us today.
Mr. Roy. Excellent.
Mr. Raskin. So, please be on your best behavior.
Mr. Roy. I appreciate that, and great to see my, you know,
colleagues from Texas, although I wish it were under slightly
different circumstances. Obviously, I think that you guys
should be in Austin, Texas, performing those duties. Let me ask
you a couple quick questions here, and I am just going to
scatter these around. Just give me ``yes'' or ``no'' answers,
if you can. Representative Bernal, is Section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act remaining full and in effect?
Mr. Bernal. Excuse me?
Mr. Roy. Is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act remaining
full and in effect right now?
Mr. Bernal. Yes.
Mr. Roy. And are you aware, was it just Section 5 that was
overturned in the Shelby County decision eight years ago?
Mr. Bernal. Yes.
Mr. Roy. Right, and the reason that it was overturned was
that the body, this body, failed to update the formula using
50-year-old data and a 50-year-old formula. ``Yes'' or ``no,''
is that why it was overturned?
Mr. Bernal. That was among the reasons.
Mr. Roy. So, the Voting Rights Act remains in effect. The
1965 Voting Rights Act remains in effect. That provision,
Section 5, is what was overturned because it was 50-year-old
data. May I ask another question on this of each witness? Do
you believe that Texas should have to submit to the Department
of Justice for any changes that it makes in its voting laws or
formulas?
Mr. Bernal. Yes.
Mr. Roy. Ms. Collier or Representative Collier?
Ms. Collier. This historical nature of Texas'----
Mr. Roy. Just ``yes'' or ``no,'' do you think Texas'
election laws should have to submit to the Department of
Justice for preclearance?
Ms. Collier. Not only for that. For maps as well.
Mr. Roy. And, Representative Thompson, do you believe that
they should have to submit to the Department of Justice for
preclearance?
Ms. Thompson. Yes.
Mr. Roy. So, for the record, the Representatives from Texas
believe that they should have to defer to Washington, defer to
the Federal Government on what we should do for election laws
in the state of Texas. Now, the three of you are aware that you
are, in fact, violating Texas law by being here right now
instead of being in Texas during legislative session, and that
it would be in order to arrest you were you in the state of
Texas to get you back to the State House. Do we agree that
those are the facts? Representative Bernal?
Mr. Bernal. I am not sure those laws are constitutional.
Mr. Roy. But is that the law in the state of Texas? We can
argue the constitutionality.
Mr. Bernal. I don't think so.
Mr. Roy. The law of the state of Texas is that you are
supposed to be in session and that you are supposed to be there
carrying out your constitutional duty. Do you support H.R. 1,
the Federal law that was passed here in the House of
Representatives, Representative Bernal?
Mr. Bernal. Yes.
Mr. Roy. Representative Collier?
Ms. Collier. I will stand with the congressional members
who passed it, so I support their----
Mr. Roy. Representative Thompson, do you support H.R. 1?
Ms. Thompson. I do. Mr. Chair, I would like just to say I
am ready to be arrested. I am not violating the law, and I am
representing my constituents, and I stand ready----
Mr. Roy. Representative Thompson. Representative Thompson,
I----
Ms. Thompson. Bring the handcuffs on, and I am ready to go.
Mr. Roy. Representative Thompson, reclaiming my time. I
appreciate that that is your view on the matter. I think that
makes the case precisely. With respect to H.R. 1, each of the
witnesses, one said that she opposed voter ID, two said some
forms of voter ID. I would point out and just want to clarify
that H.R. 1 would, in fact, say that an individual in the state
that is eligible to cast a vote in an election for Federal
office, the state may not impose any additional conditions or
requirements on the eligibility of the individual to cast a
vote in such election by absentee ballot by mail, in other
words, Federal prohibition on the use of voter ID with respect
to absentee ballot by mail, and interfering with the state's
rights or ability to use voter ID.
I have heard a number of witnesses testify about the lack
of examples of the witnesses of fraud. On September 3, 2014, at
the United States District Court in Corpus Christi, Democrat
election expert, Buck Wood, was asked if there was a voter
fraud occurring by mail. His response, and I quote, was, ``Yes,
very definitely.'' Do you agree with him, Representative
Bernal?
Mr. Bernal. Do I agree that Buck Wood was aware of a case
of voter fraud?
Mr. Roy. Was asked if there was voter fraud occurring by
mail. His response, and I a quote, was ``very definitely.'' Do
you agree with that?
Mr. Bernal. I believe that he said that, sure.
Mr. Roy. Representative Collier, do you agree with him, his
assertion?
Ms. Collier. I cannot confirm or deny. I am not sure what--
--
Mr. Roy. Representative Thompson?
Ms. Thompson. I am not aware of him saying that.
Mr. Roy. OK. In 2007, your colleague, who also happens to
be here in D.C., Rafael Anchia, said, and I quote, ``Vote by
mail, that we know, is the greatest source of voter fraud in
this state.'' Do you agree with Representative Anchia, ``yes''
or ``no?'' Greatest source of fraud, ``yes'' or ``no.'' Do you
agree with Anchia or no?
Mr. Bernal. I have nothing to base the fact that the
greatest source of voter fraud was----
Mr. Roy. OK. So, you are disagreeing with Representative
Anchia. Representative Collier?
Ms. Collier. I don't know the context, so I cannot confirm
or deny what you just said.
Mr. Roy. Well, it was an exact quote, ``Vote by mail, that
we know, is the greatest source of voter fraud in this state.''
Do you agree with that?
Ms. Collier. I am not sure what the context was.
Mr. Roy. Well, that is the context, that statement,
straight up. It is plain English.
Ms. Collier. Well, give us the rest of it. Tell us what
else he was talking about.
Mr. Roy. The sentence, ``Vote by mail, that we know, is the
greatest source of voter fraud in this state.'' Do you agree
with that?
Ms. Collier. Sir, I would decline to respond.
Mr. Roy. Representative Thompson?
Ms. Thompson. I think he would be better advantaged here if
he was here to answer that question for you.
Mr. Roy. Well, 18 years ago, Representative Garnett
Coleman, a Democrat, tried to ban pre-printed ballot by mail
applications. Do you agree with Representative Coleman that we
should ban pre-printed ballot by mail applications? Represented
Bernal?
Mr. Bernal. I do not.
Mr. Roy. Representative Collier?
Ms. Collier. I am not aware of that statement.
Mr. Roy. Do you agree, though, with that position?
Ms. Collier. I cannot say what he thought or what he did.
Mr. Roy. Representative Thompson?
Ms. Thompson. I am not aware of him making that statement.
Mr. Bernal. Congressman, can I clarify the question?
Mr. Roy. Very quickly because I am running out of time.
Mr. Bernal. Are you talking about an application or are you
talking about a ballot?
Mr. Roy. A pre-printed mail-in ballot.
Mr. Bernal. No. Application, yes. Ballot, no.
Mr. Roy. OK. All right. And then with respect to the
assertions earlier that I think were placed in the record, the
chairman put in a number of videos and statements from Texas
constituents. I would ask to insert into the record a document
that I have outlined a number of examples of voter fraud,
including statements from Black witnesses who testified in the
Texas legislature about voter fraud.
Mr. Raskin. This is a statement from you?
Mr. Roy. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. OK.
Mr. Roy. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. Without objection.
Mr. Roy. And in that, you have Gerry Wayne Monroe, Aubrey
Taylor, Demetria Smith. Demetria's quote was, ``Democrats are
going after my ancestors. You are making a mockery of my
suffrage and use it to your advantage for your own agenda so
you can keep your own seat. It is not about the people.''
Aubrey Taylor: ``Hear me. Elections are being stolen in Harris
County, and if something is not done right now, I guarantee
you, get ready to lose the state.'' Gerry Wayne Monroe, ``My
community is suffering because there are kingmakers, and they
cheated in the last election.'' He testified that he witnessed
ballot harvesters take $22,000 in pay. He affirms the ballot
harvesters were soliciting nursing homes. He testified that a
poll location had spare IDs available for voters if they did
not have one.
The fact of the matter is there is fraud in elections. The
fact of the matter is the legislature is putting forward a good
faith effort to try to form our election laws in the state of
Texas. And the fact of the matter is Texas Democrats fled Texas
to Washington where they are asking Washington to step over the
interest of the voters of Texas. I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. All right. Thank you, Mr. Roy. It is great to
have you back. And I now will recognize Ms. Norton for her five
minutes of questioning.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want
to begin by appreciating your words about Bob Moses. I worked
with Bob Moses in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating
Committee, or SNCC, in Mississippi, and much appreciate your
remembering him. My question goes to, and I would like to put
up a slide.
[Slides.]
Ms. Norton. According to records obtained by the local
Houston press outlet, KHOU 11, the Texas attorney general
received 197 complaints of voter fraud from 2015 to 2020,
during which over 44 million votes were cast. That is four-
thousandths of one percent. Only 23 of these complaints
pertained to the 2020 election, and there is another slide
there, during which over 11 million votes were cast. Now that
is one percent of 478,260 votes. So, this is my question for
Ms. Perales. How does the discussion of these pending cases
mislead the people of Texas about the prevalence of voting
fraud given what I have just shown you?
Ms. Perales. There is just a complete and total mismatch
between the very egregious restrictions that are being put
forward in this bill, and which many of the members here today
are refusing to engage on these specific provisions. But there
is just a complete mismatch between what is in these bills and
the very sporadic, individualized, anecdotal reports of voter
fraud in Texas.
Ms. Norton. My next question then is for Representative
Bernal. The Governor, Governor Abbott's, own Administration has
rejected claims of fraud. Keith Ingram, who is a senior deputy
of the secretary of state and director of state elections,
testified that elections, and here, I am quoting him, that the
election was ``smooth and secure.'' So, Mr. Bernal, how did
Republicans react to Mr. Ingram's conclusion?
Mr. Bernal. I don't think they care. I think they are going
to do what they want to do, and it doesn't matter what facts or
figures they have in front of them. It doesn't matter if it is
from our attorney general or secretary of state. They have a
different agenda that is not based on numbers or reality, and
that is why we are here.
Ms. Norton. This is a--thank you--a question for
Representative Collier. In the failure to find fraud, certainly
not for lack of trying, Attorney General Ken Paxton doubled the
hours of his staff spent on fraud cases this cycle--22,000
hours--and yet only charged 16 cases, minor cases, none of
which resulted in jail time. So, Representative Collier, what
do you make of the argument that prosecutors simply do not have
the tools to uncover massive voter fraud?
Ms. Collier. Well, thank you so much, Congresswoman, for
that question. There isn't widespread voter fraud. That is the
respondent fact. The ACLU did a study and found that 72 percent
of the investigations by the Texas attorney general, who, by
the way, is under indictment for fraud himself, for securities
fraud himself, have been lodged against people of color, Black
and brown individuals. When you have a bill that increases
penalties, creates new criminal penalties against voters,
potential voters, the conclusion that we can reach is that
those would be targeted against people of color.
Ms. Norton. What are your thoughts, Representative Collier,
on how the aggressive prosecution of alleged voter fraud has
already affected voters of color.
Ms. Collier. And you raise a good point because the way
that the bill is written, there is mens rea. In law, we call
that the intent. Did I have the intent to defraud? No, that is
not even a question. It is whether the act was actually
completed. So, the state of Texas has gone off after innocent
mistakes, like with Crystal Mason and Hervis Rogers, where they
were at it over a year to pursue charges just before the
hearing on this harmful election bill was heard. So, it is all
a part of the narrative to politically posture and restrict our
freedom to vote.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, can I simply thank you for this
hearing on behalf of the voters of the District of Columbia,
who are struggling for statehood and have no vote in this House
or in the Senate. So, this hearing on voter suppression means a
great deal to me and to them.
Mr. Raskin. And your comments mean a lot to us,
Representative Norton, and as do the rights of your
constituents, who never stormed the Capitol even though they
have been disenfranchised for a long time. I thank you, and I
recognize Representative Cloud for five minutes.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you. I find it odd that we are talking to
you here today in Washington, DC. You, like us, took an oath of
office to protect, to defend the laws of the Constitution of
the United States, you for Texas. And as a Texan and as a
constituent, it is odd to see you here instead of back in Texas
doing the job that you were elected to do. Now, you have talked
about the fact that you are here to help break quorum. Now,
your understanding then is the ability for you to break quorum
has to do with the fact that your presence is not there. Is
that correct? Is that my understanding? It is not a hard
question.
Mr. Raskin. Who are you directing the question to? I don't
think you----
Mr. Cloud. I guess my question to you is. Is it your
understanding that a quorum requires your physical presence?
Yes? No?
Mr. Raskin. To whom are you directing the question?
Mr. Cloud. Either one of you. All of you. The
representatives here.
Ms. Thompson. Congressman----
Mr. Cloud. OK. This is not a complicated question. The
point of the matter----
Ms. Thompson. No, but would you be kind enough to restate
your question, please?
Mr. Cloud. The point of the matter is that the Texas
Constitution requires a quorum for you to be there in order to
do business. That is understood that that means your physical
presence there. The U.S. Constitution requires our presence
here, but we have enacted proxy voting in a way around that,
and we need to go back and return to the days before proxy
voting here in order to do business. I would suggest that you
return to Texas and continue to work on the job that Texans
elected you to do. The spirit of Texas is all about doing the
work that we are set to do. We can remember the Alamo and all
of those kinds of things, and we have never been ones to run
from a fight, and I would encourage you not to do that as well.
And I would yield the remainder of my time to my friend from
Texas, Pat Fallon.
Mr. Fallon. I have good news. I got a text from your
colleagues that are in Austin, and on your concern,
Representative Collier, about the TDL and the social security
number not matching, they are aware of it. They said they
discussed it with you all, and they are going to cure it via an
amendment. So, we spent a lot of time on something that is
going to get fixed.
Mr. Raskin. So, that speaks well for coming to Washington.
They made a little bit of progress.
Mr. Fallon. It is good to have context, right? So,
Representative Thompson, do you feel the 2020 November general
election in Harris County was conducted fairly in your home
county?
Ms. Thompson. The secretary of state of Texas said it was.
Mr. Fallon. Ah, he is not here. You are. Do you believe?
Ms. Thompson. It was.
Mr. Fallon. You believe it was fair. Is that fair to say?
OK.
Ms. Thompson. It was fair.
Mr. Fallon. So, I looked up the drive-through locations.
There were 10 of them, drive-through locations in Harris County
and where they were located, because where they are located is
important. I am sure you are familiar with Precinct 1, former
senator, Rodney Ellis, now commissioner. He is the commissioner
of Precinct 1 in Harris County? OK. Is that a Democratic area?
Ms. Thompson. You mean the entire----
Mr. Fallon. No, I mean, is it a majority Democratic area?
Ms. Thompson. Yes.
Mr. Fallon. Yes. It is about somewhere between 75 percent
and 81 percent Democratic area. Interesting, of these 10
locations, five of them were located in Precinct 1. Four of
them are located just outside Precinct 1 in Democratic areas,
and one was located at the Humboldt Civic Center, which is
clearly a Republican area. Sorry, go ahead. So, nine out of 10
of these drive-through locations that you all love so much,
and, by the way, there are no drive-throughs in the other 253
counties, but 9 out of 10, so 90 percent of them just happen to
be in Democratic areas. A hundred twenty-eight thousand seven
hundred and ninety-six ballots were cast. I would say,
respectfully, that that definition of ``fair'' leaves a lot to
be desired.
And you were sworn in in 1973. Is that right,
Representative Thompson?
Ms. Thompson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fallon. So, for 30 years, your first 30 years, you
enjoyed a majority in the Texas House of Representatives,
correct? Democrats were the majority?
Ms. Thompson. Right.
Mr. Fallon. Did the Republicans ever use this ``right'' or
``tactic'' to break quorum in those 30 years?
Ms. Thompson. We are using the same procedure that----
Mr. Fallon. No, I am sorry----
Ms. Thompson [continuing]. Used two years ago----
Mr. Fallon [continuing]. Respectfully, because we have very
little time----
Ms. Thompson [continuing]. When the Republicans of the
state of Oregon broke quorum. And as you know, Pat, it is in
the rules. The rules allow for a quorum.
Mr. Fallon. Respectfully, I am just asking----
Ms. Thompson. And we broke quorum to represent----
Mr. Fallon. Mr. Chairman, I have to reclaim my time.
Ms. Thompson [continuing]. The constituency of our
districts.
Mr. Raskin. OK. I will give you another----
Ms. Thompson. And because of the fact that we want to be
able to have a voice in our democracy----
Mr. Fallon. That is not what I asked you.
Ms. Thompson [continuing]. Is the reason why we are here.
The real reason, what you should be asking me is, why are you
having a problem because Texas happens to be 84 percent people
of color and 16 percent of Anglo, and it looks like the power
is about to swing, and you having a problem by wanting all of
these laws in place.
Mr. Raskin. All right. We are going to accept that as your
response. I don't want to get into a Texas tussle here. We will
go back to you, Mr. Fallon. You get your final wrap-up question
or statement.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you very much. I consider myself a person
of color. I don't know what it is, kind of pinkish, maybe----
Ms. Thompson. We are friends, Mr. Chairman. He and I are
friends.
Mr. Raskin. Representative Thompson, obviously you guys
have roots in Texas.
Mr. Fallon. Representative, I may be white, but I am
colorful, OK? But anyhow.
Ms. Thompson. Pat, you know I had to honor working with
you, and it was a pleasure.
Mr. Fallon. No. Thank you. But respectfully, because I did
talk to Speaker Craddock, the first 30 years, because you all
served together, the Republican Party, the Republicans in the
Texas House never broke quorum, and that was the point. They
never did, and, unfortunately, you have been party to it three
times, and Representative Collier and Bernal now twice.
Ms. Thompson. May I correct you on something? During the
first 30 years, we broke quorum many times. I can tell you
because on different bills, we just may not have gone as long
as we are now, but it may have been for a few hours or
overnight or a day. We broke quorum several times.
Mr. Fallon. OK. Just for the record----
Ms. Thompson. Because I participated in those breaks.
Mr. Fallon. Yes, but Republicans didn't do it as en masse.
That is what----
Ms. Thompson. Because it was only about eight or nine of
you there.
Mr. Raskin. All right.
Ms. Thompson. How could you?
Mr. Raskin. All right, Mr. Fallon. I don't----
Ms. Thompson. I wouldn't have made a difference.
Mr. Raskin. I don't mess with Texans messing with Texans,
so I----
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Raskin. I am going to call it off there because we have
got to go to Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for her
five minutes of questioning because then we are going to have
to break and vote, but it is not over because we have got more
people. And I also want to thank Congresswoman Sheila Jackson
Lee, who spent the day with us. I don't know if she is still
here. Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, you are recognized.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Chair Raskin. And,
you know, even just recently, just a couple of days ago, we saw
that the Texas Senate passed a bill that removes education of
Martin Luther King, women's suffrage, and Native-American
history from required curriculum in the state of Texas. So, if
anyone even studied American history knew the work of King,
knew the work and the necessity of women's rights and suffrage
and Native American history in this country, they would know
the importance of understanding this history in the context of
present law. So, let's start with a history lesson, and let's
talk about Jim Crow.
According to Public Broadcasting Service, they define ``Jim
Crow'' as ``the segregation and disenfranchisement laws known
as Jim Crow, represented a formal, codified system of racial
apartheid.'' That is not a subjective definition. This is a
settled definition of Jim Crow in the context of American
history. I understand that the Texas State Senate thinks that
is not relevant or necessary to teach, but it is important in
the context of understanding present law. Now, Representative
Thompson, you were born in Jim Crow, in the era of Jim Crow. Is
that correct?
Ms. Thompson. Yes, it is.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Now, briefly, what were some of the
voting limitations that you know of that targeted Black voters
during the Jim Crow era?
Ms. Thompson. The Black Code was one of them because it
denied African Americans the right to vote, and then after that
came the poll tax, and the poll tax stayed even after the law
was ruled unconstitutional, remained until 1966 in Texas.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Now, Representative, it is important to
know that until 1966, we had racial apartheid known as Jim Crow
in the United States of America. Now, during that era of Jim
Crow, Representative Thompson, as you noted, that includes a
polling tax, correct?
Ms. Thompson. Yes, it does.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. That includes voter ID laws, stringent
voter ID laws at that time, correct?
Ms. Thompson. Absolutely, yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Citizen checks, correct?
Ms. Thompson. Yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Difficult hours to vote during Jim Crow,
correct?
Ms. Thompson. Right.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And had the normalization of white
supremacist voters monitoring and intimidating Black voters at
polling locations during the era of Jim Crow, correct?
Ms. Thompson. That is right because they had----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Now, let's walk through some of the
dangerous measures proposed by your Texas State Republican
colleagues and supported by Governor Abbott that they are
trying to enact today. So, the proposed Texas bills, S.B. 1,
H.B. 3, would set new ID requirements so voters must provide
their driver's license number, or, if they don't have one, the
last four digits of their social security or a signed
affidavit, correct?
Ms. Thompson. Right.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Now, they would also place a ban on the
distribution of mail-in ballot applications, correct?
Ms. Thompson. Correct.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. As well as monthly citizenship checks,
monthly citizenship checks for voter registration, correct?
Ms. Thompson. Correct.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. They would ban extended hours during
early voting. Is that correct?
Ms. Thompson. For those persons we call essential workers
who helped us during the pandemic, yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And the proposed bills, today, right
now, will create an array of new criminal penalties and
requirements for folks who assist voters at the polls or people
who assist others planning to vote by mail. Is that correct?
Ms. Thompson. That is correct.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. These bills would then expand the
authority of partisan poll watchers by granting them what is
known as ``free movement'' at a polling location, which could
allow them to harass voters, correct?
Ms. Thompson. People with no training coming in your area.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Representative Thompson, this sounds an
awful lot like the Jim Crow that you grew up in and were born
into. Based on your lived experience, would you say that these
proposed voting laws are remnants of Jim Crow? I shouldn't even
say ``remnants.'' Revivals? An attempted revival of Jim Crow?
Ms. Thompson. Absolutely. Jim Crow 3.0.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And would you agree that S.B. 1 and H.B.
3 are systematic measures to impede your community, Black
communities, Latino communities, and a wide variety including,
as Representative Pressley noted, disabled Americans, the
constitutional right to vote as was done in the past?
Ms. Thompson. Yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Now, let's talk about ``the myth'' of
voter fraud. According to MIT Election Data and Science Lab,
only about .00006 percent of total mail-in votes cast are
results of voter fraud. That is less likely than being struck
by lightning. Representative Bernal, are you familiar with the
2016 case, Texas Association of Hispanic County Judges v. Greg
Abbott, the same Governor who is supportive of these bills?
Mr. Bernal. Yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And what did we learn?
Mr. Bernal. We learned that, once again, Texas
discriminated against voters because of their race. In fact,
over the past 10 years, Texas has been found to have acted
against the interests of minorities over 10 times by three
Federal courts with Republicans----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, to clarify, the Fifth Circuit
already told Governor Abbott that these voter ID propositions
are discriminatory, and Abbott knows this, has been told by the
courts, and is still continuing to support laws that he knows
are discriminatory as ruled in a court of law and by judges.
Mr. Bernal. Every chance----
Mr. Raskin. The witness may answer that question, and then
the gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Bernal. Every chance they get.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you very much, and I yield my
time.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. All right. So,
here is what we are going to do. Votes have been called. There
are nine votes. We are just going keep it going. I hope my
friend, Congresswoman Norton, is still on the call because
being the representative the people of Washington, DC, she
doesn't have to go vote, and I am hoping she can fill in for me
when I have got to do it because we have got some very
distinguished representatives who are still yet to do their
questioning. I am going to go ahead and call on Representative
Tlaib for her five minutes of questioning.
Voice. Mr. Chairman?
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much----
Mr. Raskin. Yes?
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I would insist that we have
normal, regular procedure, that we go back and forth.
Mr. Raskin. Is Mr. Comer here? I was waiting on him.
Mr. Sessions. Well, as you know, they have called a vote.
And so, I would insist that in that place, because you and I
only----
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Sessions [continuing]. Only one minute ago agreed we
would continue. And I am for continuing, but still, the
Republicans would have a chance to respond for five minutes,
not----
Mr. Raskin. OK. Well, is there another member----
Mr. Sessions.[Inaudible.]
Mr. Raskin. I mean, I am trying to get through all the
members----
Mr. Sessions. Well, that may be true, sir, but they, as you
know, have gone to vote.
Mr. Raskin. OK. The moment he gets back, we will go to him.
Mr. Sessions. Well, I am going to say, sir, that I believe
that rather than 25 minutes of straight Democratic members,
that the Republicans be given five minutes, and then the
Democrats be given five minutes, and the Republicans be given--
--
Mr. Raskin. Oh.
Mr. Sessions. I can go and get someone.
Mr. Raskin. I got you.
Mr. Sessions. But you and I cut a deal right here a minute
ago.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Sessions, forgive me, and I am trying to
honor that deal. I am told that it was your staff that just
told us that Mr. Comer was not here and we should go ahead.
Mr. Sessions. Well, but that did not mean go ahead, that we
would not allow a Republican in that place.
Ms. Tlaib. Well, I think two Republicans can go in a row,
right, Chairman, if they come back? I don't think that----
Mr. Raskin. My friends, in the spirit of Elijah Cummings,
and I know I am a poor substitute, we are going to get through
this just fine. Every member of this committee is going to get
the right to question.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, you and I agree with that, and
I have never agreed. I just want to know what the rules are.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Yes. So, I am going to make sure every
member gets to question. I am not going to try to cut anybody
off. Poor Ms. Tlaib has been waiting so patiently----
Mr. Sessions. And that we respect.
Mr. Raskin. All right. Good.
Ms. Tlaib. OK.
Mr. Raskin. And she always has such good humor. Ms. Tlaib,
you are recognized for your five minutes of questioning.
Ms. Tlaib. No. Thank you so much to both of you as we
continue this really important hearing. You know, thank you,
Chairman Raskin, for really wanting to put this forward, and
thank you to all the honorable representatives of the American
people who risked so much for the rights and freedoms of so
many. I want you all to know, you know, I always have John
Lewis right over my shoulder as a reminder that we sometimes,
in a nonviolent way, have to push back against oppression and
injustice, and you all are doing it, and I think it is
extremely patriotic what you all are doing on behalf of your
residents. And please don't allow my colleagues to intimidate
or bully you. You know what the risks were, but also you know
what is at stake, and so I just want you all to know you are
inspiring. Your courage is inspiring to me.
You know, some colleagues continue to not like the title of
this committee. Well, how about we equally are, you know, angry
and upset at things like ``the election was stolen.'' I am so
appalled by those that continue to enable that kind of rhetoric
that really brought so much violence on January 6 to this
Capitol. And I want you all to know it wasn't my immigrant
neighbors here at the Capitol. They are not attacking our
democracy and that continue to attack, you know, people of
color as if they somehow were the reason that the outcome of
this election was not in their favor.
And just to remind my colleagues, please, you all won with
the same system of democracy. You won your elections with the
same system. The forever-impeached President won his election
with the same system that you are now trying to tear down, that
you are trying to dismantle. You all won your elections with
that same system that you now are saying is fueled with fraud
and all these other things. So, I do want, Mr. Chair, if I may,
I think it is important to put into the record an article that
says, ``Texas Had an Outsized Presence at the Capitol
Insurrection,'' as the title.
Mr. Raskin. Without objection.
Mr. Raskin. And so, let's be clear. These Republican voter
suppression bills took pains to avoid mentioning race, but they
are aimed directly American voters of color. This is a blatant,
disgusting attempt to return to Jim Crow disguised by expensive
Washington consultants and lobbyists. They are covering it up,
but we all know what this is about. We know this because this
playbook isn't new, and I know Ms. Thompson knows this. I mean,
in 2016 a Federal judge struck down similar efforts in North
Carolina where they wrote, ``Although the new provisions target
African-Americans with almost surgical precision, they
constitute remedies for the problems justifying them and, in
fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus, the
assertive certifications cannot and do not conceal the state's
true motivation.'' And now the Texas legislature, and to note,
Michigan Republicans, I might add, are now doing everything
they can to make it harder for my Black and brown neighbors
across the country to vote, wanting to employ these very tools
to use the new requirements for mail-in voting to suppress
voters of color.
These proposed bills create intentional confusion regarding
IDs and requirements designed to trick individuals and really
intimidate individuals from voting. And I know Nina had talked
a little bit about that, and knowing my mother, who is an
immigrant, it would have devastated her to have that happen to
her as she went to exercise her vote. They also are threatening
jail time for elected officials who solicit or mass mail voter
registration applications, criminalizing election officials who
encourage citizens to vote, you all. You know, all of us have
done that. ``Go vote.'' ``Have your voices heard.'' Oh, now,
you are going to put handcuffs on those people. And while this
provision would put election officials in jail for mailing
absentee ballot applications to eligible citizens, you all, it
would still allow political parties to do the same thing. I
cannot see any good faith reason why political parties would be
able to help people vote absentee, but not nonpartisan election
officials.
We must face the facts about these bills in Texas and
Michigan and countless others being pushed by my Republican
colleagues are enabled by them across the Nation. They are an
attack on our American democracy. They failed. They failed, and
now they want to cheat, and that is the exact truth. They want
to somehow dismantle anybody that looks like me or has a name
like mine to be able to go vote freely. And it makes me angry
because they all benefited from that same system. They all are
in their places of power because of that same system, and now
because the forever-impeached President did not win, they are
putting this man before their country. If they do that, the
blame for the death of our republic will not fall on those
backing the former impeached President, but on those who lack
the courage to make a stand.
So, Rep. Thompson, I would like to close by hearing your
voice here, which has been very powerful. Why do you think
Republicans are pushing to make it harder to vote and going so
far as wanting to jail election officials?
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Ms. Tlaib, and the witness may
answer that question, and thank you very much for your
questioning.
Ms. Thompson. I think there is a change of the demographics
in Texas when we have 84 percent of the people of color that
makes up the population of 29 million people, and only 16
percent of the people who has been controlling feel rather
threatened at this particular time. That is what I think the
whole thing is about.
Mr. Raskin. All right. Now, thank you very much for that
answer. And here is what we are going to do. For both
biological and parliamentary reasons, we are going to take a
15-minute break, OK? The witnesses have requested some time, so
everybody can go use the restroom, make a call, whatever you
need to do. We will all go vote, and we will resume here in 15
minutes, and we will begin with the Republican side, I think
Mr. Comer, if he is back, then we will go to Mr. Sarbanes, and
we will continue to make sure every member gets their
questioning. So, we have a temporary recess.
[Recess.]
Ms. Norton.[Presiding.] We are ready to resume, and I
recognize Mr. Comer for five minutes.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to briefly
say I have studied the Texas bill. I have studied the Georgia
voting bill that have been in the news a lot. I think the
liberal mainstream media mischaracterized both bills,
significantly mischaracterized both bills. Both bills looked to
me like it would make it easier to vote and harder to cheat,
which is what every law-abiding legal American voter should
want. With that, Madam Chair, I would like to yield the balance
of my time to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallon.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to clarify
something because you all are under oath, and I just want to
make sure. Miss T, or Ms. Thompson, Representative Thompson,
was there a meeting held before the special session that took
about a half a day that involved Republicans and Democrats
trying to work out this bill?
Ms. Thompson. There was.
Mr. Fallon. OK. And did you attend that meeting?
Ms. Thompson. I did.
Mr. Fallon. OK. And during the five-hour layout, there is a
special committee that was appointed to hear this bill, and are
you on that committee?
Ms. Thompson. Vice chair.
Mr. Fallon. OK. So, Chairman Andy Murr, during the layout,
I believe it was five hours--he is the bill's author--talked
about the concern that Representative Collier had about the
mail-in ballot, if you use, you know, 20 years ago your social
security number, but now you are using your driver's license
number, because Representative Bucy specifically asked that
question, and the commitment was made. Do you remember
commitment being made by Chairman Murr? You might not. That is
fine. I just want to----
Ms. Thompson. I don't recall that.
Mr. Fallon. If we watch the tape back, there will be a
commitment publicly made by Chairman Murr that he would cure
that and he would fix it with a floor amendment, so I just want
to move on from that. Representative Collier, do you believe,
and I am guessing that I know the answer, but I want to give
you the chance to answer, that this bill, if it becomes law,
would be restrictive?
Ms. Collier. Can you explain? What do you mean,
``restrictive?''
Mr. Fallon. Harder to vote.
Ms. Collier. I am sorry?
Mr. Fallon. Harder to vote.
Ms. Collier. Let me give you an example. As I sat here
today, my integrity was questioned. The veracity of my
statement was questioned by Congressman Sessions. He made an
accusation that I was incorrect, and he said it with such
authority that it called into question my actions. And based on
that, it could deter someone from participating any further.
Mr. Fallon. OK. Well, I am not Representative Sessions, but
I am going to have to reclaim my time again. It is just because
we only have----
Ms. Collier. Well, you are asking about how it is going to
make it harder if I have a partisan poll worker----
Mr. Fallon. Representative Collier, if you don't want to
answer the question, that is fine.
Ms. Collier. Well, I just want to say it is hard.
Mr. Fallon. I am just asking do you believe this bill is
going to be restrictive. You oppose the bill in its current
form, so I am guessing you don't think it is a good bill. Fair
to say, ``yes'' or ``no?''
Ms. Collier. What I believe is that this is going to be
harder on people that they are going to be targeted----
Mr. Fallon. To vote.
Ms. Collier. It is going to be targeted for people of color
to participate in the election.
Mr. Fallon. OK. All right. So, you would say it is, at
least, it is racially, maybe, motivated, but certainly racially
negative.
Ms. Collier. It will have a disparate impact on people of
color.
Mr. Fallon. OK. OK. And that is your view. We have two
weeks of early voting in Texas. If we were to reduce that to
one week, would you say that would have a disproportionate
effect on people of color?
Ms. Collier. I think you have to look at the totality of
the circumstances. There are so many other things----
Mr. Fallon. No, I mean, just say there are two weeks now--
--
Ms. Collier. You can't just say it is that, though. It is
more than that. It is also the hours, the location.
Mr. Fallon. Right, so this expands the hours, but----
Ms. Collier. No, it doesn't. This bill does not expand the
hours.
Mr. Fallon. OK. It goes----
Ms. Collier. It reduces the hours.
Mr. Fallon. OK. It does not. In 253 counties it expands the
hours.
Ms. Collier. We had 24-hour voting----
Mr. Fallon. In one county in Texas.
Ms. Collier. There was 24-hour voting, and now you cannot.
That means it reduces hours.
Mr. Fallon. Was there 253 counties that had 24-hour voting
in the last cycle?
Ms. Collier. It reduces the ballot----
Mr. Fallon. No, there was not.
Ms. Collier. It reduces the voting----
Mr. Fallon. So, would you join me in condemning
Connecticut, and New Hampshire, and Delaware, and New York, and
New Jersey for being racially insensitive by not having two
weeks of early voting. Some of those states don't have any
early voting.
Ms. Collier. I am not familiar with what is going on in
those other states.
Mr. Fallon. But you would say that early voting is a good
thing?
Ms. Collier. I would believe that you have to look at the
totality of the circumstances.
Mr. Fallon. OK. So, you don't know where your stance is on
early voting. Drive-through voting. Can you name any states
that allow 24-hour voting currently in statue?
Ms. Collier. I know what Texas does, and Dallas County had
drive-through registration.
Mr. Fallon. No, that is not the question. Madam Chair, I am
going to have to reclaim my time on that one. How about drive-
through voting? Are you aware of any states that have drive-
through voting?
Ms. Collier. Harris County had drive-through voting. That
is what I am aware of.
Mr. Fallon. Any other states other than Texas?
Ms. Collier. That is the state I am aware of, Texas.
Mr. Fallon. OK. So, there are none that you know of. No
other of the 50 states. So, I think that what we have seen
here, now, and correct me if I am wrong. You called this bill
Jim Crow 2.0?
Ms. Collier. I have not made that statement today.
Mr. Fallon. Have you made in the past?
Ms. Collier. No.
Mr. Fallon. You have never said it?
Ms. Collier. I don't believe I have.
Mr. Fallon. OK. But you do believe----
Ms. Collier. It is discriminatory, though.
Mr. Fallon. You believe it is racially discriminatory?
Ms. Collier. It does have a disparate impact on people of
color.
Mr. Fallon. So, do you believe that people that support
this bill are practicing racial discrimination if you vote for
it?
Ms. Collier. I think that the outcome of the bill----
Mr. Fallon. It would be clear----
Ms. Collier [continuing]. Would be a disparate impact. I
really believe it is more politically motivated.
Mr. Fallon. So, are you calling your Republican colleagues
racist in any form by supporting----
Ms. Collier. They are uninformed.
Mr. Fallon. They are uninformed. Miss T, you said that
there were Proud Boys that were practicing intimidation. I have
never met a Proud Boy.
Ms. Thompson. I didn't say they were Proud Boys.
Mr. Fallon. They looked like Proud Boys.
Ms. Thompson. They looked like they could be. Well, I think
that you saw some up here on January the 6, didn't you?
Mr. Fallon. Yes, I was about to fight some. I don't know
who they were. They were criminals that, you know, breached the
Capitol, and I wasn't too happy about it. So, how would you
describe a Proud Boy? What do they look like?
Ms. Thompson. Well, let me tell you what the people looked
like that I talked about, the poll watchers that comes to my
area. They are white, look like they could be people, the Proud
Boys or the Ku Klux Klan, and they----
Mr. Fallon. Just by looking at them. You are judging a book
by its cover.
Ms. Thompson. Well, you know, they haven't sent you yet. I
am still waiting for them to send you to my area because----
Ms. Norton. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Thompson [continuing]. It would be amenable to me if
you had a chance to come.
Mr. Fallon. I believe that there were no complaints filed
in Harris County at all on voter intimidation, so, therefore, I
believe it is more of an urban legend, in fact. Thank you,
Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. I now yield five minutes to Mr. Sarbanes of
Maryland.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you
all for being here. Thank you for coming to Washington at a
critical moment in our Nation's history. People keep trying to
characterize what you did as fleeing Texas, but I think what
you did was you were pulled to the Nation's capital by the
power of your experience and came as a clarion call to Congress
and to the President to do all we can to push back against
these voter suppression efforts. And you didn't just come for
Texas, although that is your first love. You came on behalf of
states and Americans all across the country who are facing a
similar rollback of their access to the ballot box, so I can't
thank you enough for that. I want to pledge to you that I and
others here are continuing to do everything we can to get H.R.
1, S. 1., the For the People Act, and H.R. 4, the John Lewis
Voting Rights Advancement Act, across the finish line, and to
do that as quickly as we can, understanding that our democracy
is up against a shot clock right now when you look at plans to
engage in extreme partisan gerrymandering across the country,
as well as to further ingrain this voter suppression that we
have seen. So, I thank you for being here, and we very much
appreciate your willingness to lean in every single day on
these critical issues.
End of the day, all we are trying to do is create a
political ecosystem that puts the voter in a respectful place.
That is all. Not to give one voter an advantage over the other,
but to raise standards all across this country so that when you
wake up in the morning on the day you have decided to cast your
vote, whether it is sitting at your kitchen table filling out
an oval on a mail-in ballot where it is going to an early
voting center, or it is showing up on Election Day, you have
confidence that you can complete that transaction without
having three or four or five contingency plans to make it
happen. That is all we are trying to do with these reforms.
Let me ask you, Representative Collier, and then
Representative Thompson and Bernal. I would like to get your
perspective. But you had mentioned, Representative Collier, I
think, very astutely, that things that can be dressed up as
mere inconvenience or difficulty in accessing the ballot box
are really just voter suppression. It is complicated sometimes.
You can create a kind of Rubik's cube or Rube Goldberg
contraption on voting where you can say, well, you know, the
locale has this rule and that rule, but somebody is
masterminding that that is going to have an impact, and often
an impact on certain groups. So, I would be interested to hear,
we have got about a minute and a half left, but maybe each of
you take a few seconds to talk about, you know, one or two
examples of something that gets painted as, you know,
inconvenience or difficulty but, you know and you have seen
that, actually, it has an impact, and often a disproportionate
impact, on the ability of people to access the ballot box. We
can start with you, Representative Collier.
Ms. Collier. Thank you so much for the great question. You
know, when the polling locations change, people get used to
voting in a particular location, but they change those
continuously, then that is a form of suppression when you
change the hours that a polling location is open, on different
days even. So, you may say Monday, Wednesday, and Friday it is
open from 11 to 7, but 7 to 7 on Tuesdays and Thursdays. That
can get complicated and confusing. Those are methods. The other
thing, it deals with the types of identification. So, you can
use your open to carry license, your license to carry, but you
cannot use your student ID that is issued by a state
institution. So, it is confusing, and there is a lot of red
tape when it comes down to voting by mail that make it
difficult for people to participate in the process. It is
cumbersome. And then when you do participate and you make a
mistake, you are subject to harsh criminal penalties where you
could face jail time. In this particular bill, the presiding
judge could face jail time, without a warning, that this same
poll worker watcher who violates the law would get a warning
first and then, you know, a criminal penalty, subject to
criminal penalties.
So, I don't see parity in the law that they are doing for
this particular measure when it comes down to elections, and so
that is what we want to make sure. And it is unfortunate that
we have to come to Washington, DC. We are still doing our job
today. I have not stopped doing my job in representing my
constituents since 2013, and that I would have to come, for a
Member of Congress to tell me that he has negotiated and
confirmed that a provision that was harmful to people will be
removed. So, that is unfortunate, but that is where we are
today. And so, I thank you for your bill and for the
consideration, and I look forward to working with you.
Mr. Sarbanes. Well, unfortunately, I have run out of time.
I would love to get the other thoughts of the other panelists,
but I am out of time. I did just want to say, Mr. Chairman,
that as Representative Bernal said before, the word of mouth
goes back into a community about how hard or easy it is to cast
your vote, and wouldn't it be something if we could create
standards across this country so that when people went back to
their community, they said, you know, I went and voted today
and it worked out just fine for me, and we should all get out
there and cast our vote and raise our voice. With that, let me
yield back my time.
Mr. Raskin.[Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes, for your
leadership and your questioning. We go now to Ms. Fletcher, who
represents Houston, is not a member of the subcommittee, but
she waived on and changed all of her travel plans to be here to
hear the distinguished representatives. Ms. Fletcher, you are
recognized for your five minutes of questioning.
Ms. Fletcher. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for
allowing me to participate in today's hearing, to join you for
the hearing, and I really want to thank our witnesses for being
here, both those who are here in person and those who are
joining us virtually. I have limited time with five minutes,
but I do want to respond to a few issues that we have heard
today and also give you all a chance to respond. There were
several questions that I think the witnesses were not able to
answer fully, but I also want to address why we are here and
why this matters. These bills are being written in Texas, but
these bills are being written across the country, and this is a
national issue, and what is happening in Texas is really a
cautionary tale.
I want to followup on something that my colleague, Mr.
Fallon, said. You know, he raised the issue and said that it
was horrifying to him and heartbreaking to hear about the past.
Our witnesses here are talking about the past, but they are
talking about the present. They are talking about what is being
done to suppress the vote in Texas today. It is still
happening, and it may not be, as our beloved late colleague,
John Lewis, told us, requiring people to count the number of
jellybeans in the jar, but our witnesses are telling us what is
happening right now. And we need to listen to them, and we need
to understand how we respond to this at a Federal level.
I have a couple of quick followup questions. Ms. Thompson,
Representative Mace asked you several questions about what you
need in Texas, an ID for, and she asked a litany of questions,
but there was one question she didn't ask, which was does Texas
require you to have an ID to vote, and I believe the answer is
yes. In Texas, we have voter ID, and this bill is not about
voter ID. It is a distraction from the issues and the methods
that are in front of us. Is that right?
Ms. Thompson. Yes.
Ms. Fletcher. And you also talked a little bit about the
poll watchers, and I would like to know, I understand in this
last legislative session that Texas passed what is called
constitutional carry. Can those poll watchers carry weapons
into the polling places under this legislation?
Ms. Thompson. We are not sure yet. I am not sure. I don't
think so, but I am not sure.
Ms. Fletcher. OK. Another question I had in followup, and
this is directed at Ms. Perales. Mr. Roy asked a question about
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. And is it fair to say that
the Voting Rights Act has, in fact, been watered down over the
years and that we need to protect the rights of voters under
Section 5 as well as Section 2?
Ms. Perales. Yes, it is absolutely true to say that, and he
was inaccurate in saying Section 5 was struck down. It was not.
It was the coverage formula in Section 4. Nevertheless, Texas
voters and many others throughout the South have lost an
important guarantee of their voting rights, and it needs to be
restored as soon as possible.
Ms. Fletcher. Thank you very much, Ms. Perales. Another
thing that we heard several of our colleagues talking about
today is, in fact, some of the very innovative things that
happened in Houston and Harris County, which I have the
privilege of representing here in the Congress, and some of the
extraordinary steps that our officials there took to make sure
that people could safely exercise their right to vote during
the pandemic. So, some of the things that have been framed as
issues of convenience really are issues of access. And from my
experience, people across my district voted using these methods
for a variety of reasons, and it was all voters who took
advantage of these of these methods. And our elections
administrator testified before the Texas legislature in the
spring about some additional bills, not this current version of
the bill, but a prior iteration, and really explained that some
of the critical pieces that are challenging here is forbidding
elections offices from telling people about mail-in ballots,
about educating voters about their options to access the ballot
box. It is a real micromanagement of local entities that is
kind of contrary to what Texas Republicans have traditionally
identified as a value of theirs.
But it also does something, and we heard this from our
colleagues today, that you are just kind of requiring some of
the same things for people. But I would love to hear from you
all how some of these things, and I think that has been the
point of this hearing, that what may seem facially neutral is,
in fact, discriminatory and will have a disproportionate impact
on people in the communities that we all represent. And so, I
wanted to turn back because I think that Ms. Collier and, I
believe, also Ms. Perales were both not able to answer two
questions. So, I want to give you the time I have remaining to
clear up anything that was asked and you didn't get a chance to
completely answer.
Mr. Raskin. OK. The gentlelady yields back, and you will
each be given a quick sec to respond.
Ms. Collier. Thank you so much. So, just going through the
part about the ballots being rejected, there is a provision on
page 24 where the ballots will be rejected and then about the
partisan poll watchers. Again, there is no parity in criminal
penalties. They can get away with, you know, violating the law,
and then there was a question about can someone file a
complaint. I can, but the harm has already been completed, so I
have already been deterred and disenfranchised by the time I
can file a complaint. So, I really have a whole bunch of
measures in here that need to be addressed, that they now
recognize, and so this is further evidence that they have not
really fully vetted the provisions of this bill.
Mr. Raskin. OK.
Ms. Perales. I would simply add in one minute, less than
one minute, to Representative Donalds, the section that you are
looking for in the bill that you are reading is Section 5.10,
in which the number provided by the mail voter has to match the
number on file with the registrar. And then the last thing I
would like to mention, just to emphasize, this bill has nothing
to do with voter ID at the polls. However, since Representative
Fallon stressed so much that he wanted things to be truthful, I
need to correct him. He said there was no voter ID in 2008.
There was. He said that the 2011 voter ID bill did not depress
turnout. It must be pointed out the 2011 voter ID bill was
struck down as racially discriminatory by a Federal court and
was not used in the 2020 election. So, even though this bill is
not about voter ID, it is important for us to remember that the
voter ID law passed by Texas within the past decade was
racially discriminatory.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Thank you very much. Is Mr. Comer back, Mr.
Sessions, do you know, or is he----
Mr. Sessions.[Inaudible.]
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Sessions. And people are doing, as is constitutionally
required, doing that duty also.
Mr. Raskin. Of course. Well, let's see then, and I don't
know whether Mr. Veasey or Mr. Davis is online with us yet. All
right. Well, I believe we are still on the second vote. I
believe that is right. Well, why don't we do this? We will take
the remaining members as we have committed to them. We are not
going to otherwise have time for all five of our witnesses to
say a word of closing, and a couple haven't spoken in a while.
So, why don't we give each witness a minute to give your
closing now, and, if you don't mind, we will come back to you
for further questioning. Mr. Bernal, why don't we start with
you?
Mr. Bernal. Thank you, and, again, thank you for having us.
I think, in closing, it is important to point out that we have
exchanged a lot of platitudes here, but we have not had a
substantive debate about the actual components of the bill.
Nobody wants to talk about the legality and the pieces about
partisan poll watchers. No one wants to defend the piece about
voter assistance. We had an exchange where someone accused us
of being incorrect and then that was later found that that we
were correct, and I think that the details matter. It is not a
bill about voter ID. We can talk back and forth about our sort
of hashtag messaging, but we have not had a substantive debate
at large about the bill, because when we do, people see that we
are right. We haven't had it in the State House. We tried to
have it and we were ignored completely. But the substance of
the bill, the actual pieces, not the spirit, not the overall
phantom wrong that we are trying to correct, but the actual
nuts and bolts of the bill matter. And when we do that, it is
clear what the bill aims to do in the face of absolutely
nothing to justify it.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Bernal.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Raskin. And the devil is indeed in the details.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Raskin. Yes?
Mr. Sessions. In fairness, and I know fair is on my side or
your side--who cares--but I would like to engage the gentleman
for 30 seconds.
Mr. Raskin. OK. All right. Take 30 seconds. Let's do that,
and then Mr. Veasey----
Mr. Sessions. In my opinion, this is partisan mailing that
goes out that says ask for a ballot. Is that what this is in
reference to? It is to me. So, should they not allow anyone to
mail out anything? And it is a question, anything about
requesting an early ballot.
Mr. Bernal. I don't understand the question. Are you
saying----
Mr. Sessions. Well, you are talking about partisan politics
engaged in the election process.
Mr. Bernal. I am talking about the details of the bill.
Mr. Sessions. Well, I am talking about, we are, and what
that is about is the legality for a party, political party, to
mail out to someone requesting an early ballot.
Mr. Raskin. But would that be allowed under the new
legislation, let's just get that, for a party to mail out----
Mr. Bernal. In limited circumstance it would, but for the
most part, they are they are eliminating the ability to send
someone an application. It is an application. It is not a
ballot.
Mr. Sessions. It is an application----
Mr. Bernal. You still have to qualify for----
Mr. Sessions. But that is the partisan part, isn't it?
Mr. Bernal. You still have to qualify for the ballot. Just
because you get the application doesn't mean that you get to
vote by mail if you apply for it.
Mr. Sessions. What is partisan? You say we are not getting
to it. What is the partisan? What act would happen that you
don't like?
Mr. Bernal. Excuse me?
Mr. Sessions. What act would happen that is political that
you oppose?
Mr. Raskin. OK. And we will give you a chance to answer,
and then we are going to go to Mr. Veasey. He has been so
patient.
Mr. Sessions. Oh, we have got another member.
Mr. Raskin. He is back.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you.
Mr. Bernal. Can I respond?
Mr. Raskin. Yes, quickly, if you would.
Mr. Bernal. Voting is a right and not a privilege, and if
you limit the ability for people to access the ballot, if you
limit----
Mr. Sessions. We are talking about partisan activity is
what you talked about.
Mr. Raskin. All right. All right. I am going to cut it off
there because Mr. Veasey, who represents Houston, I believe--I
hope I got that right----
Mr. Sessions. No, it is North Texas.
Mr. Raskin. North Texas, has been with us today. He waived
on for the purposes of hearing the testimony of the witnesses,
and you are recognized for your five minutes of questioning,
Mr. Veasey.
Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Yes, I am
Marc Veasey. I am not on the committee. I waived on. I
appreciate the chairman allowing me the opportunity. I
represent Fort Worth and Dallas. As a matter of fact, Nicole
Collier, who is one of the witnesses here, a representative,
she is my neighbor and my state representative, and I
appreciate her presence here today. And I just want to really
thank my former colleagues in the state legislature, my
friends, current state legislators, for really being courageous
to take the time to be here. I know that all of you all are
from different types and districts and have different sort of
political challenges. And the fact that you took the time to
come here to stand up for voting rights in this country really
means a lot.
And that was one of the reasons why I started the
congressional Voting Rights Caucus. I am the chair of the
congressional Voting Rights Caucus here in the U.S. House of
Representatives and started it because, from my time in the
state legislature, I knew that we were going to have some
troubled times just because of a lot of the pretty blatant
voter suppression attempts that I saw when I was in the
legislature, including a group called the King Street Patriots
that came to testify that people should be allowed to record
people with cellphones while they vote. Just absolutely, you
know, ridiculous that we are still having to live that way.
And I wanted to ask, I don't know, I think Representative
Clardy is still on. There has been a lot of talk and discussion
about these rules and the fact that these brave Texans have
broken quorum to come here. Representative Clardy and I did not
overlap in the State House. I think we missed each other by one
session. Before I got there, then Lieutenant Governor David
Dewhurst said that redistricting and voter ID were so
important, so important that they were going to break the rules
and change them, the two-thirds rule in the Senate, the
filibuster rule, the same thing that we are grappling with
right now in the U.S. Senate, that they were going to change
the rules instead of working with other side so they could get
the votes needed to pass redistricting and to pass voter ID. I
wanted to ask Representative Clardy was he OK with the
Republicans breaking the rules at that point?
Mr. Clardy. Yes, I am still here, Congressman Veasey, and
it is good to see you again. So, to that point, one, I don't
believe that was Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst.
Mr. Veasey. It was Dewhurst. It was when I was there. It
was Dewhurst, and then Patrick took over and he permanently
changed the filibuster rule. So, were you OK with it then?
Mr. Clardy. I wasn't in office then, and, frankly, I was a
fan of the two-thirds rule, so----
Mr. Veasey. But are you OK breaking it, because, right now,
we wouldn't even be having these problems if the two-thirds
rule was still in place? So, they are using the only tools that
were available for them at the time.
Mr. Clardy. May I answer the question? Again, before my
time, but as you described it, it sounds like, to me, Dewhurst,
and this was in the other chamber that you and I didn't serve
in, that they avail themselves of their rules, to change their
rules, which we do every session. We adopt in the House our
rules, and we can modify or change them, keep them the same.
So, they did act under the color and the letter of their law,
if that is what was done.
Mr. Veasey. So, you were OK with them changing the rules
for their means, but you have a problem with what
Representative Thompson and other Democratic state legislators
are doing. I just don't get the double standard. I wanted to
ask Ms.----
Mr. Clardy. Can I just----
Mr. Veasey. I wanted to ask Ms. Thompson----
Mr. Clardy. I am in favor of them following the rules, and
part of that allows you to modify or change a rule.
Mr. Veasey. They are following the rules right now. Thank
you.
Mr. Clardy [continuing]. To do is leave the state and
obligation under the Constitution.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Representative Clardy. Thank you. I
wanted to ask Representative Thompson something. I am going to
go off script from my remarks here, and I wanted to ask you
this in closing. I don't know if you have seen the movie, Birth
of a Nation, or not. It is a terrible movie, and one of the
things that we, you know, have a hard time explaining to some
of our white colleagues here is how racism is normalized. We
are having this big debate right now over critical race theory
and things like that, about how racism is normalized in
society. And you have to see this movie to understand how
people that were liberal and conservative back during that time
period, our colleagues' grandparents and their great
grandparents, believed these crazy stories and tales about
black people committing voter fraud, and we are starting to
hear these same stories and these same tales today. As a matter
of fact, Ms. Thompson, you had one of your colleagues in the
State House that had a map that was showing here is where the
voter fraud takes place. I don't know if you remember seeing
that video. He was saying, here is where the voter fraud takes
place, and he was pointing to black precincts, and there was
absolutely zero evidence of any voter fraud that was taking
place. It was pure stereotyping.
When you see this sort of stereotyping in 2021, Ms.
Thompson, because you have seen Jim Crow, to get where we are
now, when you see the same sort of racial stereotyping taking
place today in 2021 that took place in a D.W. Griffith film in
1915, how does that make you feel?
Mr. Raskin. The time of the gentleman has expired. Thank
you to the gentleman from Dallas-Fort Worth, and the witness
may answer the question.
Ms. Thompson. It makes me feel like we are not going to
ever stop having to deal with the past and have to continue to
keep fighting the past, and I can't progress further than the
past. And my children will never get an opportunity, nor their
children, to be able to live in society and be treated as an
American and respected as American and have an opportunity and
a right to be able to have a voice in their democracy, a right
that we all are guaranteed under the Constitution. And in
addition, there, too, to feel as though that they are real
citizens of this country, the only country that they have been
born in and they know about. That is how I feel.
Mr. Raskin. Again, thank you to the gentleman from Dallas-
Fort Worth, and, Ms. Thompson, thank you. Let's see, Mr. Davis,
who is our final representative, is now on Zoom. Representative
Davis, you are recognized for your five minutes of questioning.
Mr. Davis. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
for calling this very important hearing. And I certainly want
to thank all of our witnesses, especially those who came all
the way from Texas, and I don't really care how they got there,
whether it by plane, train. Even if they had to walk, I think
they would have been there just the same, so I thank them for
taking their time and for coming.
As a matter of fact, I call them my heroes and sheroes, and
I call them that because I am reminded that Dr. King was often
fond of saying that, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to
justice everywhere.'' And so even though we have been talking
about Texas, but there are many places throughout the country
where there are efforts to suppress, deny, delay, and take away
the rights of people to vote and certainly not to enhance them,
which is what it seems like we really ought to be doing is
trying to make it easier for people to participate in public
decision-making.
You know, after Republicans failed to pass these voter
registration restrictions during the regular legislative
session, Governor Abbott called a special session to try to ram
through these anti-democratic measures. Under Texas law, the
Governor must set an agenda for these special sessions by
specifying what issues lawmakers should consider. There were 11
items on the Governor's agenda, which he released less than a
day before the special session began. He called these priority
items that will keep Texas, and I quote, ``on a path to
prosperity.'' I think we have a slide that might show those. If
we do, can we have the slide? Well, we won't worry about it at
the moment. There we are.
[Slide.]
Mr. Davis. You can see Governor Abbott had other things
beyond just voter suppression. He also focused on banning
transgender student athletes from school sports, and on
curtailing discussions of racism in Texas classrooms, and on
further restricting a woman's right to choose. But you know who
it is not included on this list? There is nothing on this list
about solving the problems with Texas' electrical grid that
caused widespread our outages during winter storms this year.
And I think we have a slide that would show some of that.
[Slide.]
Mr. Davis. Over 200 people died. An investigation by NBC
News, The Texas Tribune, and ProPublica blamed power failures
on an unprecedented wave of carbon monoxide poisoning. Our
Subcommittee on Environment is currently investigating these
failures. Representative Collier, what was your reaction to
Governor Abbott's failure to include further action on the
electrical grid for the second session that he called?
Ms. Collier. Thank you, Congressman. A great question. It
was a missed opportunity for the state legislature to actually
take action to provide the needed infrastructure and
information and backing that Texans need. We have Texans now
who are still conserving energy, and so we have not fully
answered the call to provide necessary resources for Texans
when it comes down to our power grid. We need to reinforce our
power grid. We have so many other things that we could be
focusing on. The Governor not only failed to put on the power
grid, but he also defunded the legislature in response and in
retribution to the quorum break. So now, 2,100 state employees
who work for the Texas legislature in the legislative branch
will be without health insurance in a state that already has
the highest number of uninsured Texans. So, unless the Governor
takes action, we will continue to see the erosion of humanity
in this state.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. And then thank you, Mr. Davis----
Mr. Davis. Representative Bernal, you cited systemic
failures that led to these outages, including----
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Davis, forgive me. We are going to have to
go vote. Your time has expired, so I am afraid we will have to
cut it off there, but invite you to, you know, continue that
line of questioning in written questions to the witnesses, if
we could.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back, and
thank the witnesses again for coming.
Mr. Raskin. And thank you, Mr. Davis. Let's see. So, what I
would like to do is to, you have already gone, Mr. Bernal. I
would like to give 30 seconds to each of the witnesses for any
closing thoughts, including the ones who are on Zoom. Ms.
Collier, did you have something that you could do within 30
seconds?
[Audio played.]
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I don't know who that is coming
from, but that is offensive.
Ms. Collier. Thank you. Absolutely it is offensive.
Mr. Sessions. Where did that come from?
Ms. Collier. That is a call that was made to my government
state office----
Mr. Sessions. Oh well, ma'am, I can----
Ms. Collier. And these are the type of people----
Mr. Sessions. Well, I can put those up also. I don't think
it is appropriate, Mr. Chairman, at this hearing.
Ms. Collier. Well, these are the type of people that we are
confronted with.
Mr. Raskin. OK. It is Ms. Collier's time. Thank you very
much for playing that----
Mr. Sessions. I think that is inappropriate, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Raskin. You are now recognized for your 30 seconds, Mr.
Sessions.
Mr. Sessions. I will take my 30 seconds, and I want to
thank the witnesses that were here today. I would personally
like to meet with them. I have no say in granting this out, but
I think that the difference between the truths on both sides
and reality in the middle is, is that there was a lot on the
side and that is very simple. Texas Jim Crow laws took place by
Democrats until literally the year 2000, and it was a two-party
system that changed what is occurring. A two-party system. And
yet our witnesses, or at least three or four of them, are here
to go to one-party rule, and I don't think that is what makes
America great, and I think they should understand that, and I
think it is a Constitution. I think it is a Supreme Court. And
one-party rule would overrule everybody, including the Supreme
Court. They would overrule everything except political
consideration as opposed to the law. And so, I think what you
are doing, I would ask that you would rethink that. I want to
thank you. I want to thank you for being here, and I would
sincerely like to find the differences between those that we
have, and I would encourage you to please contact me to do
that. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you very much.
Mr. Raskin. And thank you, Mr. Sessions. Ms. Thompson, did
you have anything you wanted to say in closing?
Ms. Thompson. Thank you, and, Pete, I want to thank you so
much. You know, we have differences, but reasonable minds can
differ.
Mr. Sessions. We can solve them.
Ms. Thompson. I am ready to work with you, Brother.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you so much. And let's see, Ms.----
Ms. Thompson. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Raskin. Yes?
Ms. Thompson. If you would just give me a moment. I want to
just thank you for this meeting, and I want to just say that I
am hoping during my lifetime that I don't have to keep
struggling with the past and I can move forward, and I can be
able to protect the rights of my constituents to vote. Lyndon
Baines Johnson, 56 years ago, was the President who had enough
integrity about himself to give us a Federal answer to the
struggles of voting. And I am hoping that this Congress will do
the same thing for us.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Representative Thompson.
Representative Clardy, let's come to you for your 30 seconds.
Mr. Clardy. Thank you, Chairman. Again, I want to thank you
for your courtesies of having us in, but I do want to say one
thing. There was a statement made about somehow this bill makes
it a crime to encourage people to vote. That is an absolute
falsehood. I do not understand the hysteria and the hyperbole
that surrounds this bill. This is a good bill. Take the time to
read it. You know, the one thing I didn't hear today, I didn't
hear the entire time I served on the Elections Committee in the
regular session, nor in the select committee so far in the
special session, was anybody that came forward and said I was
deprived of my opportunity to vote. I wanted to, but I couldn't
vote in Texas. If you want to vote in Texas, if you register
and you are eligible, you get to vote in Texas. We had a record
turnout in this last election cycle.
But I got to come back to something that Congresswoman
Maloney, I think, said about, well, there is no evidence of
widespread panic.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Make this your final point, if you would.
Thank you.
Mr. Clardy. If I would. This is the final point. There is
no evidence of widespread fraud in Texas, and they compared it
to a lightning strike. The difference is there is nothing we
can do to stop lightning strikes. We can stop election fraud.
We have to have zero tolerance for election fraud in this
country.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, and I am going to excuse
myself to go and vote. We will hear from Ms. Perales, and I am
asking Congresswoman Norton to take over for me. I just want to
say in closing that our Nation was founded with the beautiful
idea of the consent of the governed and the participation of
all of the people, at the same time that it was also founded
with lots of efforts to exclude people from voting. And we have
got to overcome that urge to exclude people from voting. I
commend and I thank our colleagues from Texas for coming to
Washington to remind us about what really is crucial in our
country, which is making sure that everybody's right to vote is
protected against every attempt to restrict the franchise, even
if it is complex and subtle. And with that, I will turn it over
to Congresswoman Norton.
Mr. Clardy. You all come home. Texas needs you.
Ms. Perales. I am ready to give my closing.
Mr. Raskin. Ms. Perales.
Ms. Perales. Thank you. With all due respect to
Representative Clardy, for whom I have an enormous amount of
respect, Senate Bill 1, Section 5.04 makes it a crime to
encourage a voter, to choose them as an assistor, and then to
go to the polls and assist that voter and sign the oath. So, in
fact, it is a crime.
I just want to close by saying there is only one reality
here. The reality is in the face of the bills, which anybody
can read. The reality is in the changing demographics of Texas,
largely driven by Latino, African American, and Asian-American
voters. And when Texas restricts voter assistance, and
everybody knows that the majority of voters who receive
assistance are Asian American and Latino, and nobody comes and
testifies that these restrictions are necessary or based on
anything that happened at the polls. The only rational
conclusion that we can draw is that this is an attempt at voter
suppression. Thank you.
Ms. Norton.[Presiding.] I thank you very much. This hearing
has really been necessary. The American people needed to know
why Democrats in Texas fled their state. That was so important
that we have held an entire hearing on what you have done. I
can only thank you that your own extraordinary steps have
educated the rest of the country on just how important voting
is. You have come to the District of Columbia, which I
represent. The District of Columbia does not have the final
vote on the House floor. I vote in this committee, and I have
all the other benefits of being a House member. I have no
representation. The people I represent, a number larger than
those of two states that have all of their rights, have no
votes whatsoever in the Senate. So, it has been a very great
pleasure for me to hear from representatives who have the vote,
cherish the vote, and have made it clear to all of us why the
vote is so important.
I thank you very much again for your testimony, and this
hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]