[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






                 THE NEED TO ENHANCE THE VOTING RIGHTS
ACT: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS, BAIL-IN COVERAGE, ELECTION OBSERVERS, AND 
                                 NOTICE

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

  SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                         TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-30

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary




[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov 
                             _________
                              
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                 
46-362                   WASHINGTON : 2022
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                    JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
                MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

ZOE LOFGREN, California              JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      DARRELL ISSA, California
    Georgia                          KEN BUCK, Colorado
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          MATT GAETZ, Florida
KAREN BASS, California               MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     TOM McCLINTOCK, California
ERIC SWALWELL, California            W. GREG STEUBE, Florida
TED LIEU, California                 TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          CHIP ROY, Texas
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DAN BISHOP, North Carolina
J. LUIS CORREA, California           MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon
LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 BURGESS OWENS, Utah
GREG STANTON, Arizona
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
MONDAIRE JONES, New York
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
CORI BUSH, Missouri

       PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
              CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director 
                                 ------                                

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS,
                          AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

                     STEVE COHEN, Tennessee, Chair
                DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina, Vice-Chair

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana, Ranking 
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,          Member
    Georgia                          TOM McCLINTOCK, California
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              CHIP ROY, Texas
CORI BUSH, Missouri                  MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            BURGESS OWENS, Utah

                       JAMES PARK, Chief Counsel 
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                         Tuesday, June 29, 2021

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Steve Cohen, Chair of the Subcommittee on the 
  Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties from the State 
  of Tennessee...................................................     2
The Honorable Mike Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 
  the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties from the 
  State of Louisiana.............................................     4
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     5

                               WITNESSES

Sophia Lin Lakin, Deputy Director, Voting Rights Project, 
  American Civil Liberties Union
  Oral Testimony.................................................     8
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    11
Helen Butler, Executive Director, Georgia Coalition for the 
  People's Agenda
  Oral Testimony.................................................    46
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    48
Maureen Riordan, Litigation Counsel, Public Interest Legal 
  Foundation
  Oral Testimony.................................................    67
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    69
James T. Tucker, Counsel, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker 
  LLP
  Oral Testimony.................................................    79
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    81

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

Materials submitted by the Honorable Sylvia Garcia, a Member of 
  the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 
  Liberties from the State of Texas for the record
  Testimony from the Honorable Sylvia Garcia, June 25, 2014......   142
  A letter to Attorney General Garland from the Texas 
    Congressional Delegation.....................................   187
  An article entitled, ``Justice Department suing Georgia over 
    voting restrictions,'' CNN...................................   190
Materials submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member 
  of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and 
  Civil Liberties from the State of Texas for the record
  An article entitled, ``Gov. Abbott forces Harris County to 
    close 11 mail ballot drop-off sites, leaving just one,'' 
    Houston Chronicle............................................   202
  An article entitled, `` `Racist voter suppression': Texas laws 
    keep Latinos from the ballot box, groups say,'' NBC Latino...   206
  An article entitled, ``Analysis: It's harder to vote in Texas 
    than in any other state,'' The Texas Tribune.................   214
  An article entitled, ``A strong Voting Rights Act is now more 
    than ever,'' The Hill........................................   218

                                APPENDIX

An article entitled, `` `Why Should I Go Vote Without 
  Understanding What I Am Going to Vote For?' The Impact of First 
  Generation Voting Barriers on Alaska Natives,'' Michigan 
  Journal of Race and Law, submitted by the Honorable Jerrold 
  Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State 
  of New York for the record.....................................   224

                        QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

Questions from the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member of the 
  Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 
  Liberties from the State of Texas for the record...............   282

 
                 THE NEED TO ENHANCE THE VOTING RIGHTS 
                 ACT: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS, BAIL-IN 
                     COVERAGE, ELECTION OBSERVERS, 
                             AND NOTICE

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, June 29, 2021

                     U.S. House of Representatives

            Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights,

                          and Civil Liberties

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve Cohen 
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Cohen, Nadler, Raskin, Ross, 
Johnson of Georgia, Garcia, Bush, Jackson Lee, Johnson of 
Louisiana, Jordan, McClintock, Roy, Fischbach, and Owens.
    Staff Present: David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; John Doty, 
Senior Advisor; Moh Sharma, Director of Member Services and 
Outreach & Policy Advisor; Jordan Dashow, Professional Staff 
Member; Cierra Fontenot, Chief Clerk; John Williams, 
Parliamentarian; Keenan Keller, Senior Counsel; Gabriel 
Barnett, Staff Assistant; Merrick Nelson, Digital Director; 
Kayla Hamedi, Deputy Communications Director; James Park, Chief 
Counsel; Will Emmons, Professional Staff Member/Legislative 
Aide; Matt Morgan, Counsel; Betsy Ferguson, Minority Senior 
Counsel; Caroline Nabity, Minority Counsel; Andrea Woodard, 
Minority Professional Staff Member; and Kiley Bidelman, 
Minority Clerk.
    Mr. Cohen. The Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on 
Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, and the Constitution is called 
to order.
    Without objection, the Chair will have the right to call a 
recess at any time.
    I welcome everyone to today's hearing on the need to 
enhance the Voting Rights Act, particularly the areas of 
preliminary injunctions, bail-in coverage, election observers, 
and notice.
    Before we continue, I would like to remind Members that we 
have established an email address and distribution list 
dedicated to circulating email exhibits, motions, and other 
written materials that Members might want to offer as part of 
today's hearing. If you would like to submit those materials, 
please send them to [email protected] all one word. 
We will distribute them to Members and staff as quickly as 
possible.
    Finally, I ask all Members and witnesses, in-person or 
remotely to mute their microphones when you are not speaking. 
This helps prevent feedback and technical issues. You, of 
course, may unmute yourself anytime you seek recognition.
    Now, I will recognize myself for my opening statement. 
Throughout his historic life, our former colleague, our former 
friend, my friend, my dear friend and hero, the late John 
Lewis, often said that the right to vote is the most powerful 
nonviolent tool we have in democracy.
    If we are ever to actualize the true meaning of equality, 
effective measures, such as the Voting Rights Act, are still 
necessary requirements of democracy. John Lewis almost gave his 
life for the right to vote, as did others.
    We need to make sure that, as legislators, we can do the 
simple things, and that is pass the Voting Rights Act and move 
forward.
    Under my Chairship, the Subcommittee has devoted 
considerable time and resources to his call, the call of John 
Lewis to defend the right to vote. We need to act. Both parties 
need to act. This is a bipartisan issue.
    As we approach the first anniversary of John's passing, we 
in Congress must rededicate ourselves to protecting this most 
fundamental right at a time when it is again under threat, 
including in his home State of Georgia.
    Again, I would ask everybody--Democrat, Republican, and 
Independent--John Lewis almost gave his life, was there at the 
signing of the Voting Rights Act. We need to pass the John R. 
Lewis Voting Rights Act in his honor and regard for our oath 
and our duties as defenders of the Constitution.
    Earlier this year, Georgia enacted a sweeping voter 
suppression law, SB 202, with little transparency or normal 
legislative process. SB 202 imposes unnecessary and arbitrary 
burdens on certain election practices that are 
disproportionately used by Black voters and other voters of 
color, including voter ID requirements for absentee ballots and 
criminal penalties for groups that provide voter assistance.
    It is for this reason the Department of Justice filed a 
lawsuit last Friday to challenge that law's legality under the 
Constitution and under the Voting Rights Act that remains.
    While much of the Subcommittee's work over the last 2 years 
has been geared toward revitalizing the Voting Rights Act 
preclearance provision, in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2013 
decision in Shelby v. Holder, we will focus today on other 
provisions of the Act that while not a substitute for 
preclearance are nonetheless important supplements to it and 
remain viable, although may be needing of some additional 
strength.
    One consequence of the Shelby County decision is, in the 
absence of preclearance, both the Justice Department and 
private parties have been forced to bring legal challenges to 
discriminatory voting laws pursuant to section 2 of the Voting 
Rights Act.
    Section 2 prohibits any State or political subdivision from 
enacting any, quote, ``voting qualification or prerequisite to 
voting standard, practice, or procedure which results in a 
denial or breach of right of any citizen of the United States 
to vote on the count of their race or color, or on account of 
membership in a language minority group.''
    As many witnesses have told us already, section 2 
litigation is expensive, time-consuming, and resource-intensive 
to the point that many plaintiffs with meritorious claims of 
voting discrimination may be dissuaded from even pursuing a 
lawsuit.
    The greatest concern with exclusive reliance on section 2 
litigation, which is all we have left after Shelby, it is 
difficult, if not impossible, to stop the harm to voters that a 
discriminatory voting measure can inflict before such a measure 
is implemented.
    In theory, the Department of Justice can file a section 2 
lawsuit, seek a preliminary injunction to prevent 
discriminatory voting measures from being implemented. Given 
the complexity and time-consuming nature of section 2 cases, it 
is hard for anyone seeking a preliminary injunction to obtain 
one under the present standard.
    Compounding this difficulty is the fact that courts are 
reluctant to grant preliminary injunctions in the period 
shortly before an election based in part on the Supreme Court's 
admonition in Purcell v. Gonzalez. The court should be wary of 
enjoining electoral rules when there is inadequate time to 
resolve tactical disputes before the election proceeds.
    The result, in many cases, the minority voters may be 
disen-
franchised by a voting measure that a court may ultimately 
conclude is discriminatory but one which would be in effect in 
effect during one or more elections.
    In short, in the absence of preliminary injunction, 
minority voters could be irrevocably harmed by discrimination, 
as would democracy, and there would be no other after-the-fact 
remedy for that harm.
    H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act from 
the 116th Congress, would partly address the situation by 
amending the preliminary injunction standard applicable to 
voting rights cases to ensure the plaintiffs can obtain an 
injunction where they raise a serious question as to the merits 
of their claim.
    While no substitute for preclearance, this proposal will 
help mitigate some of the risk to harm the minority voters 
posed by the absence of preclearance.
    A less discussed consequence of the Shelby decision is that 
it undermines the ability of the Justice Department and the 
general public to get notice of any changes to voting laws, 
policies, and procedures.
    In addition to being an effective enforcement mechanism, 
preclearance would function as an effective notice regime. As 
Professor Justin Levitt testified before the Subcommittee in 
2019, without a preclearance system, it will be more difficult 
to learn about and draw appropriate attention to discriminatory 
policies so that few entities with sufficient resources and 
expertise know where to litigate in the first place.
    I guess I slipped over the script there because I said the 
word ``line.'' That is probably because I didn't sleep well 
last night. The lines are being redrawn as we speak, and the 
lines are being drawn in gerrymandered fashions throughout this 
country, but through a slip that I was privy to hear, being 
done in Tennessee and in my district in such ways as to destroy 
the integrity of the city of Memphis, the county of Shelby, and 
district geographic lines, done to, in essence, take certain 
people out of this district. We should have notice of that and 
opportunity to prepare, but we won't.
    The need for such notice and transparency changes to voting 
measures are particularly acute at the local level where such 
changes can be otherwise hard to detect. These include last-
minute changes to election procedures, changing to polling 
place resources, and changes in district lines, which are going 
on as we speak.
    H.R. 4 requires State and local jurisdictions to publicize 
types of changes to voting practices and provide other types of 
information that may be relevant to assessing potential 
violations of the Voting Rights Act.
    This type of reporting requirement entails a relatively low 
burden on States and plainly bares a logical relation to 
facilitating Congress' ability to assure proper function of 
law. H.R. 4 offered other enhancements to the Voting Rights 
Act, including making it easier for courts to bail-in 
jurisdictions into preclearance on a case-by-case basis and, 
also, make it easier for courts and the Department of Justice 
to authorize Federal election observers.
    These proposals, like those concerning preliminary 
injunctions and notice are simple commonsense fixes that we 
ought to support. We should think of America, we should think 
of democracy, and we should think of the Constitution before 
politics.
    I thank our witnesses for their participation in today's 
hearing and look forward to their testimony.
    It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of 
the Subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson, 
for his opening statement.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is the 
Subcommittee's third hearing in the last 3 months regarding the 
Voting Rights Act. I understand the focus of today's hearing 
will be on preliminary injunctions and bail-in coverage, 
election observers, and notice requirements.
    I presume my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will 
focus on these provisions in the context of H.R. 4, the Voting 
Rights Advancement Act. Unfortunately, just like H.R. 1, the 
misleadingly named For the People Act, H.R. 4 seeks to 
federalize elections. This is about Federal control, a Federal 
takeover of an area that has always been within the 
jurisdiction of the States.
    That would be contrary to the Constitution's explicit 
mandate that it is the State legislatures that administer our 
elections. H.R. 4 intends to reinstate the preclearance 
requirement that was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013 
as unconstitutional. It was for a good reason, and it was well 
explained by the Court.
    This bill seeks to lower the triggering mechanism, which 
subjects jurisdictions to preapproval from the Department of 
Justice at the Federal level before they can make changes to 
any of their election procedures.
    Additionally, the legislation puts in place so-called 
practice-based clearance requirements. These would require all 
State legislatures and political subdivisions to seek 
permission from the Federal Government before they can change 
certain laws and policies.
    This is regardless of whether the jurisdiction has a 
history any kind of discrimination or is covered under the new 
formula. This legislation is just another example of a 
politically motivated power grab to enable partisan Federal 
bureaucrats to control our State election laws.
    Voting is a fundamental, constitutionally protected right 
in this country, and the 15th amendment requires States to 
ensure voting is accessible and available to every American.
    States also need to administer elections that are free from 
fraud and administrative errors. The COVID-19 pandemic, as we 
all know, presented new challenges for the 2020 election, and 
it drastically altered how States administer their elections.
    Many of these changes were unconstitutionally implemented, 
be it executive or court order, completely bypassing State 
legislatures as is required in the text of the Constitution 
itself.
    As a result of the 2020 election and the numerous errors 
that resulted, many State legislatures have duly enacted or 
proposed changes to their State election laws. They want to 
clean this up and make sure that we don't have the 
controversies that we had in the last cycle.
    These changes largely seek to enhance election integrity 
and increase the public's waning confident in our election 
processes. It is outrageous to see the Federal Government 
fighting back against these commonsense reforms, such as the 
latest lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice against 
Georgia over its election law.
    It appears to millions of Americans that we are weaponizing 
the DOJ and trampling upon essential States' rights and the 
will of the people enacted through their duly elected 
Representatives.
    Let me be clear. Republicans want every legally cast ballot 
to count, but the only way to give legal votes the weight they 
deserve is to close the door to fraud and illegally cast 
ballots.
    I hope today we can have a productive conversation about 
voting rights and how we can best safeguard the ability of all 
eligible Americans to vote. I can tell you right now the answer 
is not to go backwards and reinstate provisions of the Voting 
Rights Act that have already been deemed by the Court to be 
unconstitutional.
    Our extraordinary Republic has endured for nearly two and a 
half centuries based in large part on the understanding that 
our elections will be fair and free and secure.
    Our Constitution and our institutions will endure, but only 
if we support and defend them. It has never been more important 
than it is today, and I think we can all agree on that.
    I thank our witnesses for appearing today, and I look 
forward to your testimony, and Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Johnson
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I think you are on mute, Mr. 
Chair.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you. I was.
    Does Mr. Nadler, Chair of the Full Committee--is he present 
to give a statement, or does he have a statement he wants to 
submit?
    Chair Nadler. I am here.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you. The Chair of the Full Committee, Mr. 
Nadler, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you 
holding today's hearing to consider whether Congress might 
strengthen provisions of the Voting Rights Act, other than the 
section 5 preclearance provision.
    This Subcommittee has rightfully spent much of its time 
since last Congress devoted to voting rights, specifically 
examining the proliferation of racially discriminatory voting 
barriers following the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby 
County v. Holder.
    During these hearings, we have heard significant testimony 
urging Congress to restore to full effectiveness the VRA's 
preclearance provision, which was rendered effectively void 
after Shelby County.
    Yet, while section 5 preclearance is perhaps the VRA's most 
important enforcement tool and revitalizing this provision is 
the most effective remedy to the ongoing widespread and 
persistent voter discrimination throughout the country, in the 
8 years since preclearance was effectively gutted, we have seen 
the critical role that other Voting Rights Act provisions also 
play in remedying the plague of voter discrimination. Our 
experience since Shelby County has also taught us, however, 
that each of these provisions has shortcomings that can be 
improved upon.
    First, among these is litigation under section 2 of the 
Act, which prohibits voting practices or procedures that 
discriminate on the basis of race, color, or Membership in 
certain language minority groups.
    While an important pillar of the VRA, section 2 litigation 
is not a substitute for a working preclearance regime. One 
weakness of section 2 is the difficulty plaintiffs face in 
obtaining preliminary injunctive relief to prevent the 
challenged voting law procedure from going into effect while 
litigation is pending.
    We will hear from our witnesses today that this often 
results in the effective disenfranchisement of minority voters 
because a challenged law that ultimately is found to be 
discriminatory remains in effect for the duration of lengthy 
litigation.
    There are other provisions that Congress should also 
consider revisiting. To begin with, we should look at section 
3(c), the VRA's bail-in provision. Congress understood that the 
VRA section 5 preclearance provision could be underinclusive, 
and, therefore, it included section 3(c) to address situations 
in which preclearance may be justified but a jurisdiction might 
not meet the requirements for section 5 preclearance coverage.
    In such cases, section 3(c) allows courts to retain the 
authority to supervise further voting changes in jurisdictions 
where the court has found that the jurisdiction in question 
violated the 14th or 15th Amendments.
    If a jurisdiction is bailed into preclearance, it must 
submit any changes to its voting procedures for approval either 
to the court or to DOJ. With the court determining both the 
scope and duration of such a preclearance requirement.
    Despite its availability, however, courts have rarely 
invoked section 3(c) as a remedy. This is because plaintiffs 
face a high burden in proving a constitutional violation, which 
requires a showing of intentional discrimination.
    Even where there is evidence that officials acted with 
discriminatory intent, courts have shown reluctance to find 
that such officials engaged in purposeful discrimination.
    Moreover, since the Shelby County decision, some courts 
have suggested that not all violations of the 14th and 15th 
Amendments support section 3(c) bail-in coverage.
    Bail-in coverage can be an important enforcement tool but 
given how reluctant Federal courts are to invoke section 3(c), 
Congress should consider whether the violations to which this 
relief are available are simply too limited to carry out this 
provision's purpose effectively.
    Another area that we should examine is the appointment of 
Federal election observers. Section 8 of the VRA permits the 
Attorney General to assign Federal observers to jurisdictions 
covered by section 5 preclearance.
    Likewise, section 3(a) allows Federal courts to assign 
Federal observers in appropriate circumstances. Federal 
observers can report voting irregularities, which can lead the 
Justice Department to negotiate with a jurisdiction to improve 
voting practices without resort to legal action.
    Observers also help gather evidence if legal action is 
required, and their mere presence can help deter voter 
discrimination.
    An oft overlooked side effect of the Shelby County 
decision, however, is that it significantly reduced the number 
of Federal observer appointments. DOJ officials have 
interpreted Shelby County as prohibiting it from certifying 
jurisdictions for Federal observer coverage because the formula 
used to identify such potential jurisdictions was declared 
unconstitutional.
    As a result, the number of Federal observers assigned since 
Shelby County has dropped precipitously. To compensate for the 
lack of full-fledged observers, DOJ has relied on so-called 
monitors to ensure that jurisdictions with a history of 
discrimination conduct the election process in a fair manner.
    Unfortunately, these monitors do not possess the same 
authority as a Federal election observer, and, as such, 
jurisdictions are not required to provide them the same level 
of access to the voting process as observers, limiting their 
effectiveness.
    As we consider revitalizing the VRA, Congress should 
consider how to strengthen the ability of the Justice 
Department and Federal courts to send election observers 
whenever and wherever justified.
    In the 8 years since Shelby County, we have seen how 
indispensable the Voting Rights Act is in ensuring that all 
Americans enjoy the right to vote, free from discrimination. 
Section 5 preclearance remains the most potent remedy for 
widespread and persistent voter discrimination.
    No matter how much Congress strengthens other enforcement 
provisions of the VRA, even these enhanced provisions alone can 
never be a complete substitute for section 5 preclearance, yet 
Congress should not pass up the opportunity to consider 
revitalizing and improving the VRA's other provisions which 
operate in support of but to cover any gaps left by section 5.
    I thank Chair Cohen for holding today's hearing, and I look 
forward to the testimony of our witnesses, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Nadler.
    It is my understanding that there is not a statement from 
the Ranking Member, who ordinarily would be provided that 
opportunity at this point, so we will go on to our witnesses.
    We welcome our witnesses and thank them for participating 
in today's hearing. I will now introduce the witnesses before 
they testify and give their oral or written testimony.
    All your written statements will be entered into the record 
in its entirety. I ask you to summarize your testimony to 5 
minutes. To help you stay within that 5 minutes, our witnesses, 
there is a timing light on your table if you are there in 
person. Green means you are okay; it is within the first 4 
minutes. Yellow means you are entering the last minute, and red 
means you need to wrap up or have wrapped up.
    For witnesses testifying remotely, there is a timer in Zoom 
view. It should be visible at the bottom of your screen, or if 
you are in full view as I am, on the left-hand side, and it 
will give you how much time you have remaining.
    Before proceeding with the testimony, I would like to 
remind all the witnesses here, you have a legal obligation to 
provide truthful testimony in answer to the Subcommittee, and 
any false statement can be subject to prosecution under section 
1001 of title 18 in the United States Code.
    Our first witness is Sophia Lin Lakin. Ms. Lakin is the 
deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union Voting 
Rights Project, and assists in the planning, strategy, and 
supervision of the ACLU's voting rights litigation nationwide.
    She has an active docket in protecting voting rights and 
combating voter suppression across the country--unfortunately, 
it is very active--and has led work on successful challenges to 
discriminatory voting laws in Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, 
Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia.
    Currently, she is the ACLU's lead counsel in Sixth District 
of the AME, African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Kemp, a 
federal lawsuit challenging multiple provisions of Georgia's 
sweeping new voter suppression law, SB 202.
    Before joining the ACLU, Ms. Lakin clerked for the 
Honorable Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Second District and the Honorable Carol Bagley Amon in 
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
    She received her J.D. degree from Stanford Law School, a 
school that has a baseball team that is part of an 
undergraduate group that lost to Vanderbilt in the College 
World Series. Vanderbilt is fighting for the championship. 
Stanford is not.
    She received her M.S. in management, science, and 
engineering and her B.A. in political science from that same 
Stanford University. We thank you for the wild pitch that put 
Vanderbilt in the College World Series.
    Ms. Lakin, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                 STATEMENT OF SOPHIA LIN LAKIN

    Ms. Lakin. Chair Cohen, Chair Nadler, Ranking Member 
Johnson, and Members of the Committee and Subcommittee, thank 
you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Sophia 
Lakin, and I am deputy director of the ACLU's Voting Rights 
Project.
    The VRA is one of the most successful pieces of civil 
rights legislation in our history, but in 2013, the Supreme 
Court gutted the VRA's most powerful provision, the section 5 
preclearance system, which enabled the Federal Government to 
block proposed discriminatory voting restrictions in places 
with the worst records of discrimination before they could be 
implemented.
    As the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously warned in 
her dissent in Shelby, gutting of the preclearance provision 
was like, ``throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm.'' Sure 
enough, the downpour came with a wave of discriminatory voting 
laws.
    The ACLU has been on the front lines. We have opened more 
than 80 new voting rights investigations and cases since the 
decision. Some of our recent and ongoing cases include Sixth 
District of AME Church, which, with other civil rights groups, 
we are challenging SB 202, which has been referenced, Georgia's 
latest effort to restrict the voting rights of Black and Brown 
voters, and NAACP v. McCrory, where we and others successfully 
challenged a sweeping North Carolina bill that sought to 
eliminate means of participation used by more than a million 
voters in the 2012 Presidential election.
    This kind of case-by-case litigation, while important and 
necessary, is simply insufficient to protect voting rights. 
Voting rights litigation is incredibly expensive, complex, and 
time-consuming. Their costs can easily run in the six figures.
    These cases also take multiple years to litigate, which 
means many elections involving hundreds of elected officials 
can take place under regimes that are later found to be 
racially discriminatory, an irrevocable taint on our democracy 
that we have, unfortunately, seen play out in States like North 
Carolina and Texas.
    I detail several other examples in my written testimony. 
The Supreme Court in Shelby based its ruling in part on the 
assumption that preliminary relief would be available before an 
election to guard against this problem.
    The theoretical availability of such relief has also proven 
to be inadequate. The current standard for obtaining a 
preliminary injunction makes it difficult to obtain. My written 
testimony describes 15 cases in which voting rights plaintiffs, 
who ultimately succeeded, were unable to obtain preliminary 
relief while their cases were pending, with numerous elections 
taking place, millions of voters casting ballots, and hundreds 
of elected officials taking office under regimes courts 
ultimately find are discriminatory or are abandoned.
    The problem has only worsened due to the expansion of the 
so-called Purcell principle. This is the idea that courts 
should be cautious changing election rules if an election is 
imminent.
    What began as a commonsense warning to consider potential 
voter confusion and administrative burdens now operates 
effectively as a bright-line Rule against intervening as an 
election draws near.
    The use of Purcell to stymie voting rights plaintiffs has 
skyrocketed in recent years from 6 in 2012 to 11 in 2016, to 58 
times in 2020. All too frequently this Rule is wielded 
inconsistently in one direction only: To undermine efforts to 
ensure that discriminatory practices are blocked before they 
can taint an election.
    The North Carolina case I mentioned is illustrative. The 
law we challenged eliminated 1 week of early voting, same-day, 
and preregistration, and the capping of ballots cast out of 
precinct.
    The law also banned the use of many forms of government-
issued voter ID to vote including student and public assistance 
IDs. The Fourth Circuit struck the law down as 
unconstitutional, targeting Black voters, ``with almost 
surgical precision.''
    The case cost $5.9 million and took 34 months to litigate. 
In the meantime, the 2014 general election went forward under 
the provisions of the new law with 188 Federal and State 
officers elected, including 13 congressional seats.
    We did everything to prevent this from happening. We 
litigated on an expedited timeline and sought a preliminary 
injunction before the 2014 midterms, which the Fourth Circuit 
granted. The Supreme Court stayed that ruling because of 
Purcell, leaving the discriminatory regime in place for the 
2014 election.
    The law has since been struck down, but it is impossible 
now to compensate Black voters of North Carolina for that gross 
injustice.
    That is just one example. My written testimony details 
several others. Racial discrimination in voting continues to 
threaten the health of our democracy, and we lack adequate 
tools to combat that threat. Stronger voting rights protections 
are absolutely critical. Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Lakin follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Lakin, for your work and your 
testimony, and I hope you are not a die-hard baseball fan.
    Next, I would like to recognize Ms. Helen Butler. Ms. 
Butler is executive director of the Georgia coalition for The 
People's Agenda. In that role, she leads an advocacy 
organization founded by the late great reverend, Dr. Joseph E. 
Lowery and compromised with representatives from human rights, 
civil rights, environmental, labor, women, young professionals, 
youth, elected officials, and peace and justice groups 
throughout Georgia and other southeastern States.
    She leads initiatives that increase citizen participation 
in the governance of their communities in areas including 
education, criminal, and juvenile justice reform, protecting 
the right to vote, and economic development.
    Ms. Butler, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF HELEN BUTLER

    Ms. Butler. Good morning, Chair Nadler, Chair Cohen, and 
Members of the subcommittee. My name, of course, I am Helen 
Butler, and The People's Agenda is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 
organization founded by Dr. Lowery.
    It has always been dedicated to fighting for the voting 
rights of Georgia's citizens, through public education, 
training, advocacy, and litigation.
    In the wake of the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby 
County v. Holder and due to the lack of a preclearance process, 
we have been forced to spend even more time and resources 
fighting discriminatory voting laws, policies, and practices at 
the State and local levels.
    Today, I will provide you with some examples of barriers to 
the ballot faced by voters of color in Georgia since that 
decision and the loss of section 5 preclearance, how my 
organization and others have been forced to divert significant 
time and resources to monitoring and responding to voting 
changes, and why we need to restore the full protections of the 
Voting Rights Act, including the preclearance and notice 
provisions by enacting the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement 
Act.
    I have submitted a full written statement to the 
Subcommittee for your consideration.
    In the last two decades, the Georgia electorate has 
undergone significant demographic changes with the percentage 
of Black voters and other voters of color increasing. Instead 
of welcoming the increasing diversity of Georgia's electorate 
and respecting the votes cast by Black voters and other voters 
of color, Georgia's conservative legislators' immediate 
response to the political changes has been the introduction of 
a host of voter suppression bills in both the Georgia House and 
Senate, especially during the 2021 legislative session.
    The bills were rushed through committees in the House and 
Senate often with little or no time for Ranking Members on the 
committees, much less the general public, to have an 
opportunity to review the draft or final versions of the bills 
before they were voted upon.
    This process, led by the majority party with virtually no 
transparency, culminated in the passage of an omnibus voter 
suppression bill, Senate Bill 202.
    With almost surgical precision, SB 202 targets the methods 
of voting increasingly being used by Georgia's Black voters and 
voters of color with arbitrary and unnecessarily burdensome 
requirements that will disenfranchise voters and potentially 
expose nonprofit civic engagement organizations such as The 
People's Agenda to fines and criminal penalties.
    The majority party also led the passage of legislation 
reconstitution a number of Georgia's county boards of 
elections, including Morgan County where I lived and served on 
that board since 2010 as well as in Troup County and Spalding 
County and others.
    I believe that the legislature targeted these boards of 
election because of our opposition to efforts to suppress the 
Black vote by Conservatives on our boards. Since Shelby County 
decision, Conservatives in the Georgia legislature introduced 
two mid-decade redistricting bills, which sought to reduce the 
percentage of the Black population in Republican-held districts 
that were starting to become more competitive.
    Given the history of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering 
by the Georgia General Assembly, The People's Agenda is 
concerned about the potential for a repeat of these tactics 
during our current redistricting cycle in Georgia, particularly 
in the absence of preclearance of the plans by the Department 
of Justice.
    In the aftermath of the Shelby County decision, many of 
Georgia's county boards of election also proposed or took 
actions to close, consolidate, or move polling locations, 
oftentimes in areas primarily serving voters of color and 
underrepresented communities.
    Just, in fact, the Dougherty County Board of Elections 
recently is considering closing 10 of its 28 polling locations 
allegedly due to low turnout in the 2020 election cycle despite 
the pandemic.
    In the wake of these new attacks on voting rights of Black 
voters and other voters of color in Georgia, The People's 
Agenda is extremely concerned about this landscape, and we 
believe that Congress must pass legislation to restore full 
protections of the Voting Rights Act, including the John Lewis 
Voting Rights Advancement Act.
    Thank you for your time and your consideration.
    [The statement of Ms. Butler follows:]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you Ms. Butler.
    Chair Nadler. You are on mute.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
    Our third witness is Maureen Riordan. Ms. Riordan is a 
litigation counsel for Public Interest Legal Foundation, which 
she joined in 2021. Previously, she spent 20 years as an 
attorney in the voting section of the Civil Rights Division of 
the U.S. Department of Justice, where she worked on hundreds of 
elections, voting, and redistricting matters.
    During the Trump Administration, she served as senior 
counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, 
where she was responsible for the voting section. Ms. Riordan 
received her J.D. from St. Mary's University School of Law and 
her B.S. in criminal justice from Seton Hall University.
    Ms. Riordan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF MAUREEN RIORDAN

    Ms. Riordan. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Put your microphone on.
    Ms. Riordan. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, and 
Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for your invitation to 
speak with you today. As indicated, I am an attorney with the 
Public Interest Legal Foundation, a nonpartisan charity devoted 
to promoting election integrity and preserving the 
constitutional mandate that allows States to administer their 
own elections.
    I have been an attorney for approximately 35 years, 20 of 
which I served in the Voting section--I am sorry--20 years at 
DOJ, approximately 18 in the Voting Section, in addition to 
being senior counsel to the associate AG for civil rights.
    From August of 2000 until the Supreme Court's decision in 
Shelby County v. Holder, my primary responsibility was to 
review changes submitted for preclearance under section 5. I 
have also conducted election monitoring throughout the United 
States, both with and without Federal observers.
    I began my employment approximately 3 months prior to the 
2000 election, and when the Florida recount occurred, I was 
shocked when I personally observed Voting section staff 
discussing strategies, faxing, and receiving information from 
DNC operatives in Florida.
    I have also witnessed twisted racialism. When George Bush 
appointed Ralph Boyd, an African American to head the Civil 
Rights Division, I often heard from career Voting section 
attorneys that he is not really Black and that no self-
respecting Black man would be a Republican.
    These statements and beliefs were many. I would urge every 
member here to read the DOJ Inspector General on the Voting 
Section, and it provides instance after instance of bad 
behavior, often racially motivated, among staff.
    It also includes abuse of an African-American paralegal 
deemed not Black enough by voting staff.
    The Voting section has a long record of abuse by its 
attorneys for improper collaboration in reviewing section 5 
submissions. It has been sanctioned by courts. Between 1993 and 
2000, the Voting section has been sanctioned over $2 million.
    For example, in Johnson v. Miller, U.S. District Court 
sanctioned the Voting section $594,000 for collusive misconduct 
by DOJ attorneys with the ACLU. A Federal court pronounced that 
the communications between those two groups, the DOJ and ACLU, 
were disturbing and that the dynamics were not those of an 
advocate reporting to a higher authority, but rather peers 
working together against the jurisdiction that made the 
submission.
    After a Voting section lawyer professed that she could not 
remember details of the relationship, the court found her 
professed amnesia to be less than credible.
    Abuse of power in the section 5 process is not confined to 
Johnson v. Miller, and my written testimony provides additional 
instances.
    Section 5 was a temporary provision for a reason that no 
longer exists. The Supreme Court made clear in Shelby County 
that only certain conditions would ever justify any formula for 
section 5, including blatant discrimination on a pervasive and 
rampant scale. Triggers that are built around political, 
partisan goals will not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
    The permanent provisions of the Voting Rights Act, such as 
section 2, still prohibit discrimination and provide ample 
tools to challenge election procedures. Up until this past 
Friday when DOJ announced that it is suing the State of 
Georgia, the Department of Justice has only blocked five 
section 2 cases since Shelby County was decided. Where is the 
rampant discrimination?
    Section 3 also allows a judge to have a jurisdiction to 
submit to the preclearance provisions if it finds that the 
jurisdiction intentionally discriminated against minority 
voters. That is consistent with the Shelby mandate, that 
Federal oversight of State and local elections be closely 
matched to need.
    H.R. 4, however, would allow a jurisdiction to be subjected 
to the rigors of section 3 for violations that are not premised 
on intentional discrimination.
    Also, the new evidentiary stand for obtaining a preliminary 
injunction proposed in H.R. 4 sets Federal law on its head. The 
Supreme Court has held that plaintiffs seeking a preliminary 
injunction must establish that they are likely to cede on the 
merits and also that the injunction should not be granted when 
it is against the public interest.
    The new standard in H.R. 4 not only disregards the public 
interest, but it actually prohibits the court from considering 
any interest of the State in application for a preliminary 
injunction.
    I would like to thank you for your time and your attention.
    [The statement of Ms. Riordan follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Riordan.
    Our next witness Mr. James Tucker--or Dr. Tucker. He is an 
attorney with the law firm of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & 
Dicker in Las Vegas, Nevada. He is one of the founding Members 
in the Native American Voting Rights Coalition.
    He is Chair of the Census Bureau's National Advisory 
Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations. He served 
as a trial lawyer, senior trial lawyer in fact, on the Voting 
section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of 
Justice.
    He is an adjunct professor at the Barrett College William 
S. Boyd School of Law at UNLV. Dr. Tucker holds a Doctor in the 
Science of Laws and Master of Laws Degrees from the University 
of Pennsylvania, a J.D., Order of the Coif, from the University 
of Florida, a Master of Public Administration degree from the 
University of Oklahoma, and a Bachelor of Arts Degree in 
History from the Barrett Honors College at Arizona State 
University.
    Dr. Tucker, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF JAMES T. TUCKER

    Mr. Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair Nadler, Chair 
Cohen, Ranking Member Johnson, and Committee Members, thank you 
for your invitation to testify on the need to enhance the 
Voting Rights Act.
    This hearing comes just 4 days after the 8-year anniversary 
of Shelby County v. Holder. On June 25th, 2013, in a narrow 5-4 
decision, the United States Supreme Court struck down the 
coverage formula for section 5, the heart of the Voting Rights 
Act.
    Shelby County's assault on the Voting Rights Act has come 
at a high price. In the absence of section 5 preclearance, 
previously covered States and political subdivisions have 
turned back the clock to make the most basic, first-generation 
barriers. Obstacles that impede the ability to register to 
vote, to cast a ballot, and to have a ballot counted are a 
reality for an even greater number of Americans.
    Many governing bodies have increased their exploitation of 
racially polarized voting at the expense of existing and 
emerging groups of minority voters, seeking equal opportunities 
to participate in the political process.
    Against this backdrop, it is appropriate that the Committee 
has answered the clarion call to renew and restore the Voting 
Rights Act. H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement 
Act is named in honor of one of the great champions of American 
democracy.
    Preserving the fundamental right to vote for all Americans 
is what brings us together in this hearing. Today, as a result 
of Shelby County, there is no longer any coverage under section 
4 of the VRA.
    Section 3(c) bail-in currently is the only way that a State 
or political subdivision can be required to submit covered 
voting changes for preclearance. However, the bail-in provision 
is sparingly used. Before Shelby County, only 18 jurisdictions 
bailed in under section 3(c), two States--Arkansas and New 
Mexico--12 counties, two municipalities, and two school 
districts.
    Over half of those jurisdictions, 10, were bailed in for 
discrimination against American Indians. All but two were 
bailed in by consent judgments. Since 2013, only a few more 
political subdivisions have bailed in.
    Shelby County's legacy and the uncomfortable burden of 
finding discriminatory purpose have contributed to a reluctance 
by Federal judges to rely upon section 3(c) as a remedy to cure 
voting rights violations in the face of judicial findings of 
egregious wrongs.
    H.R. 4 makes two changes that directly impact bail-in. 
First, using a modernized formula, it restores section 5 
coverage in States and political subdivisions where it is 
needed most.
    Second, it gives Federal judges the power to use the 
remedial authority in section 3(c), where any voting 
discrimination against racial, ethnic, or language minority 
voters is established.
    Consonant with that discretion of their broad remedial 
powers, judges will continue to have discretion to set the 
timeframe and the scope of voting changes to which bail-in 
applies under section 3(c).
    Federal observers, likewise, are an important part of the 
Act's comprehensive framework. They prevent voting 
discrimination, assist the Attorney General in enforcing 
Federal voting protections, and they measure progress with 
court-ordered remedies in voting rights cases.
    Shelby County has had a devastating impact on Federal 
observer coverage. Prior to the Shelby County decision in 2013, 
a total of 153 counties and parishes in 11 States were 
certified by the Attorney General for Federal observers.
    By 2020, just five political subdivisions in three States 
were covered for Federal observers under section 3(a) of the 
Act--one county in Alabama, three Census areas in Alaska as a 
result of NARF's litigation there, and one parish in Louisiana.
    In the November 3rd, 2020 election, not a single Federal 
observer was dispatched by the Justice Department and the 
Office of Personnel Management, which is unprecedented for 
coverage of Presidential elections in recent decades.
    H.R. 4 will renew and restore vitality in the Federal 
observer provisions in three ways. It provides a new coverage 
formula for section 5, which would make the covered 
jurisdictions eligible for certification by the Attorney 
General for Federal observers under section 8 of the Act.
    It would amendment sections 3(a) and 8 of the Act to allow 
courts and the Attorney General to certify Federal observers 
where there has been voting discrimination on the basis of 
race, color, or language minority status in violation of 
Federal law.
    NARF looks forward to working with Members of the 
Subcommittee in restoring the vitality of the Voting Rights 
Act.
    Thank you very much for your attention. I welcome the 
opportunity to answer any questions you may have.
    [The statement of Mr. Tucker follows:]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Tucker.
    I will now go on to our witness questioning phase, and I 
will proceed with the first questions for 5 minutes.
    First, Dr. Tucker, you mentioned how there was no observers 
during this past election and some changes. Was the Voting 
Rights section of the Justice Department absent without a cause 
during the Trump Administration?
    Mr. Tucker. I think it is fair to say that those of us who 
were on the outside looking in are disappointed in terms of 
what the enforcement activities were under the Trump 
Administration. One of the things that I know, that Ms. Lakin 
alluded to and it is certainly something, an issue that we have 
also seen with the Native American Rights Fund, is that the 
heft of that burden has fallen on private attorneys general, 
which are the civil rights organizations and private 
individuals and groups that have had to bring the litigation on 
their own. It is very expensive.
    Just by way of example, in Alaska, it costs us $2 million 
in approximately 18 months to be able to stop some language 
assistance--the absence of language assistance through a 
section 203 case. It is very, very time-consuming and expensive 
and unfortunately DOJ--
    Mr. Cohen. I am frozen. I am going to go on with my 
questioning if that is all right because we are frozen.
    Ms. Lakin, let me ask you this, as the lead attorney with 
the ACLU, was there any particular reason why there were so few 
actions under section 2 in the years that Ms. Riordan pointed 
out? Was it because everything had gotten better and all these 
States stopped doing their voodoo that they have been doing for 
so many years, or was it absence of actions on the government?
    Ms. Lakin. Thank you for your question. As Dr. Tucker has 
pointed out, the civil rights organizations that have been 
working to protect voting rights have been incredibly engaged 
in voting rights litigation under section 2, under the 
Constitution, under other Federal laws, like the NVRA as well, 
so to the extent that the Justice Department itself was not 
bringing actions, I would say that that doesn't characterize 
the State of litigation in the post-Shelby world.
    I think in previous testimony, Dale Ho of the ACLU has 
testified to the number of cases that the ACLU itself has 
brought under section 2 alone, and then that is certainly quite 
a number in the wake.
    As Dr. Tucker mentioned, these cases are incredibly costly. 
They are complex. They are time-consuming. We have shouldered 
our fair share, along with other civil rights organizations, 
and really attempted to keep voting rights protected during 
this period of time, but it is simply insufficient to protect 
voters from losing the right to vote or being forced to vote 
under discriminatory regimes. There is no way to compensate 
voters after the fact.
    Mr. Cohen. Ms. Lakin, you brought up in your testimony 
Purcell v. Gonzalez, the case that said, go real easy on 
injunctive relief, probably well intentioned, I presume it was, 
just as Shelby v. Holder was probably well intentioned but a 
disaster. Both were disasters for voting rights and the 
opportunity for people to vote.
    What should Congress do to address the problems that the 
judiciary's application of the Purcell principle has created?
    Ms. Lakin. Well, there are a number of things, like the 
restoration or reinvigoration of the preclearance regime would 
certainly help in many ways because, as I have testified and 
many others have testified, the post-enactment relief is not 
sufficient, and Purcell is just one example of how that problem 
has gotten even worse.
    The preliminary injunction standard that is being applied, 
this likelihood of success on the merits, which plaintiffs have 
to show in order to obtain preliminary relief, courts have 
become even more reluctant, I would say, without a very 
substantial showing of likelihood of success on the merits, in 
part because of the growth and explosion of the use of this 
Purcell principle as a way to almost abstain from weighing in 
on the merits of the case.
    So, you have cases where courts have found a likely 
violation, a likely constitutional violation or discrimination, 
and yet, because it is close to the election, simply throw up 
their hands and say, ``I am just going to let this lie for 
now.'' That is certainly a problem, and Congress has many 
different ways to get involved.
    One would be, of course, lowering the standard for winning 
preliminary injunction relief. The second would also be, of 
course, restoring the preclearance regime and perhaps then 
other means for asking for certain fixes to the Purcell 
doctrine itself.
    Mr. Cohen. Like it.
    Ms. Butler, Georgia, most free, fair election in history, 
and yet the legislature came back and took Mr. Raffensperger's 
powers away from him after his heroic actions. What were some 
of the actions in Senate Bill 202 which will hurt minority 
voting? Briefly explain those barriers to the ballot box that 
have been brought about by that law.
    Ms. Butler. Well, first, it reduces the time to request 
absentee ballots from 90 days-180 days, down to 78 days. You 
now must provide an ID, a Georgia driver's license, or Georgia 
State-issued ID, and if you don't have one of those IDs, you 
have to provide copies.
    We have a lot of rural people, a lot of elderly people that 
don't have access to copiers, that will now have to provide 
copying services to get their IDs if they want to vote by 
absentee or vote by mail.
    The early voting period between the runoff, they reduced 
the time down to 4 weeks. That will not give you a time for a 
lot of early voting during that runoff period at all.
    So, those are some of the kinds of barriers that we have, 
that voters of color will be subjected to.
    There is broadband. A lot of people in rural areas don't 
have broadband access. So, to get these documents to the boards 
of election, they will have to do it through other means.
    So, it is really important that we put preclearance back 
into process for these laws because they are just putting 
barriers there. There was nothing about the election process--
we had three--two audits and a recount. So, it really was not 
fraud. So, it was a fair election, but they did implement these 
laws as well.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you very much, Ms. Butler. I appreciate 
your response.
    Next, I recognize Mr. Johnson from Louisiana for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I thank you for that, Mr. Chair.
    This is an exercise in advancing a political narrative. I 
mentioned at the outset here this is our third hearing on the 
Voting Rights Act in 3 months because apparently the majority 
party thinks that this is politically advantageous. I love what 
at least one of the witnesses has said here today, bringing 
common sense into the equation.
    I want to ask Ms. Riordan--am I pronouncing that right? 
What is the right pronunciation?
    Ms. Riordan. It is Riordan.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. One recent analyst 
said about H.R. 4--I am going to quote them, they said that it 
would update the coverage formula by making it, quote, ``more 
onerous and almost impossible for States to defend against 
lawsuits against them.''
    Likewise, opponents of the legislation believe the real aim 
of the Act is to reverse the decision in Shelby County, which 
has been illustrated here today, and allow political allies at 
the DOJ and left-wing organizations to control State election 
rules in violation of the principles of Federalism.
    I want to thank you for expertise today, your clarity on 
this subject this morning. A quarter century at the DOJ in this 
arena is quite impressive. You pointed out that H.R. 4 is 
hugely problematic.
    You testified the Voting Rights Act is still working today 
without the preclearance requirement, which is a dated 
requirement, as you pointed out. It still clearly prohibits 
discrimination, but you noted--and I am very interested this--
the DOJ has only brought five section 2 cases since Shelby 
County was handed down 8 years ago? Are they ignoring rampant 
acts of discrimination out there? What do you think?
    Ms. Riordan. I think that the rampant acts of 
discrimination do not exist. I can tell you that there was a 
comment about whether or not there were cases brought during 
the Trump Administration. During my time period at the front 
office as a senior counsel, I am unaware of any request by the 
Voting section to bring a section 2 action that was denied by 
leadership.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. If I am correct, if my math is 
right, 8 years ago, Shelby County was handed down. Wasn't Eric 
Holder in charge of the DOJ during part of that time?
    Ms. Riordan. He was.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. He didn't bring this army of 
prosecutors at DOJ out to go after this rampant discrimination, 
did he? I don't remember that.
    Ms. Riordan. No. As a matter of fact, the amount of people 
that served in the Voting section has decreased since that 
time.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Since the 2020 election several 
States have enacted or proposed election law changes, as we 
have noted in March. Georgia's Governor, Brian Kemp, signed 
Senate Bill 202 into law. Some of the other witnesses today are 
just breathless in their opposition to this.
    My goodness, Ms. Butler just said requiring, for example, a 
valid ID to vote is an unreasonable, oppressive requirement. Is 
that your view on voter ID as well?
    Ms. Riordan. No, it is not. First, the laws in Georgia 
already require an ID for in-person voting. Actually, you are 
treating absentee voters differently than you are treating in-
person voters. So, it has already been approved by the courts. 
I would think that the fact that they are treating those 
differently probably could be an equal protection claim that 
someone could bring, since why should we be treating absentee 
voters differently than in-person voters?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Very well said. Last week, of 
course, the DOJ famously in a press conference filed a lawsuit 
against Georgia over its voting law. I just want to know if the 
Department of Justice has issues with that law in Georgia, 
shouldn't it also file lawsuits against Colorado and New York 
and other liberal-run States over their election laws, which 
are more restrictive than what Georgia just passed?
    Ms. Riordan. I would agree with that. I would also State 
that the majority of the provisions that they are fighting and 
filed suit over, are provisions that were temporary to begin 
with due to the COVID-19 restrictions.
    So, basically what they are saying is that we put forward 
these provisions to make it a little bit easier for people to 
vote due to COVID, and now we want to keep them permanent. So, 
they were never meant to be permanent; they were always 
temporary.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Exactly right. The chaos that 
ensued as a result of the 2020 election was occasioned because 
of all those irregularities, and it should be incumbent upon us 
to fix the irregularities, so we don't have that chaos going 
forward.
    Despite the rhetoric you are going to hear from our 
colleagues across the aisle all day today, isn't it true that 
States are still best situated to enact changes in election 
law?
    Ms. Riordan. I think so. All my time in the Voting Section, 
reviewing changes under section 5 preclearance, the majority of 
those changes are really very, very small, very minute. In the 
time period that I was there, from 2000 until Shelby County, we 
actually reviewed 222,000 submissions, and there were 81 
objections during that time period.
    That is less than a third of 1 percent of the submissions 
that were actually issued an objection.
    Some of the things that I included in my written testimony, 
some of those objections that really were not based in fact, 
but based on politics were included in those 81 objections.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I am out of time, but I think 
that last phrase summarizes it. Thank you for being here today 
and being clear and being here in person.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, you are muted.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you. I wish the staff wouldn't mute me 
every time. I don't need to be muted. Please don't do that.
    Mr. Nadler, you are recognized.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Tucker, as I noted in my opening statement, the number 
of Federal observers' appointment has dropped precipitously 
since Shelby County. To compensate for the significant 
reduction, DOJ has appointed monitors instead. These monitors 
appear to be a poor substitute for observers because they lack 
the same legal authority to demand access to the voting 
process.
    What can Congress do to strengthen both the authority of 
the Federal courts and the Attorney General to appoint 
observers under sections 3(a) and 8 of the Voting Rights Act?
    Mr. Tucker. Thank you so much for that question, Mr. Chair.
    As I mentioned in my written testimony, the fix for Federal 
observers is actually very simple. There are really two that we 
are talking about here. One is that we, of course, need to 
restore coverage under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. That 
would allow the Attorney General to certify, where it is 
appropriate, Federal observers in those jurisdictions that are 
covered for section 5 preclearance.
    The other is a very moderate fix in section 3(a) and in 
section 8 of the Act that would simply ensure that the Attorney 
General and Federal courts have the ability to appoint Federal 
observers in places where there is a violation of any Federal 
voting rights law that implicates denial, both denial for 
people of color or those who are of language minority groups.
    So, it is a very, very simple fix. It is nothing radical. 
It is very consistent with what we have seen, and I would 
certainly encourage the Committee to include that in the final 
version of H.R. 4.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Ms. Butler, one particularly unsettling aspect of the 
stricter voting laws to emerge in the States since the last 
election is that not only do they target or disproportionately 
impact minority voters, something we have unfortunately seen 
before, which remains a persistent problem since Shelby County, 
they also target election officials and administrators. Many of 
these election officials and administrators risked their lives 
to make the 2020 election a success during the COVID-19 
pandemic, and then they stood up for democracy against the big 
lie of widespread voting fraud being pushed by the former 
President and his allies.
    How does SB 202 in Georgia target election officials? Is it 
your sense that certain election officials in certain counties 
are being singled out?
    Ms. Butler. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. Yes, I do.
    SB 202 has a provision where the legislature can take over 
any county boards of election, can remove any supervisor. Also, 
it goes hand in hand with local legislation where they could 
actually reconstitute the boards of elections that actually 
implement the laws on the local level. That has happened 
already in three counties, and we know there may be six other 
counties. We are investigating that.
    It really takes the responsibility, takes total control. 
They removed the Secretary of State being the Chair of the 
State election board, again, not accountable to the voters.
    So, it takes over total control of all of the local boards 
of elections, should they so desire. So, it is a means to not 
have a voice for voters, to have their voice, and ensure that 
if they are not happy with the outcome of the election, they 
can make sure they have the right outcome.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Tucker, one argument that opponents of revitalizing 
section 5 make, is that preclearance is still available as a 
remedy under section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act in cases 
where a court finds a violation of the 14th or 15th Amendment. 
Did Congress ever intend, or section 3(c) designed to Act as a 
substitute for section 5 preclearance?
    Mr. Tucker. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chair.
    No, section 3(c) was meant to supplement, not to replace 
the section 4 coverage formula. As I documented in my written 
testimony, recently, the Perez v. Abbott decision shows how 
reluctant courts can be, even where the record is quite strong, 
and the court has actually found discriminatory purpose to 
actually apply that remedy. So, no, it is meant to be 
complementary, not to be a replacement.
    Chair Nadler. What is the importance of that distinction?
    Mr. Tucker. The distinction is that it basically places 
section 3(c) on the footing that Congress intended when it 
passed the Act in 1965. It is meant to be an additional 
measure. It is called the pocket trigger. The reason why it is 
called the pocket trigger, as I noted in my testimony, Congress 
intended that would apply to pockets of discrimination that 
were not covered by the geographic coverage formula in section 
4.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Nadler.
    I am going to yield the Chair temporarily to Ms. Ross, the 
Vice-Chair.
    Mr. Raskin. All right. I am unmuted.
    Ms. Ross. [Presiding.] All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and 
I will now recognize Mr. McClintock for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    The very nature of an election is that somebody wins, and 
somebody loses. Democracy depends on the losing side accepting 
the legitimacy of the election. That is imperative, not only 
that an election be free from fraud, but it be free from the 
appearance of fraud. We saw in this last election what happens 
when that appearance is abandoned, and it has been abandoned to 
a system where it is very difficult to purge voter rolls of 
people who have died or moved. We then send out ballots to all 
those names on the rolls, and then we follow up those ballots 
with partisan workers to collect them.
    There was a single woman in my office who received no fewer 
than five ballots at her apartment in Washington, DC, and I got 
similar complaints from constituents in my district 3,000 miles 
away in California.
    There is a reason why drug tests can't be mailed in, and 
for that same reason, we had a system that required people to 
vote in person, unless they were physically incapacitated from 
getting to the polls, and that system worked well. The process 
began with registration. You appeared before a deputy registrar 
of voters. You swore to your identity and your eligibility. It 
wasn't hard to find them. You can find them in every 
neighborhood fire station or library. Registration closed 30 
days before the election, so candidates knew who they were 
communicating with and all parties could then canvas the 
precinct and challenge names that had moved or died.
    Then on Election Day--and that is an important term--we 
called it Election Day, because it was the day after the debate 
was over. We all went to our neighborhood polling place which 
was usually at a neighborhood elementary school or a neighbor's 
garage. We looked our neighbors on the polling board in the eye 
as they handed us our ballot. We took that ballot into a 
curtained booth where nobody, not our spouse, kids, friends, or 
nobody could pressure us, and we cast our votes according to 
our own consciences.
    We then handed that ballot back to our neighbor who put it 
in a locked box. Only those who were physically handicapped and 
could not get to the polls were afforded an absentee ballot, 
and at 8 p.m., we knew exactly how many votes had been cast, 
and usually by 10:00 p.m. we knew the results.
    These laws applied to all voters of all races, of all 
backgrounds, and they assured the integrity of the vote and the 
public's confidence in that vote. Look at how the left has 
changed all this. Same-day or automatic registration means 
there is no opportunity to identify fraudulent registrations. 
Voters can register to vote and then cast votes without ever 
coming into contact with another human being. Votes are cast 
long before the debate is concluded. Ballots are mailed to 
people who died or moved. Votes are cast under the influence of 
other family Members or friends. Ballot harvesters can collect 
those ballots, meaning there is no chain of custody from the 
time that ballot is mailed until the time it is counted. 
Ballots arrive days after the election, and often, we don't 
know the results of the election until days, and sometimes 
weeks later.
    Now, Ms. Riordan, we are told that these changes are 
necessary because some people are incapable of following the 
simple process that ensure the integrity of the vote. I find 
that enormously condescending and downright racist. What is 
your view?
    Ms. Riordan. I have always found that the statement that 
any particular minority group is less likely, or unable to 
follow the statute's provisions in each State to be very 
racist.
    Mr. McClintock. How have these changes, recent changes in 
our election law, affected public confidence in our elections?
    Ms. Riordan. As someone who looked at the 2020 election, 
based upon the number of changes in States that really 
basically did away with many of the election integrity 
provisions, based upon the allegation that it was necessary for 
COVID, what you saw across the Nation is people recognizing 
that the normal types of statutes that were in place requiring 
signature matching or identification or having your ballot 
mailed in by a particular day, I think people looked at that 
and saw that it was more likely that fraud would occur under 
those circumstances.
    Mr. McClintock. Doesn't every fraudulent vote invalidate a 
legitimate vote?
    Ms. Riordan. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McClintock. Isn't that the ultimate voter suppression?
    Ms. Riordan. I would agree with that statement.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Ross. Mr. Raskin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    You are muted.
    Mr. Raskin. Ms. Butler, I would like to come to you, if I 
might. I heard one of our colleagues say somebody wins and 
somebody loses in every election. I wish they would tell that 
to Donald Trump. America would be a lot better off if he 
accepted that. We seem to have two rival theories about what is 
going on in Georgia today. The way I see it is every time that 
there has been an advance in people's voting rights in history, 
there has been a backlash against it.
    So, after the Civil War fought to free hundreds of 
thousands of enslaved people, and to give them the right to 
vote and to bring them up in the reconstruction process, there 
was a reaction against that. We saw all kinds of voting 
restrictions. Some of it was just violence and terror, but some 
of it was grandfather clauses, literacy tests, poll taxes, 
character tests, and so on. These laws were instituted to 
secure the purity of the ballot, which essentially meant 
keeping Black people from voting. We have seen these constant 
efforts to undermine voting rights of African Americans in our 
history.
    It seems pretty clear to me that what is going on in 
Georgia is all about the fact that Georgia just elected its 
first African-American Senator in history, Senator Warnock, 
that Joe Biden was first Democratic candidate to win there in 
decades.
    That is certainly what is going on if you ask anybody on 
the ground in Georgia. Yet, there is this rival theory out 
there which is, it is really about fraud, corruption, chaos, 
back to that old cover story for racism. I am wondering if you 
can help us sort this out, because I don't live in Georgia, and 
I haven't been there in a long time, but I do know there were 
62 lawsuits brought by Donald Trump and his supporters, 
alleging corruption, fraud, and chaos in the 2020 election, and 
they were all rejected in the lowest courts in the land, 
circuit courts and district courts in the State level, and the 
county courts, all the way up to the United States Supreme 
Court. They all rejected exactly the kind of stuff we are 
hearing today about how there is some impurity of the ballot, 
some assault on the integrity of the ballot. Then I hear people 
actually accusing, if I am understanding them right, the civil 
rights forces of racism, because they are opposing efforts to 
restrict the ballot.
    So, would you help us sort this out? Is my sense right that 
this is just the conventional racist backlash against Black 
people voting? Or is there some fraud out there no court in the 
land could find that has been completely rejected? I think that 
even Attorney General Barr described Donald Trump's claims of 
voter fraud as BS, and I am being polite there. I am not 
spelling it out. So, let me turn it over to you, Ms. Butler.
    Ms. Butler. Thank you. No, there hasn't been any fraud in 
Georgia. We had three hand counts of the ballots in Georgia. 
That means all 159 counties did an audit, and they did two 
recounts, hand recounts, not using equipment, but they did hand 
counting. We had the GBI and the FBI look at our signature 
match process. It was found competent. There was nothing that 
they found wrong with it. There was no fraud. We had an 
exceeding number of people turn out to vote, because in this 
pandemic with COVID, they were able to exercise that right to 
vote, and they did that. Because of that, we now have these 
egregious laws that will take over local boards of election, 
take total control.
    When I am on the board of election, I was on a board of 
election, we were responsible for counting the absentee 
ballots. We were responsible for making sure that the ballots 
were rejected or accepted. We were responsible for accepting 
provisional ballots, making sure that proper documentation was 
received. So, with the entire process to the poll workers being 
trained, we were responsible.
    Mr. Raskin. Let me interrupt you for one second.
    Ms. Butler. The election--that was--
    Mr. Raskin. I want to get one other point in here. I know 
that during the election, or right after it was over, former 
President Trump called the then Secretary of State 
Raffensperger, who is a Republican, and said, ``Just find me 
11,781 votes.'' He was trying to encourage him to Committee 
election fraud, voter fraud. Is there anything in legislation 
that the Republicans are passing that would stop Donald Trump 
from trying to implant false votes in Georgia, responded to 
that as all?
    Ms. Ross. The witness will answer very briefly because the 
gentleman's time has expired.
    Ms. Butler. No, the law does not address that issue at all. 
It stops legitimate people from exercising their right to vote.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Ross. Mr. Roy is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady.
    Ms. Riordan, when the United States Supreme Court struck 
down section 5, they did so, best of my understanding and 
recollection, in significant part because it was based on, at 
that time, 40-year-old data and that it was based on 
information from 1968, 1972, and it was particularly dated, and 
in particular, that the record that was put into the record in 
2006, when VRA was reauthorized at the time, was replete with 
examples where there were cover jurisdictions that had certain 
issues that were being raised, and then noncovered 
jurisdictions, but there was no real correlation and that that 
was part of the problem. Is that roughly correct from your 
recollection of the case?
    Ms. Riordan. Yes, it is definitely that there seemed to be 
no legitimate basis to have certain States covered at that 
particular time, and also, the Supreme Court was very clear, 
and what they said was it was always supposed to be a temporary 
provision, because they understood in the 1960s that it was 
necessary to have section 5, but that in the 2000s, it is no 
longer necessary.
    Mr. Roy. Ms. Riordan, do you think the Department of 
Justice is particularly objective in the way that it would 
carry out pre-
clearance? Just a simple answer on that one and then I have a 
follow-up.
    Ms. Riordan. I do not.
    Mr. Roy. Are you familiar with the Department of Justice 
Inspector General Report from 2013?
    Ms. Riordan. I am.
    Mr. Roy. Are you aware that chapter 4, part 3 of the 
report, page 135, highlights that disclosures and other 
confidential information was leaked to reporters likely by 
voting section employees?
    Ms. Riordan. Yes, that happened on a regular basis.
    Mr. Roy. What kind of information was leaked? Can you 
provide examples, keeping in mind we are on the clock, but a 
few examples for the committee?
    Ms. Riordan. I think, during the--I want to say the Georgia 
voting ID case, there were individuals who leaked information 
from the inner workings of the group that was responsible for 
reviewing that particular submission. I can think of that. I 
know that there are a couple of--actually one particular 
attorney that claimed that she was the basis for one of the 
books that was written about the DOJ. Those are just two 
examples.
    Mr. Roy. Are you aware of the report highlighting that 
analysts lied under oath?
    Ms. Riordan. I am.
    Mr. Roy. Do you have any background or examples of that?
    Ms. Riordan. I know that during the inspector general 
report, that there was a civil rights analyst that was 
specifically asked a question by the attorneys that were doing 
the investigation, and that she lied under oath.
    Mr. Roy. The report provides examples of non-attorney 
voting section attorneys, non-attorney voting section 
employees, posting comments to websites concerning voting 
section personnel or matters. One example describes an employee 
who started a, quote, ``cyber gang,'' unquote, that was engaged 
in, quote, ``cyber-bullying,'' end quote. According to the 
report, he took, quote, ``he told the OIG that for his internet 
postings he selected as his alias the name of the protagonist 
of a well-known novel, because he represented the archetype 
angry Black guy,'' end quote, page 129 of the report.
    Are these the same people that would be doing preclearances 
of election law changes under H.R. 4?
    Ms. Riordan. Yeah, there are some of those same people 
there.
    Mr. Roy. Is that troubling to you?
    Ms. Riordan. Yes. One of the things that I found to be so 
shocking while working in the voting section was the fact that 
it was so political. I just think that a section that is termed 
``voting,'' that is supposed to be review voting changes in the 
Civil Rights Division, should be nonpartisan. It is the 
furthest thing from nonpartisan.
    Mr. Roy. I apologize for being a little bit late. I had a 
conflict, but I suppose there has been some conversations here 
about H.R. 1 and S. 1 and about the some of the issues involved 
with those pieces of legislation. Obviously, right now, having 
hit a wall in the Senate, do you believe that H.R. 4 is trying 
to be used as a back door to try to get the Federal takeover of 
elections carried out in the absence of being able to currently 
get that executed on the Democratic side of the aisle?
    Ms. Riordan. I do. I think that this particular bill is 
looking to reauthorize a provision of the Voting Rights Act 
that is no longer necessary, because there is no rampant 
discrimination in voting.
    One of the things I said earlier was the fact that during 
the time period that I was there from 2000 until 2013, there 
were 222,000 submissions that were submitted by local 
jurisdictions. Minority--I would say that 98 percent of those 
submissions really concern moving a polling place within the 
same building.
    Mr. Roy. Right.
    Ms. Riordan. There is just not rampant voting 
discrimination between 2000 and 2013. There certainly isn't 
today.
    Mr. Roy. When my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
say that quote, ``Voting Rights Act has basically been 
overturned by the court.'' That is not true, is it? Right? We 
are talking about section 5. The Voting Rights Act remains 
firmly in place, protects the rights of American people to 
vote. Rather what we are doing is allowing States to continue 
to be able to figure out the laws and place voting booths where 
they need to be and so forth. Would you agree with that?
    Ms. Riordan. I would.
    Mr. Roy. Thank you, ma'am.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cohen. [Presiding.] Thank you, Ms. Ross, for taking the 
Chair, take the Chair and recognize you for your five minutes 
of questioning.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    As a civil rights attorney and former State representative, 
I have witnessed firsthand the incursion on voting rights in 
North Carolina and fought against them. In 2011, the North 
Carolina General Assembly completed redistricting that relied 
on racial gerrymandering. These newly drawn maps were 
ultimately struck down by the United States Supreme Court, and 
in 2017, in Cooper v. Harris. However, numerous elections 
occurred during the intervening years.
    Those who were elected because of the unconstitutional maps 
went on to incur incumbent advantage, and in some case, work 
against the interests of those who were disenfranchised. I was 
there in the North Carolina General Assembly in 2011 when that 
redistricting occurred.
    In 2013, North Carolina enacted a restrictive voter ID law 
which the fourth circuit noted, targeted African Americans with 
almost surgical precision. The very forms of identification 
prohibited by this law were those disproportionately held by 
African Americans. The bill eliminated a week of early voting, 
a period which African Americans utilized the most.
    Once again, the courts righted the wrongs of the State 
legislature. It took nearly 3 years for the litigation to reach 
its conclusion. During that period, nearly 200 officials were 
elected, including a U.S. Senator, 13 Members of Congress, and 
four North Carolina Supreme Court justices.
    These cases in North Carolina demonstrate that section 2 
litigation, by itself, is not sufficient to protect voting 
rights. We need to stop voter suppression before it happens, 
not years afterward.
    Disenfranchised Americans cannot wait years for their 
rights to be restored and uncompensated. It is not possible for 
voters to truly receive a remedy on the back end. Efforts to 
undermine our core American values should never be allowed to 
take effect.
    My first question is for Ms. Lakin on the Purcell 
principle. In your view, did the Supreme Court intend to create 
this elaborate new voting rights doctrine when it issued its 
unsigned opinion in Purcell v. Gonzalez in 2006?
    Ms. Lakin. No, I don't believe that is the case. If you 
look at the very brief unsigned opinion, as you note, it is 
mostly a decision about deference to the lower court's 
discretion and only in passing does it raise a very commonsense 
warning that you should consider specific considerations that 
are--come up in elections when you are balancing the equities 
in that case, that is, whether or not the injunction is in the 
public interest, and would not cause irreparable harm. It has 
grown and metastasized well beyond that brief decision and 
reference in that case.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Tucker, courts have interpreted section 3(c) to require 
plaintiffs to prove purposeful discrimination to invoke 
preclearance as a remedy. Mr. Nadler asked you some questions 
about this. This is an already high evidentiary bar for 
plaintiffs to meet, but you note in your testimony that courts 
have also been reluctant to reach the question of whether the 
plaintiffs have established intentional discrimination once the 
plaintiffs have already established discriminatory impact. What 
accounts for this judicial reluctance?
    Mr. Tucker. Thank you so much for the question.
    It actually highlights the same issue that Congress 
actually visited in 1982 in the 1982 amendments. Following the 
City of Mobile v. Bolden decision, that is precisely what we 
saw with section 2 cases that there was a reluctance, if 
section 2 was going to be construed in the same manner as the 
15th Amendment, that judges are, frankly, hesitant to call 
their neighbors, to call their friends, to call election 
officials that they may have dinner with, racist, and that is 
the fundamental problem.
    So, what Congress has proposed in H.R. 4 is a very modest 
change that would simply recognize that, where voting 
discrimination has occurred in whatever form, that 
discrimination should also be subject to section 3(c) 
preclearance, as the court may find, limited under whatever 
circumstance and for whatever time period.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
    I think Ms. Fischbach is next for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Riordan, I do thank you for being here in person today. 
I appreciate that.
    As Mr. Johnson had mentioned earlier that we have had 
several hearings on this topic, but to my understanding, the 
only thing that has really changed since we have had those 
hearings is that the Attorney General is launching the suit 
against State of Georgia over SB 202.
    I was just wondering if you could maybe comment on, if the 
Biden Administration wins that lawsuit, what the effect is 
going to be on the elections being conducted in Georgia.
    Ms. Riordan. If the Biden Administration is successful in 
the section 2 matter, what will happen is one of the things 
they are asking for is the State of Georgia, of course, to be 
covered under section 3(c). So, every single voting change in 
the State of Georgia will need to be submitted to the 
Department of Justice for preclear-
ance. They are also asking for a preliminary injunction against 
the changes. So, if they are successful, none of SB 202 will 
move forward. In addition, they are asking for Federal 
observers to be placed there.
    In the end game, if they are successful in showing that SB 
202 was instituted with a discriminatory purpose, which is what 
they are arguing, then SB 202 will not be able to go forward. 
It will be declared unconstitutional.
    Ms. Fischbach. Thank you. What it sounds like to me is a 
real invasion of the Federal Government in the State elections. 
What would the implications be if H.R. 4 on States, which are 
attempting to answer waning faith in elections by strengthening 
election integrity? What would be the effect of the 
implications of H.R. 4?
    Ms. Riordan. I think H.R. 4, when utilized by the 
Department of Justice, will probably put the kibosh on any 
State moving forward with election integrity provisions. There 
is a general thought within the section itself that there is no 
need for election integrity laws. Additionally, based upon the 
reauthorization of section 5 in 2006, it is not only whether or 
not an election mechanism has a purpose, discriminatory 
purpose, it is also whether or not there is any effect on 
minority voters.
    So, what often happens is you get into a situation where, 
let's say, there is a voter identification requirement that is 
submitted for preclearance, and that 88 percent of White voters 
have that particular ID, but 86.9 percent of African American 
voters have that ID. That particular change will be objected to 
by the Attorney General. So, it really comes down to a 
percentage game within the Department.
    Ms. Fischbach. Thank you very much.
    What do you think about the constitutionality of H.R. 4, 
and are there areas that you would question the 
constitutionality?
    Ms. Riordan. I would question the initial reauthorization 
of section 5's constitutionality for the simple reason that if 
anyone reads the decision in Shelby County v. Holder, they 
clearly said, stated in that case that for the Federal 
Government to exert that type of control, again, that they were 
given under section 5, that there would have to be rampant 
discrimination against minority voters. Based upon my 
experience, enforcing these laws for 20 years, that is just not 
the way that I think the evidence comes in. I also think that 
changing the standards for a preliminary injunction that 
demands that a court ignore a State's purpose for making those 
laws is unconstitutional as well.
    Ms. Fischbach. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
    I yield back my 49 seconds.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Fischbach. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding 
this very important hearing.
    Ms. Butler, you previously served as a member of the board 
of the Morgan County Board of Elections. Is that correct?
    Ms. Butler. That is correct.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. When were you first appointed to 
serve?
    Ms. Butler. I was appointed in 2010.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You have served all the way up 
until what point?
    Ms. Butler. I served until just recently. June 30 was my 
last day as a board of election member.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Why was that your last day of 
service?
    Ms. Butler. The board was reconstituted, as I had 
previously stated, through local legislation. It was 
reconstituted at the request of our majority Republican County 
Commission under the guise that our board was dysfunctional. 
What that meant, I don't know.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, let me ask you this now. When 
you were first appointed to the Board of Elections of Morgan 
County back in 2010, how were you first appointed?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I was appointed by the Democratic 
Party. There were two appointments by the Republican Party, two 
by the Democratic Party, and one by the county commission.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So, it was pretty much so and let 
me ask you about Morgan County now. Morgan County is the county 
where there are roughly 72.7 percent White and 23.6 percent 
Black. Is that correct?
    Ms. Butler. That is correct.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Back in the 2020 election, about 
28.6 percent of the voters voted Democratic. Is that correct?
    Ms. Butler. That is correct also.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So, you were previously appointed 
to serve on the Board of Elections by the Democratic Party 
which elected two Democrats and the Republicans had two seats 
that they controlled, and then the county commission appointed 
one person. That person was nonpartisan?
    Ms. Butler. Correct.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So, you had pretty much a 
nonpartisan board. Now, with Senate Bill 202 having become law, 
it included a provision that was inserted by your local 
legislator that changed the way that the Board of Elections 
Members were chosen, correct?
    Ms. Butler. That is correct. They are now chosen--I am 
sorry.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The changes was that, instead of 
the process that I just explained and you just explained, now 
it is the county commission that appointed all five Members to 
the local Board of Elections, correct?
    Ms. Butler. That is correct.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Now your county commission is how 
many Members on the county commission of Morgan County?
    Ms. Butler. There are five Members of the county 
commission.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. How many of those Members are 
Republican?
    Ms. Butler. Four.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So have you a four-to-one 
Republican majority on the board of commission that will now 
select the Board of Elections Members. Is that correct?
    Ms. Butler. That is correct.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. They failed to replace you when 
your term expired. Have they appointed anybody else to fill 
your position?
    Ms. Butler. They have appointed all five Members. They are 
four Whites and one Black. Our previous board was three Whites 
and two Black.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Okay. Do you know the composition 
of the board now, the Board of Elections? Is it four 
Republicans and one Democrat?
    Ms. Butler. I don't know their political affiliation. 
Predominantly, I would say, yes, they are predominantly 
Republican.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, now, so as one of your roles 
as a Board of Election member, you determine where drop boxes 
would be situated around the county and you check on the 
absentee ballots and provisional votes. What do you think is 
going to happen to that now? Will it become politicized in 
favor of the Republicans as a result of this new change brought 
about by Senate Bill 202?
    Ms. Butler. Well, the drop boxes are now limited, and 
basically, they are to be inside and will not serve the purpose 
for which they were originally placed to make it easier for 
people to use them without having to come in contact with 
anyone, and they could do them at all different hours of the 
day.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All of that has been cut out by 
Senate Bill 202, which requires that the drop boxes be in the 
early voting locations which are determined by the Board of 
Elections. Isn't that correct?
    Ms. Butler. That is correct.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Okay. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield 
back. My time has expired.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
    Now, I would like to recognize Mr. Owens. You talk for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Owens. Thank you, Chair Cohen and Ranking Member 
Johnson and witnesses. Thank you for holding this hearing and 
for your participation today.
    The Voting Rights Act passed in 1965 is a critical piece of 
legislation that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. Two 
months ago, I was asked to participate in a Senate Judiciary 
hearing titled, ``Jim Crow 2021: The Latest Assault on the 
Right to Vote.'' As I stated at the hearing, I grew up in the 
Deep South during the era of actual Jim Crow that actually 
suppressed voting. The Voting Rights Act effectively ended Jim 
Crow laws enforcement of the 14th and 15th Amendments to the 
United States Constitution.
    In the United States of America, a person is guaranteed 
equal protection under the law and equal access to vote, 
regardless of his or her skin color. However, at the Senate 
hearing and still today, I was offended to hear the comparison 
to Jim Crow laws, and recently passed voter reform laws in 
Georgia.
    I am going to focus my remarks today on the one area of 
alleged voter suppression, the uproar over the requirements 
that voters produce a Federal ID.
    Unfortunately, today, we have heard the same message that 
we heard earlier this year, that Americans, especially lower 
income, and minority Americans, particularly Black, are 
incapable of following laws and rules to vote in election--
Federal elections. In fact, the section of S.B. 202, the 
recently passed Georgia law, states that has brought such 
outrage from the left, simply because it requires any person 
applying for an absentee ballot to include evidence of a 
government-issued ID on the application.
    If a voter does not have a driver's license or ID card, 
that voter can use a current utility bill, bank statement, 
government check, paycheck, or other government documents to 
show the name and address of that voter. By the way, 97 
percent, 97 percent of the Georgia voters already have 
government-issued IDs.
    The Georgia law, S.B. 202, includes many positive changes 
to the State voting laws. For example, S.B. 202 would expand 
the State's early voting period. It codifies the use of ballot 
drop boxes. It reduces precinct wait times. This is not voter 
suppression as was seen before in the voter's right--in the 
Voting Rights Act passed, and yet President Biden's Justice 
Department has sued Georgia over S.B. 202 because it allegedly 
discriminates against Black voters in violation to the Voting 
Rights Act.
    I am bothered by statements that poor Black Americans lack 
the common sense, education, tenacity, and desire to succeed. 
This is the very definition of a condescending bigotry, and for 
those who continue this line of thought, I have questions. Do 
Italians, Polish, Jewish, and Swedish-Americans also have this 
problem of finding it impossible to get an ID? By the way, it 
is impossible to succeed in this country to get a job, 
education, bank account, travel, or even get a welfare check 
without a Federal ID.
    My observation, this condescending uproar from the left is 
not about fair voting. It is not about representing the hopes 
and dreams of poor Black Americans in these urban communities 
who simply want, like every other American, to succeed. It is 
about power. Every representative who still has a mass number 
of constituents in their district who want IDs and have no idea 
how to get it should be ashamed of themselves. They offend 
their constituents on the bare basics of representation.
    In my most humble opinion, putting together a team to help 
constituents get an ID, to grab hold of the first rung of the 
ladder of success is not a heavy lift. Lack to help their 
constituents, waiting for Big Brother Federal Government to do 
so is absolute and total negligence.
    The bottom line is, Republicans want every legal vote to 
count, want to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat, and 
yet Democrats have joined to oppose these election integrity 
measures. We must do better.
    Ms. Riordan--Ms. Riordan--I am sorry. The Constitution 
leaves it to the States to administer elections within their 
jurisdiction. Are States best situated to determine how to run 
their elections?
    Ms. Riordan. I believe that the States are best. They are 
the ones that know what is going on, on the ground. They are 
aware of who their constituents are, and they are the ones that 
are directly represented and elected by their citizens in each 
State.
    Mr. Owens. All right. There is another common misconception 
that the new law bans prohibiting drinking water to voters 
while voting, waiting in line. In reality, this law does not do 
this, correct?
    Ms. Riordan. That is correct.
    Mr. Owens. Okay. The law actually bans electioneering by 
prohibiting non-poll workers from distributing food and water 
to waiting voters. However, this is a carve-out that allows 
poll workers to make available self-service water to those 
waiting in lines. Is this also your understanding of the law?
    Ms. Riordan. Yes, it is. As a matter of fact, we would 
actually witness very often on the Navajo Indian reservations, 
when we would election observation coverage, that that was a 
real issue there, that very often the Democrat Party and the 
Republican Party actually have barbecues, serving food, et 
cetera, outside of the polling place. There really is no place 
for that outside of a polling place. We have limitations on 
where you should be in regard to where people are voting when 
you are part of a party representing the candidate, and that is 
what the law is designed to frustrate.
    Mr. Owens. Ms. Riordan, I have run out of time. Thank you 
again for your clarity.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
    Next, I will recognize the lady from Houston, Texas, Ms. 
Garcia.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for this 
opportunity to, once again, have a discussion, a full 
discussion, on the Voting Rights Act. Unlike my colleague, the 
Ranking Member, who complains that this is the third time in 3 
months, I wish we would have even more, because this is really 
a very important topic, not just for those of us in Texas, but 
for all Americans to ensure the voting rights of all Americans.
    So, I wanted to start first with also quoting the Ranking 
Member. He said, ``the goal is to have a fair and free and 
secure elections.'' In my judgment, I think we had a fair, a 
free, and secure election last time.
    Ms. Lakin, do you agree? Have we had a fair and free and 
secure election?
    Ms. Lakin. Thank you for that question. Democracy is 
strongest when more of us can participate, not less, and the 
turnout that we saw in this past election and people turning 
out and voting in record numbers really does support that 
voters and our democracy is strong and, as far as we can tell, 
all evidence points that this past election was held in a free 
and fair manner.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you. Mr. Tucker, do you agree? I would 
take a ``yes'' or a ``no'' in the interest of time.
    Mr. Tucker. Yes, I agree completely.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you. Ms. Butler? Yes or no in the 
interest of time.
    Ms. Butler. Yes.
    Ms. Garcia. Well, thank you.
    Yet, we continue to see that Republican-led State 
legislatures across the country seek to restrict voting rights 
based on the erroneous and unfounded claim of voter fraud. So, 
this, in fact, is a now-or-never moment for American democracy. 
While I am proud of my House colleagues and the work that we 
have done in passing H.R. 1, we must continue to fight hard 
today, every day until we make sure that it passes the Senate.
    Voters across the country elected established Democratic 
majority in both Chambers of Congress and delivered a unified 
government because we vow to protect democracy. Put simply, 
this is about ensuring all Americans and all Texans to have and 
exercise their right to vote, regardless of their race, 
ethnicity, gender, income eligibility, party affiliation, or 
language. While the Senate has not voted for the people, our 
Governor has continued to do and enact voter suppression laws, 
and, in fact, has called a special session to continue his 
strategy of doing that in Texas.
    So, when I say I commend the Justice Department for 
recently announcing that they have filed suit against Georgia, 
it needed to be done, and I am glad they did it, Ms. Butler, to 
support the work that you and many have done to ensure that all 
people in Georgia have a right to vote.
    It is much like the fight for us here in Texas where 
Latinos are often too burdened by many of the restrictions 
imposed by our Governor and his Republican allies, including 
barriers to an interpreter and barriers for assistance at the 
voting booth. In light of these attacks, we must continue. Our 
Texas congressional delegation has sent letters both to the 
Justice Department, and to Senator Schumer about meeting and 
urging the passage of For the People Act.
    So, Mr. Chair, I have for the record and ask for unanimous 
consent to put in the record a letter from the Texas delegation 
to the Attorney General Garland, urging him to protect the 
Voting Rights Act, also a letter from the Texas congressional 
delegation to Majority Leader Schumer, expressing the urgent 
need to preserve every Texan's right to vote, initially my 
written testimony in June 2014 to the Senate Judiciary 
Committee on updating the Voting Rights Act in response to the 
Shelby County decision and, number four, an article on the 
Justice Department suing Georgia over voting restrictions.
    I ask for unanimous consent.
    Mr. Cohen. Without objection, such should be done.
    [The information follows:]



      

                       MS. GARCIA FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Ms. Garcia. Great. Ms. Lakin, I have a question for you. I 
have been concerned particularly every election--I represent a 
77 percent Latino district. We get complaints daily as the 
election starts, even in voting, about the difficulties 
Spanish-speaking voters have in getting an interpreter to be 
able interpret anything at the polls, bringing any friends to 
help them and assistance to vote, or if bringing in their own 
interpreter to vote.
    What can we do under section 203 to ensure that any 
American with a language barrier has full access to registering 
to vote and exercising their right to vote at the ballot?
    Ms. Lakin. Thank you for your question.
    The voter protections in 203 itself that provides that 
voters who seek assistance to be able to vote with very limited 
exceptions should have that opportunity. That should be 
enforced and respected for voters.
    Ms. Garcia. Well, we don't. It is happening here in Texas. 
My question was: What else should we be doing under that 
section, or any other section of the Voting Rights Act, to make 
sure that everyone has the access to the ballot? I can tell you 
that as a Senator in Texas, I have a bill to ensure the right 
to interpreter and I couldn't even get it out of committee, and 
so it is happening. It is real. It happens every election here 
in Texas.
    Ms. Lakin. In the assistance of Federal observers that I 
would pass it to Dr. Tucker to make sure that these provisions 
are being enforced would go a long way.
    Ms. Garcia. Mr. Tucker.
    Mr. Tucker. I would just add that section--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The gentlelady is out of time.
    Mr. Cohen. We are over time. We are over time. I hate to 
interrupt. We are over time, and we have got to yield back to 
the next speaker. We are 1 minute over.
    Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, could I just ask then that he submit 
his response in writing for the record?
    Mr. Cohen. Sure. Thanks.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Tucker.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
    Next, we will recognize Ms. Cori Bush from the great State 
of St. Louis.
    Ms. Bush. Yes, the great city of St. Louis.
    St. Louis and I thank you, Chair Cohen, for convening this 
hearing and acknowledging St. Louis. Thank you.
    To all my colleagues here today and elsewhere, we are 
running out of time. Just in the last few weeks alone, some of 
our colleagues in the Senate have actively been undermining our 
ability to deliver significant voting reforms. I want to focus 
my remarks today on nonpartisan Federal election observers.
    We all watched as Georgia passed S.B. 202 with a provision 
that makes it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail for 
nonpartisan volunteers--nonpartisan volunteers to provide 
bottled water for voters in line outside of polling places. 
That is what we are up against. Several Republican-controlled 
States have gone out of their way, time and time and time 
again, to suppress Black voters because they fear our power and 
our political vision for America. They know what we stand for. 
That is justice and our liberation in its totality.
    Some of my colleagues can sit here and use coded language 
about States' rights and the Federal Government, or we can call 
it what it is. This is a conversation about one party's intent, 
and their ongoing White supremacist attempts to suppress the 
power of Black and Brown, indigenous, and other marginalized 
voters. Missouri, my State of Missouri, Georgia, Texas, 
Arizona, and the list goes on. Each of these States have 
introduced and passed restrictive voter laws. They will 
continue to do this without this type of oversight.
    It is for this reason that nonpartisan Federal election 
observers are needed to investigate, document, and build a 
record of discrimination that can be used in courts and to 
inform legislation. These nonpartisan observers strengthen our 
election process by providing information and oversight when 
poll workers and administrators are often and otherwise 
overstretched and overworked. In 2016, Federal election 
observers were only sent to five States during our presidential 
election. This was one of the smallest deployments of Federal 
observers since the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Scaling back 
observers make it difficult to detect and counter efforts to 
intimidate voters, meaning, we don't even know how bad it is in 
many States across the country.
    So, Mr. Tucker, how do Federal observers play an important 
role in enforcing the Voting Rights Act and how has their role 
been diminished. I am sorry. How has it been diminished since 
the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County?
    Mr. Tucker. Thank you so much for that question.
    As I noted in my testimony, I think the easiest way to 
think of Federal observers is with the acronym, PEP. A lot of 
us, that is how we remember cases. It stands for progress, 
enforcement, and preventing. Basically, they prevent 
discrimination from occurring. They make voters feel more 
comfortable. People are less likely, if they have people 
watching, they are less likely to discriminate against minority 
voters. They enforce because where they document instances in 
which violations of the 14th or 15th amendment of the VRA have 
occurred, DOJ has that information that they can prosecute it 
criminally, if necessary.
    Then they also measure progress because that is really 
important. Many of the jurisdictions are covered under Federal 
court orders, and it helps the Federal judge assess, how are 
they doing? Are they actually coming into compliance with the 
terms of the order?
    Shelby County's impact has been twofold. One is that, as I 
noted, by limiting the section 4 coverage formula for section 
5, it essentially eliminates the mechanism by which the 
Attorney General can certify jurisdictions for observers. Then 
the second thing, as I also noted, is that Federal courts are 
reluctant to find intentional or purposeful discrimination 
which has limited the scope of section 8, 3(a) relief.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you.
    Ms. Butler, how have polling site closures 
disproportionately impacted Black, Brown, and indigenous 
voters?
    Ms. Butler. Well, I tell you, most of the polling locations 
in Georgia--there have been over 200 or so since the Shelby 
decision--they are predominantly in African-American 
communities. So, that is how it has impacted. It has made them 
so that they consolidate them. People have to drive further 
without--in rural areas without public transportation. Everyone 
doesn't drive. So, it makes it difficult. It is just a barrier 
for people to be able to exercise their right to vote freely.
    Ms. Bush. Yes. Our right to vote is the foundation of our 
democracy. The right to vote is our instrument for change. Who 
we choose to represent us is a reflection of our struggles and 
our aspirations as a country and a society. It angers me that 
this fundamental right is often suppressed in this functioning 
democracy.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Bush.
    Now, I recognize from Houston, Texas, where they not only 
sing, but they dance, Sheila Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, thank you for your generosity 
and thank you for this hearing.
    A statement of fact that seems to have eluded my great 
friends on the other side of the aisle. The Supreme Court case 
decided by the conservative court, the Shelby case, with a 
decision that did not need to be rendered in the manner in 
which it did, completely exploded the preclearance provisions 
and provided the opportunities of freedom, emancipation voting 
for African-American voters and other voters at the polls.
    Let me be very clear. The very existence of my district and 
others were because of the 1965 Voting Rights law. The very 
existence of my current 18th congressional district is because 
of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and its modifications and 
reauthorization in the 2000s.
    So, any commentary about poor voters, or African-American 
voters not able to get ID cards, incredulous thinking about why 
are we having these hearings, we are having these hearings 
because the Supreme Court instructs us to have hearings so we 
can fix and redo and put back in place a vital lifeline for 
American voters of all kinds to have an equal right to vote and 
that is clearly why.
    Now, let me compare both the 4 years of the Trump 
Administration where they barely opened the door of the Civil 
Rights Division, and offered three weak section 2 cases, 
compared to the Obama study in 2013, this major voting rights 
under section 2 of the North Carolina case that brought 
fairness to those in North Carolina, as my colleague said, two 
Texas cases that involves fair redistricting and the voter ID.
    In fact, my case right now is in the court. It is a voter 
case, a voter ID district. I am at the mercy of the Voting 
Rights Act to do the redistricting in Texas. Let me colleagues 
know, and I have said it on today, on this stage, 2021. We will 
have to fight to make sure that Texas is fair, so that the 
districts are not stolen, because the basis of the growth in 
Texas is based on authority to support African American.
    So, that lays the groundwork for my questions. This is an 
outrage to even be suggesting that we do not need that I think 
is important. The Shelby, the justification relief upon the 
conservative majority, the justification relied upon by the 
conservative majority of the Supreme Court to strike down 
section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, today, essentially comes 
down and that of times change, Chief Justice has stated that 
times have changed. What he neglected to add is the reason why 
the times change for.
    So, my question to you, Ms. Lakin, is explain why section 2 
is not an adequate substitute for vigorous section 5 
preclearance. My time is running because of the predicate that 
I laid, but I would appreciate it. I have another question.
    Ms. Lakin. Just quickly, it is incredibly expensive, 
costly, complex, and time-consuming to bring section 2 
litigation. As a result, elections can take place. Hundreds of 
elected officials and millions of votes can be cast under 
regimes that courts later find are discriminatory. There is no 
way to compensate voters who have suffered from this 
discrimination after the fact. There is no way to rerun those 
elections. So, section 2 is simply, it is important, and it is 
a vital tool for voting rights advocates, but it is not 
sufficient.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The damage was already done with the 
voting ID law when we had to come in on the section 2 in Texas. 
Thank you so very much.
    Ms. Butler, let me publicly apologize to you for having 
given such wonderful service and then having your position 
eliminated by a move that looks to me that they would imbalance 
between the ultimate persons elected. It was based on party. 
So, give me your sense what would have been helpful to you if 
there was a preclearance as it would be for a voting mission 
that you--Ms. Butler?
    Ms. Butler. Well, preclearance, of course, would have made 
sure that any of these changes would have gone through DOJ's 
preclearance process and I do believe they wouldn't have gone 
through. We have had to expend a lot of our time as being 
plaintiffs in lawsuits for exact match for polling location 
changes, and these types of changes wouldn't have occurred if 
section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was operable. We wouldn't 
have experienced this, I do believe, and it was strictly from 
what I can determine right now, based on our objections to 
barriers to the voting process.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Mr. Tucker, so many of my voters have stated, senior 
citizens or people of color, they are bilingual. There are 
various issues, but they have the right to vote. What is the 
special emphasis of Federal observers how important those are? 
Mr. Tucker?
    Mr. Tucker. Yes. So, observers, as I mentioned, ensure that 
voters are able to exercise their ballot freely, free of 
discrimination, and free of intimidation. They are able to 
enter the polling place. If they need assistance, they document 
that. If it is not given, they document that as well.
    They basically are the eyes and ears for the Attorney 
General for Federal court and for private attorneys general 
that are trying to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I want to submit into the record the following 
if I could: Mail ballot drop-off locations; Houston Chronicle, 
``Governor Abbott Limits Mail Ballot Drop-Off Locations''; NBC 
News, ``Racist Voter Suppression''; Texas Tribune, ``It's 
Harder to Vote in Texas''; and ``A Strong Voting Rights Act is 
Needed Now More Than Ever'' The Hill, dated June 26th, 2021, 
op-ed.
    I ask unanimous consent to submit these in the record. Mr. 
Chair, thank you, and that is why we are going to write a 
strong Voting Enhancement Act.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you. They will be admitted into the 
record.
    [The information follows:]



      

                     MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE RECORD

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

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]






    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Mr. Cohen. We appreciate that.
    That concludes today's hearing. It was an excellent 
hearing. We should have probably just discussed the big lie, 
and that is the reason why everything has changed with the 
voting laws and with the need to have monitors and everything 
else that we haven't had since in the past when we had 
President Bush, a President in the tradition of Presidents. 
Instead, we had the big lie, which Bill Barr [inaudible].
    Thank all our witnesses for appearing today.
    Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days 
to submit additional written questions for the witnesses, or 
additional materials for the record. The hearing is adjourned. 
Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]



      

                                APPENDIX

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

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
      

                        QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

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

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]